Tragedy hits Santa Anita again

User avatar
Kurenai
Site Admin
Posts: 1111
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:01 pm

Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:37 am

Sparrow Castle wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:02 am
Totally agree that this has crossed the line into bullying behavior! I'm shocked by who also is piling on...and yet said not a word about Katewerk's blanket trashing the connections of the majority of horses racing in this country, the claimers at less than first tier tracks.
Katework seems to me bitter and sarcastic. But what she says has quite some truth to it. Low level horses do get euthanized because the owner can't pay for the surgery needed to save their life. It's the owner that pays the bills. If it's a small track this is more likely to occur. That doesn't mean that those owners care less about their horses. Or that they are treated badly by their trainers. Only that there's a financial "cap" on things. Bills can rack up tens of thousands of Dollars quite easily. Extensive surgery, rehab, etc? We're talking about 6 figures then. And it's not like small time owners could afford mandatory nuke scans after every race (which was what we were discussing at this point, that would single handily improve the break down rates by a lot). Those aren't exactly cheap either. 1 or 2k. Need an MRI? 2 to 2.5k. That doesn't include transportation, clinic stay etc.
User avatar
Kurenai
Site Admin
Posts: 1111
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:01 pm

Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:48 am

Tessablue wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:43 am
[Nope, haven't worked with them- horses yes, racehorses no (and yeah that betting gene goes back quite a few generations). I love learning from people who do work with racehorses, and I really enjoyed reading your perspective on 2yo training and the possible actions we can take to improve the sport. Luckily, I think most of the people performing this research are much closer to the game, and a lot of the work comes straight from veterinary journals. I certainly agree that we need a balance of voices to ensure that any proposed reforms are actually feasible- and as we've seen this year in particular, it isn't easy to reach a consensus among those voices.
Thanks for not misunderstanding me.
Still, I want to point out a couple of other advantages of pursuing and supporting research. For one, it isn't just about observing trends - it also helps advance technology that could be used to detect injury risk more accurately (for example, the CT scan paper posted earlier). It seems a lot of injury risk occurs when a horse is recovering from a layoff and begins high-intensity training a little too soon. Imagine if we could put together a scanning and observational system wherein we can confidently stage a horse's recovery so that we avoid accidentally causing re-injury? I have no idea what the timing or practical application of this system would look like, but it should be hypothetically possible on the basis of what we know about injured bone combined with eventual technological advancement. And if there's one thing I can talk about firsthand in this thread (thanks to a hellish postdoc project), it's skeletal imaging technologies. They are advancing at an incredible rate, and I'm so excited to see how that affects racehorse imaging in the future.
The advancements in imaging technologies are great, but if the sport makes those mandatory, it would most likely lead to less owners. I wouldn't mind if there are less horses around, but those that are, are receiving everything possible to prevent breakdowns and also important: the lesser horses the easier it is to keep track of them, so they don't end up in slaughter houses at the end of their career.
Quite often already however, tracks are struggling to fill races with horses. Not sure about the implications this would have for the sport as a whole. What katewerk said has quite some truth to it, she didn't word it nicely, but yeah...
And just curious- do you have insight on inaccurate racing studies? I would be very surprised if bias, if that's what you're referring to, is a major issue in this field. There's not much money in it, there's no central entity that could tamper with funding or influence things (unlike the NFL), plus many major studies are conducted in other countries with different funding structures and even more distant conflicts of interest.
I don't have insight on inaccurate racing studies, just generally inaccurate studies because they are conducted badly in the vet field. It's not a "bias" thing, it's just being careless and copying numbers of other studies blindly without researching the results.

Exchange is always good!
Somnambulist

Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:49 am

We'd all probably be dead if it wasn't for research (despite that we're individuals). I am in awe of how science keeps us alive and in better condition that at any point during history. I guess what's the point in researching cures for anything, everyone is different.

This is a little dramatic but I digress.
User avatar
Kurenai
Site Admin
Posts: 1111
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:01 pm

Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:09 am

Somnambulist wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:49 am
We'd all probably be dead if it wasn't for research (despite that we're individuals). I am in awe of how science keeps us alive and in better condition that at any point during history. I guess what's the point in researching cures for anything, everyone is different.

This is a little dramatic but I digress.
Is it so hard for you to grasp the concept that you can NOT rely on studies alone? That's all I've been trying to explain over and over again. Tessa got it! I even suggested to her that it would be interesting to crunch the numbers and compare fatality rates from Japan with the US. She and I agree.

If you have nothing to contribute despite saying this is bullying, then trying to turn this into a right/wrong argument and defending "one side", trying to add fuel to the fire (see above post) to a good constructive discussion now (despite the rocky start with kateworks strongly worded posting), why are you even continuing posting in this thread, apart from wasting bandwidth?
Somnambulist

Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:17 am

What is your problem? I don't get the point on harping on that horses are individuals. Of course they are. That's the point I'm trying to make. But research still works great even when that's the case. I don't think that you can rely on anything along and I've never even said that! I made the post at th same time that you posted. I can't multitask that well. How do you call me out for this but leave other things go on this forum?

I actually know one doctor who has tried to replicate pacemaker research to see how that would help with stopping heart attacks, etc. in horses but with limited success. I get everything costs time and money and trainers are leery and owners don't want to spend money. I think so much is unknown that it's hard to determine where a good starting point is.
katmandu
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:16 am

Wed Oct 30, 2019 1:37 pm

Kurenai wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:23 am
katmandu wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 2:12 am
On the other hand, and with all due respect, what sort of experience do you have with biomedical/research studies?
I have experience with research studies (how to conduct them etc), but in another field. The problem I find with most studies is that it's a small sample size to begin with. Then - so very often - other studies blindly copy the results of one study or results they found in a research paper and use those numbers as corner stones in their own study.

Btw if that came across the wrong way: I did not mean to belittle her. Just pointing out that the reality differs often from those studies. And to improve things one should always consider both sides of the coin, so to speak. It's not as black and white as the numbers sometimes make it out to be, cause horses are - like humans - individuals.

With all due respect, I suspect your frame of reference may be somewhat narrowly focused - and this is the 3rd time you've made that last statement. I worked in the biotech/pharmaceutical industry for 35 years and was lucky enough to have a first row seat on research going from petri dish to the market. It is "individuals" who are using these drugs. (Just ask Rick Porter. . . ). You'd be amazed how much is known about "individuals" these days, the power of data mining/genomics/molecular biology, and the drive to "personalized medicine". The explosion of technology in the last 35 years as it is applied to the biological sciences is mind boggling.
User avatar
Curtis
Posts: 1371
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:17 am
Location: Monroe, WA
Contact:

Wed Oct 30, 2019 2:13 pm

katmandu wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 1:37 pm
Kurenai wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:23 am
katmandu wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 2:12 am
On the other hand, and with all due respect, what sort of experience do you have with biomedical/research studies?
I have experience with research studies (how to conduct them etc), but in another field. The problem I find with most studies is that it's a small sample size to begin with. Then - so very often - other studies blindly copy the results of one study or results they found in a research paper and use those numbers as corner stones in their own study.

Btw if that came across the wrong way: I did not mean to belittle her. Just pointing out that the reality differs often from those studies. And to improve things one should always consider both sides of the coin, so to speak. It's not as black and white as the numbers sometimes make it out to be, cause horses are - like humans - individuals.

With all due respect, I suspect your frame of reference may be somewhat narrowly focused - and this is the 3rd time you've made that last statement. I worked in the biotech/pharmaceutical industry for 35 years and was lucky enough to have a first row seat on research going from petri dish to the market. It is "individuals" who are using these drugs. (Just ask Rick Porter. . . ). You'd be amazed how much is known about "individuals" these days, the power of data mining/genomics/molecular biology, and the drive to "personalized medicine". The explosion of technology in the last 35 years as it is applied to the biological sciences is mind boggling.
How much research do you suppose Rick Porter did on Dorf before giving him horses to train?
katmandu
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:16 am

Wed Oct 30, 2019 2:28 pm

Curtis wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 2:13 pm
katmandu wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 1:37 pm
Kurenai wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:23 am


I have experience with research studies (how to conduct them etc), but in another field. The problem I find with most studies is that it's a small sample size to begin with. Then - so very often - other studies blindly copy the results of one study or results they found in a research paper and use those numbers as corner stones in their own study.

Btw if that came across the wrong way: I did not mean to belittle her. Just pointing out that the reality differs often from those studies. And to improve things one should always consider both sides of the coin, so to speak. It's not as black and white as the numbers sometimes make it out to be, cause horses are - like humans - individuals.

With all due respect, I suspect your frame of reference may be somewhat narrowly focused - and this is the 3rd time you've made that last statement. I worked in the biotech/pharmaceutical industry for 35 years and was lucky enough to have a first row seat on research going from petri dish to the market. It is "individuals" who are using these drugs. (Just ask Rick Porter. . . ). You'd be amazed how much is known about "individuals" these days, the power of data mining/genomics/molecular biology, and the drive to "personalized medicine". The explosion of technology in the last 35 years as it is applied to the biological sciences is mind boggling.
How much research do you suppose Rick Porter did on Dorf before giving him horses to train?
LOL, because I'm not above mean.
User avatar
Kurenai
Site Admin
Posts: 1111
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:01 pm

Wed Oct 30, 2019 2:30 pm

Somnambulist wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:17 am
What is your problem? I don't get the point on harping on that horses are individuals. Of course they are. That's the point I'm trying to make. But research still works great even when that's the case. I don't think that you can rely on anything along and I've never even said that! I made the post at th same time that you posted. I can't multitask that well. How do you call me out for this but leave other things go on this forum?

I actually know one doctor who has tried to replicate pacemaker research to see how that would help with stopping heart attacks, etc. in horses but with limited success. I get everything costs time and money and trainers are leery and owners don't want to spend money. I think so much is unknown that it's hard to determine where a good starting point is.
Then our postings overlapped, my apologies! So we are in agreement anyway. :lol:
User avatar
Kurenai
Site Admin
Posts: 1111
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:01 pm

Wed Oct 30, 2019 2:55 pm

katmandu wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 1:37 pm
With all due respect, I suspect your frame of reference may be somewhat narrowly focused - and this is the 3rd time you've made that last statement. I worked in the biotech/pharmaceutical industry for 35 years and was lucky enough to have a first row seat on research going from petri dish to the market. It is "individuals" who are using these drugs. (Just ask Rick Porter. . . ). You'd be amazed how much is known about "individuals" these days, the power of data mining/genomics/molecular biology, and the drive to "personalized medicine". The explosion of technology in the last 35 years as it is applied to the biological sciences is mind boggling.
Of course my sample size is waaay smaller than yours if you worked in the field for 35 years. Ok... sigh, to explain again. I repeat that statement because my point seems to fly above the head of some people.

Anyone remember why I made this statement in the first place? Anyone? It was because of the study that said horses that don't race at 2 are at a higher risk to break down. And that it's automatically a red flag if a horse didn't start at 2 and this fact could be used to reduce fatalities.

I'm not against research or studies (duh), they're very important! I know the advances that are made in medicine. All I did was to say that you always have to research not only the data that is represented, but you also have to evaluate the data it is based on first. Nobody is saying research and studies are generally a load of bull cr**. Just a very general statement that you can't apply all those studies in a real world scenario. As example "ok according to the study it's a red flag when a horse didn't race at 2 and will end up a fatality on the track". The real world, the approach to training horses, differs - depending on the owners - a lot from what was represented in this study.

I can't make myself any clearer and I'm getting tired now of explaining again and again what I meant. If you have no idea how a race horse is trained, have no experience working with race horses it is mandatory that you have an honest exchange about the findings of the study and ask the people who work with the "individuals" ( :P ) on a daily basis for feedback. You need that exchange if you want to change things. As evidenced by the study of the 2 year olds that didn't have a single start.

@Curtis: :lol:
Tessablue
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 7:05 pm

Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:30 pm

I don't think any scientist or veterinarian would argue that a lack of starts at 2 is "automatically" a red flag. Large-scale data analysis is always conducted with data variability in mind, and literally hundreds of other factors have been examined and proposed as well. But it is one of our more consistently observed risk factors, meaning it can be used to profile at-risk horses in the future. It's quite possible- even likely, given what you've said- that "works at 2" is more predictive than "races at 2," but that information is harder to come by and hasn't been examined yet as far as I can tell. What I worry about is whether some connections may not view it the same way that you do, and may ease up on early training either because of public pressure or the devaluing of 2yo racing in this country. In combination with rampant bisphosphonate use, that makes for a rather frightening timebomb of older horses with poorly adapted and fragile skeletons. I think showing definitively that 2yo exercise reduces later breakdown risk would have educational effects comparable to the efforts to reduce steroid and thyroxine use.

Eventually, I suspect we'll start to recognize "clusters" of breakdown risks. The Santa Anita breakdowns earlier this year were largely characterized by late-starting, lightly raced horses who trained or raced for a prolonged period over the surface (suggesting cumulative damage in poorly adapted bones). Although every track is different, I think it's likely that we'll one day be able to profile different categories of at-risk horses. There's your classic red-flag horses, returning suddenly off very long layoffs or racing with a new trainer shortly after being claimed. I think tracks are pretty good at detecting these types of cases. But I bet there are other high-risk groups disguised within the general population, and large-scale analysis can sort of wash out these different points of interest. Perhaps one day we'll be able to flag a horse's workout pattern after a layoff as a bit too intense, or say "this horse might be a poor adapter and just switched to a new surface, let's keep an eye on them." And maybe tracks could institute a system wherein flagged horses- even those who aren't flagged via current means and standards of thinking- receive imaging paid for by the track? What a dream that would be.
Somnambulist wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:17 am
I actually know one doctor who has tried to replicate pacemaker research to see how that would help with stopping heart attacks, etc. in horses but with limited success. I get everything costs time and money and trainers are leery and owners don't want to spend money. I think so much is unknown that it's hard to determine where a good starting point is.
Ok that's the coolest thing ever. Shame it didn't pan out but I'm so glad to hear that someone is working on the cardiac side of things! I don't even know where to start on that end, but it's a major piece of the puzzle.
katmandu wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 1:37 pm
With all due respect, I suspect your frame of reference may be somewhat narrowly focused - and this is the 3rd time you've made that last statement. I worked in the biotech/pharmaceutical industry for 35 years and was lucky enough to have a first row seat on research going from petri dish to the market. It is "individuals" who are using these drugs. (Just ask Rick Porter. . . ). You'd be amazed how much is known about "individuals" these days, the power of data mining/genomics/molecular biology, and the drive to "personalized medicine". The explosion of technology in the last 35 years as it is applied to the biological sciences is mind boggling.
Oh man that must have been amazing to witness. I'm not quite a decade in and I'm already reeling from how much things have changed. We can image that? Gene sequencing costs how much now? Absolutely incredible, and it isn't slowing down any time soon. I think personalized stem cell therapies are starting to finally get over the hump (talk about a game changer in the racing industry...) and I can't wait to see where we are in another decade.
katmandu
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:16 am

Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:44 pm

Kurenai wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 2:55 pm
katmandu wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 1:37 pm
With all due respect, I suspect your frame of reference may be somewhat narrowly focused - and this is the 3rd time you've made that last statement. I worked in the biotech/pharmaceutical industry for 35 years and was lucky enough to have a first row seat on research going from petri dish to the market. It is "individuals" who are using these drugs. (Just ask Rick Porter. . . ). You'd be amazed how much is known about "individuals" these days, the power of data mining/genomics/molecular biology, and the drive to "personalized medicine". The explosion of technology in the last 35 years as it is applied to the biological sciences is mind boggling.
Of course my sample size is waaay smaller than yours if you worked in the field for 35 years. Ok... sigh, to explain again. I repeat that statement because my point seems to fly above the head of some people.

Anyone remember why I made this statement in the first place? Anyone? It was because of the study that said horses that don't race at 2 are at a higher risk to break down. And that it's automatically a red flag if a horse didn't start at 2 and this fact could be used to reduce fatalities.

I'm not against research or studies (duh), they're very important! I know the advances that are made in medicine. All I did was to say that you always have to research not only the data that is represented, but you also have to evaluate the data it is based on first. Nobody is saying research and studies are generally a load of bull cr**. Just a very general statement that you can't apply all those studies in a real world scenario. As example "ok according to the study it's a red flag when a horse didn't race at 2 and will end up a fatality on the track". The real world, the approach to training horses, differs - depending on the owners - a lot from what was represented in this study.

I can't make myself any clearer and I'm getting tired now of explaining again and again what I meant. If you have no idea how a race horse is trained, have no experience working with race horses it is mandatory that you have an honest exchange about the findings of the study and ask the people who work with the "individuals" ( :P ) on a daily basis for feedback. You need that exchange if you want to change things. As evidenced by the study of the 2 year olds that didn't have a single start.

@Curtis: :lol:
Well I apologize in that I didn't see your comments above to another poster before I typed this/thread fatigue (didn't see the entire page, lol). We may be talking past each other at this point (I got that ^^^^^^ the first time). I'm well aware of the use and misuse of data and that "you can't apply all those studies in a real world scenario" (scope creep, lol). Thanks though for the clarification, as you said, talk is good.

(And lest there be any misunderstanding, my reference to Rick Porter has to do with CAR-T therapy and the fact that he is still alive. . . ).
Although I must say, Curtis, given Dorf's connections, your comment is somewhat ironic.
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 6069
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Wed Oct 30, 2019 8:35 pm

Kurenai wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:37 am
Sparrow Castle wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:02 am
Totally agree that this has crossed the line into bullying behavior! I'm shocked by who also is piling on...and yet said not a word about Katewerk's blanket trashing the connections of the majority of horses racing in this country, the claimers at less than first tier tracks.
Katework seems to me bitter and sarcastic. But what she says has quite some truth to it. Low level horses do get euthanized because the owner can't pay for the surgery needed to save their life. It's the owner that pays the bills. If it's a small track this is more likely to occur. That doesn't mean that those owners care less about their horses. Or that they are treated badly by their trainers. Only that there's a financial "cap" on things. Bills can rack up tens of thousands of Dollars quite easily. Extensive surgery, rehab, etc? We're talking about 6 figures then. And it's not like small time owners could afford mandatory nuke scans after every race (which was what we were discussing at this point, that would single handily improve the break down rates by a lot). Those aren't exactly cheap either. 1 or 2k. Need an MRI? 2 to 2.5k. That doesn't include transportation, clinic stay etc.
Kurenai,
At this point, my posting this probably detracts from the main conversation, but I feel a strong need to speak for “my kind” who are trying to keep enjoying racing thoroughbreds at non-top tier tracks with currently non-nationally famous trainers. With all due respect, I have been and now own horses that in recent years race only at Emerald Downs, and what you cite doesn't match my experience. I’m not Pollyanna; I know the dark side, and that exists here too just not in numbers large enough to all fit under the same blanket. The things you talk about above may be more affordable than you think for folks like us who are not wealthy and don’t live near top tier tracks, for several reasons:

1) For about six years now, we race solely in partnerships in order to spread the costs. Partner ownerships has grown a lot at all levels of racing. Last year we had two horses in training with partnerships consisting of 8 and 20 other partners respectfully. We are well aware that for us the price of the horse is the least of the costs of ownership and we share the philosophy that the safety and welfare of the horse comes first. Partners like that have not been too hard to find here.

2) The costs you quote are not what we pay for those diagnostic tests or for common rehabilitative surgeries that are in the best interests of the horses. We and our many acquaintances have paid for our share of necessary surgeries and make appropriate use of testing. Most of the diagnostic tests and surgeries are much cheaper here than what you cite. The nuclear scan has always been expensive and I suspect even more costly than many wealthy owners at any tier tracks will choose to pay for prophylactic purposes. Currently, we would need to ship our horses to the state-of-the-art Pegasus Training and Rehabilitation Center in Redmond WA for nuclear scans. I very much hope that the portable scan being developed in CA will be affordable enough that eventually we could use it prophylactically at appropriate intervals. I don’t think anyone is advocating its use after every race. It, like CTs and MRIs, expose one to radiation/radioactive substances which have safety risks.

Many of us take precautions like giving our horses winter breaks and not racing them into the ground before retiring them. My observation is that many of the euthanizations here are not because owners won’t pay for surgeries, but because it is in the best interest of the horse to euthanize after a catastrophic event, such as breakdown, colic, laminitis. Some people will argue it is cruel to try to save them at any cost. Believe me, I know how lucky we are to not have had to face that most awful decision. We also haven’t had to pay 10’s of thousands of dollars for any one of our horses over a year or even years of ownership. The most expensive was one we had to re-claim from an awful trainer just to safely retire him. And that loss didn’t amount to even close to $10k overall.

To summarize, my observations are that wealthy owners and trainers at top tier tracks do not of itself equate to better health care for racehorses or lower fatality rates. More important are the business model and philosophy of the owners and trainers, as well as horsemanship skills and ethics of the trainers and vets. Some wealthy owners who can afford to pay for life or second-career saving surgeries choose not to and I’m pretty sure that happens at all tracks.

3) Maybe try comparing race and training fatality rates by track before speaking negatively about safety issues at the lower level tiers versus upper tiers in the U.S. You may be surprised. Oh yeah, good luck finding them all in one place. Like many things in this industry, a lot of data is terribly fragmented. Emerald Downs had a horrible 2018, 2.55 fatalities per 1,000 starts, compared to 1.42 in 2017, even though it has been trending down over the years, but you have to go to the WHRC website to find that report. I’m sure I’ve posted this before, but here’s a few highlights from the Jockey Club’s Equine Injury Database analysis for 2018.
The 2018 study showed that 2-year-olds were associated with a statistically significant lower rate (1.28 per 1,000 starts) compared to older horses (1.72 per 1,000 starts).

The rates associated with each racing surface were as follows:

• On turf surfaces, the rate was 1.20 per 1,000 starts in 2018, compared to 1.36 in 2017.
• On dirt surfaces, the rate was 1.86 per 1,000 starts in 2018, compared to 1.74 in 2017.
• On synthetic surfaces, the rate was 1.23 per 1,000 starts in 2018, compared to 1.10 in 2017.

Since the EID began collecting data in 2009, there has been a 16% drop in the rate across all surfaces, an 11% drop on dirt, a 38% drop on turf, and a 17% drop on synthetic surfaces.

In addition, since March 2012, racetracks have been able to voluntarily publish their statistics from the EID in the Safety Initiatives section of The Jockey Club website. There are 25 tracks that self-reported during 2018, and their aggregate rate was 1.51. On average, the lowest average rate (1.45) was seen among the following tracks that disclose their fatality rates and are accredited by the National Thoroughbred Racing Association’s Safety and Integrity Alliance.

• Aqueduct Racetrack
• Belmont Park
• Del Mar Thoroughbred Club
• Golden Gate Fields
• Gulfstream Park
• Indiana Grand Race Course
• Keeneland
• Laurel Park
• Pimlico Race Course
• Santa Anita Park
• Saratoga Race Course
• Suffolk Downs
• Turfway Park
• Woodbine Racetrack

Since the EID’s inception, 109 racetracks have given data. In 2019, tracks accounting for approximately 98% of flat racing days are expected to contribute to the EID.
http://jockeyclub.com/default.asp?secti ... story=1105
http://jockeyclub.com/pdfs/eid_10_year_tables.pdf

About two year olds racing, I envy folks who buy babies and they go on without a pimple to begin racing as a two year old. It’s important to recognize that a myriad of things can go wrong and you have no choice but to wait until it passes to continue on. For example, their knees must be closed before hard training begins. I totally believe in the necessity of early bone building for strong healthy bones. What I’m not sure of is if racing is the only way they can build those bones. Babies have a lot of gallops and untimed works that aren’t captured in data. (Ours had to be ready to race by the end of September or wait until next April because that’s the racing season here. She’s out now running around up and down the gentle slopes of her very large paddock with an 11 year old open broodmare until next February when the track opens again for training.) Looking at the EID’s 10 year tables posted above, the fatality rate is lower for 2 year olds and that's fairly consistent. That tells me we need more work to sort that out.

P.S. I’m still on the Vet’s list though I was taken off stall rest on Oct 15. Until I’m fully back in training, I doubt I’ll be contributing as much or as thoroughly as I’d like to these and other discussions. I'll shut up now.
User avatar
Katewerk
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:30 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:40 pm

katmandu wrote:

With all due respect, I suspect your frame of reference may be somewhat narrowly focused - and this is the 3rd time you've made that last statement. I worked in the biotech/pharmaceutical industry for 35 years and was lucky enough to have a first row seat on research going from petri dish to the market. It is "individuals" who are using these drugs. (Just ask Rick Porter. . . ). You'd be amazed how much is known about "individuals" these days, the power of data mining/genomics/molecular biology, and the drive to "personalized medicine". The explosion of technology in the last 35 years as it is applied to the biological sciences is mind boggling.
Out of curiosity, what's the average cost/timeframe for a biotech firm to take a pharmaceutical from petri dish to market?

What would you estimate Rick Porter's personalized treatment cost?

So many here seem willing to invest other peoples money in these pie-in-the-sky schemes, but when you drill down there are precious few specifics. I haven't seen anyone define what a "preventable" death is, much less break them down into categories. This would be a logical first step, yes?

And for all the faith in science to provide actionable results, the research industry is undergoing a crisis of its own -- replication failure. Some estimates put the rate at nearly 50%.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 161540.htm

Coincidentally, I got a call from a good friend yesterday. She has a paint gelding she uses for light gymkhana, trail riding. Or she was until this summer. He has a torn tendon, and though she's tried different therapies (and not riding, which was the purpose for which he was bought) there's been no progress. Now the other front is starting to go south. He's 9 years old.

Her options are now binary: spend $6k plus expenses on surgery that has a guarded outcome, or -- spend it on a new horse. BECAUSE SHE CANNOT DO BOTH.

Thank God there isn't a chattering class of internet experts chewing over her decision and what she "owes" this animal, and how she might have prevented the injury with diagnostic monitoring, and how these injuries are a result of inferior breeding practices. She can make her decision in the privacy of her own mind, without being shamed into dipping into her retirement savings because a band of anonymous forum writers with zero skin in the game are hanging over her like vultures.

That's the problem with preventable deaths. They're only really identified after the fact when any idiot can apply the 20-20 hindsight method of statistical analysis, which brings me back to the point of my original bullying.

What you're really talking about is identifying predictable deaths. Like a weather forecast... crunch the data and generate a cone of likely outcomes. Now what? Yank apparently sound horses off the track because computer modelling has forecast a 15% chance of a sesamoid making landfall? (or it will until Friday when the forecast is updated).

As I said -- execution is hard.
stark
Posts: 5432
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:21 pm

https://sports.yahoo.com/top-santa-anit ... rc=fauxdal

As per usual, the comments following the article are the more entertaining part.
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
stark
Posts: 5432
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:23 pm

no comments allowed with this one...

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/no ... nk.twitter
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
User avatar
Curtis
Posts: 1371
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:17 am
Location: Monroe, WA
Contact:

Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:23 am

Katewerk wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:40 pm
katmandu wrote:

With all due respect, I suspect your frame of reference may be somewhat narrowly focused - and this is the 3rd time you've made that last statement. I worked in the biotech/pharmaceutical industry for 35 years and was lucky enough to have a first row seat on research going from petri dish to the market. It is "individuals" who are using these drugs. (Just ask Rick Porter. . . ). You'd be amazed how much is known about "individuals" these days, the power of data mining/genomics/molecular biology, and the drive to "personalized medicine". The explosion of technology in the last 35 years as it is applied to the biological sciences is mind boggling.
Out of curiosity, what's the average cost/timeframe for a biotech firm to take a pharmaceutical from petri dish to market?

What would you estimate Rick Porter's personalized treatment cost?

So many here seem willing to invest other peoples money in these pie-in-the-sky schemes, but when you drill down there are precious few specifics. I haven't seen anyone define what a "preventable" death is, much less break them down into categories. This would be a logical first step, yes?

And for all the faith in science to provide actionable results, the research industry is undergoing a crisis of its own -- replication failure. Some estimates put the rate at nearly 50%.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 161540.htm

Coincidentally, I got a call from a good friend yesterday. She has a paint gelding she uses for light gymkhana, trail riding. Or she was until this summer. He has a torn tendon, and though she's tried different therapies (and not riding, which was the purpose for which he was bought) there's been no progress. Now the other front is starting to go south. He's 9 years old.

Her options are now binary: spend $6k plus expenses on surgery that has a guarded outcome, or -- spend it on a new horse. BECAUSE SHE CANNOT DO BOTH.

Thank God there isn't a chattering class of internet experts chewing over her decision and what she "owes" this animal, and how she might have prevented the injury with diagnostic monitoring, and how these injuries are a result of inferior breeding practices. She can make her decision in the privacy of her own mind, without being shamed into dipping into her retirement savings because a band of anonymous forum writers with zero skin in the game are hanging over her like vultures.

That's the problem with preventable deaths. They're only really identified after the fact when any idiot can apply the 20-20 hindsight method of statistical analysis, which brings me back to the point of my original bullying.

What you're really talking about is identifying predictable deaths. Like a weather forecast... crunch the data and generate a cone of likely outcomes. Now what? Yank apparently sound horses off the track because computer modelling has forecast a 15% chance of a sesamoid making landfall? (or it will until Friday when the forecast is updated).

As I said -- execution is hard.
Is the Paint’s name Widget?
stark
Posts: 5432
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:43 am

Any chance somebody can change the title of this thread, thanks.
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
User avatar
Kurenai
Site Admin
Posts: 1111
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:01 pm

Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:35 pm

Thank you Sparrow Castle for your input! I'm from Europe, maybe that's why prices differ. Racing partnerships are good, it makes it much easier (apart from the disagreements :lol: ) to own race horses.

What is comes down to is basically responsible ownership. To draw a comparison: there are people who are responsible pet owners and then there are people who are irresponsible. I am aware of that. I did not want to insult you or anyone who owns horses that aren't stabled in Santa Anita etc. I'm very aware that without owners like you this sport wouldn't exist (claimers etc are the vast majority).

I was just playing out a scenario that would make scans mandatory before each race (or after). Because that would be the best and quickest tool to prevent breakdowns.
Many of us take precautions like giving our horses winter breaks and not racing them into the ground before retiring them. My observation is that many of the euthanizations here are not because owners won’t pay for surgeries, but because it is in the best interest of the horse to euthanize after a catastrophic event, such as breakdown, colic, laminitis. Some people will argue it is cruel to try to save them at any cost. Believe me, I know how lucky we are to not have had to face that most awful decision. We also haven’t had to pay 10’s of thousands of dollars for any one of our horses over a year or even years of ownership. The most expensive was one we had to re-claim from an awful trainer just to safely retire him. And that loss didn’t amount to even close to $10k overall.
Because there are so many of you who do all the right things, there are not even more breakdowns. I honestly wasn't implying that the majority of owners are like that. I was just stating things that contribute to fatalities on the track (apart from the accidents). And yes I do agree that sometimes it's cruel to save them at any cost. There are horses who are doing just fine with limited mobility and other horses that freak out, cause they can't move around so good anymore.
To summarize, my observations are that wealthy owners and trainers at top tier tracks do not of itself equate to better health care for racehorses or lower fatality rates. More important are the business model and philosophy of the owners and trainers, as well as horsemanship skills and ethics of the trainers and vets. Some wealthy owners who can afford to pay for life or second-career saving surgeries choose not to and I’m pretty sure that happens at all tracks.
Totally agree with you. Other thing to consider is that many "small time owners" have a bond with their horse, while in a large stable sometimes it's just an investment. Generally speaking it's harder for small time owners who don't have tens of thousands of dollars lying around to keep up with all the bills if things like scans etc become mandatory. (It was just a fictional scenario.)
Maybe try comparing race and training fatality rates by track before speaking negatively about safety issues at the lower level tiers versus upper tiers in the U.S. You may be surprised.
I won't. It will be about the same. Already explained above why I said what I said. If you want to have a 0 fatality rate you have to stop racing. Want to drastically lower it? Mandatory scans before or after every race. Want to lower it further? Mandatory breaks over winter for every horse. Further? Switch to turf. If you implement all those rules it will "hurt" the lower tier level tracks the most, there is no doubt in my mind that there would be less horses, because it would be more expensive.
For example, their knees must be closed before hard training begins. I totally believe in the necessity of early bone building for strong healthy bones. What I’m not sure of is if racing is the only way they can build those bones. Babies have a lot of gallops and untimed works that aren’t captured in data.


Racing isn't the only way they can build those bones. Gallops and easy works do an excellent job without putting too much strain on their legs. Then again: ours only ever raced over turf. The reason why I'm not too keen on asking too much too soon is that in a race a horse gets really fatigued and if the muscles are tired the bones have to absorb even more "shock". And a thing that I quite often see, but hate is that jockeys really ride the horses out despite being beaten. I know they have to, but... I always cringe when I see that, because that's exactly when the horses are basically only running on bones anymore (using simple terms here, I can't explain it better in English, sorry :lol: ).

I know the breakdown rate on top of my head (only one racetrack where I'm from), from quite some years ago, because I knew every single one that happened. 3 horses out of around 300 stabled at the track (if you take into consideration all the horses that shipped in probably 400), while racing from late April til early October over the span of 3 years. 1 of those 3 sadly stepped into a hole on the turf track (had people walking the course after every race but it happens). There were some that got hurt but were okay and there were a handful that died of colic, no horse broke down during training. So it was about 1 horse from 2000 starts that had a fatality. Small track (compared to the likes of Newmarket or Santa Anita), in the 90ies (scans only happened when a horse was off), 0 drug policy, on turf. Maybe we just got lucky generally speaking. Or it's the different training methods, surface, no all year racing and 0 drugs.

I can't answer that, not in a scientific way anyway. I would start to compare fatalities on US courses vs in Japan and Australia. (Europe went downhill quite a bit, I imagine rates in the UK and France by now aren't much better than in the US tbh. Then again I see other training methods applied, drugs added during training... those training methods are more successful, getting faster results etc, but IMO they come with an increased risk. )
stark
Posts: 5432
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:43 pm

stark wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:43 am
Any chance somebody can change the title of this thread, thanks.
Please.
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
Post Reply