Debate for the rights and wrongs of racing

[Clodagh]

I have shares in six horses with OG now. Their Equiprep place (I say their- not sure OG own it but think they do) looks idyllic for their holidays and recuperation.

So do I! I’ve got Stage Star, Carlo de Berlais, Will Carver, Lily Bear, The Carpenter and Toast the Host. Any the same as you?

 

[fetlock]

So do I! I’ve got Stage Star, Carlo de Berlais, Will Carver, Lily Bear, The Carpenter and Toast the Host. Any the same as you?

Gylo, Huelgoat, Blue Stello, Maximilian, Issuing Authority and Engelbert. Also got my Dad a share in Boreen Boy (or Boring Boy, as he's christened him).

 

[Clodagh]

Nice bunch.

 

[marmalade76]

To begin with, I think a lot of work needs to be done in many equestrian disciplines, not just racing - frankly, in competitive equestrianism in general. Many of my below issues with racing apply to other disciplines.

Cons

1. I understand that training 2yos without fully developed knee caps, tends to result in fewer leg injuries. I get that. But, whenever I see that in defence of racing them so young, I always wonder why no one’s talking about back and pelvic injuries, given that the spine is the last to fully develop in the horse.
2. Turnout is rare, group turnout is even rarer. For me, this is unforgivable. Frankly, I think humans could ethically “get away” with a lot more if we just gave horses the chance to be horses in their spare time. Regarding Elf’s earlier point about colts being turned out together meaning they won’t be in once piece at the end of the day - if they had grown up their whole lives in herd environments, and knew how to interact with other horses, this would be much less of an issue.
3. “Racehorses get introduced to a lot at a young age” but, by not being growing up in a herd, they do not learn to learn, to be curious and to investigate as horses naturally should. Ex-racers in the leisure sphere don’t exactly have a reputation for being chilled because they’ve seen so much…
4. The mental stress of the job combined with the lack of turnout and high starch diets - sure, there’s a high rate of ulcers among leisure horses as well, but racing is inherently a breeding ground for ulcers.
5. The wastage is sickening, particularly in the US/Canada/AUS. Horses are bred for speed not longevity.
6. I very much doubt the idea that all horses in racing currently love their job. Given that horses are flight animals, if you’ve got an animal that’s a quick runner because it’s trying to get the ordeal over and done with, then it’s not going to get retired, is it? Horses are retired if they’re slow or if they’re not pliant and make their opposition very clear.
7. Of course, racing varies from country to country. I believe Japan uses more sports science in their training than the US does, for example, where many trainers take more of a “intuitive / horse sense” approach that’s often BS. So, breakdowns in US racing are much more common. But, in general, there are far too many horses gaining serious, often fatal injuries - particularly in NH.
8. Rich people who want a winner but have no horse experience, nor understanding of what’s important for maintaining horses’ mental and physical welfare, being the ones financing a lot of the industry and big trainers. Nuff said. I have no doubt that a majority stable staff love their horses and would do nothing to harm them, but they're not the ones making decisions, are they?
9. Shoeing them so young and giving them diets that will further ruin their feet.

Pros

1. From a purely aesthetic angle and ignoring horse pain signals, a horse galloping is a beautiful sight. I get shivers down my spine whenever I rewatch Secretariat at the Belmont Stakes (and his jockey wasn’t even moving the whip, let alone hitting him with it)
2. It’s a huge industry providing many with income
3. Racing does provide money for research that could be useful in multiple disciplines
4. Yes, compared to other disciplines, (UK) racing has many more regulations to maintain horse welfare. But if your standard for horse welfare is practically no turnout…
5. I do see a few trainers on social media who seem to genuinely care about their horses, and know what's important for them, who rehabilitate them after issues with KS, and whose horses seem to be (relatively) happy in their roles. (I very much doubt that this is the majority though.)

I’d find racing more acceptable if there were far fewer deaths in NH, if there was less wastage, and if horses were given more natural lives, hence helping with their mental wellbeing, and partially with their physical wellbeing.

Horses should be treated like horses first and athletes second.

In response to con no. 2 - NH horses on their summer hols, pic taken by me personally..


Just sayin..

 

[Smitty]

I went to a P2P yesterday. One horse, travelling midfield during one circuit of the course, suddenly accelerated, jumped the next fence badly and fell. Sadly it didn't get up and the screens went up. I wondered if it suffered some sort of medical episode in those few lengths before the fence as the sudden increase of speed was marked.

On a good note, Caid Du Berlais, a previous winner of the Paddy Power, romped home to win the Open at the age of 13. He looked as though he was having a great time.

 

[Smitty]

I went to a P2P yesterday. One horse, travelling midfield during one circuit of the course, suddenly accelerated, jumped the next fence badly and fell. Sadly it didn't get up and the screens went up. I wondered if it suffered some sort of medical episode in those few lengths before the fence as the sudden increase of speed was marked.

On a good note, Caid Du Berlais, a previous winner of the Paddy Power, romped home to win the Open at the age of 13. He looked as though he was having a great time.

 

[Smitty]

Phhh. Stupid phone ?

 

[LadySam]

They are stabled in what is essentially tenement housing there. Though most horses are bought in from Australia and the ones that are the owners have to buy a return plane ticket for when the horse retires from racing so it can go back to Australia and be turned out to find a new home.

Correct. Some are lucky enough to get a little bit of turnout over the border at the Conghua track where there is more room, but AFAIK it's only for very short term spelling or injury rehab. Horses in work never get turnout. I have had to insure many horses going to Hong Kong to race. It's an awful place to send them and I hate it when they go. There is so much stupid, stupid money thrown around in/for HK racing that owners here sometimes get seduced into selling their horses because they are offered so much more crazy money than they would ever get if sold in Australia. But, there are also many owners who always refuse such offers because they don't want to send them to live and race under those conditions, just like @Clodagh 's grandfather . Whilst not wanting to cast aspersions on the trainers working over there and the industry in HK as a whole, the welfare standards are not as well policed as they are in other racing jurisdictions, especially when it comes to where they end up after racing.

That's a nice idea for the Australian ones to be brought back home again we send a lot to Hong Kong but bet we don't insert that clause, it should be inserted unless they're to be used for breeding out there

There is no Thoroughbred breeding industry in Hong Kong. There's nowhere to do it. Plus, it's pretty much all geldings that race in HK. Most entires that get sent over end up being gelded if they don't go over as geldings. I've never sent a filly over. I'm only aware of one that went over back in 2020 and she was the first one in 16 years or somesuch. She raced for about a year, didn't do well and was retired. The focus is very much on racing only, not racing then breeding.

Arguably the insurance industry has also done nearly as much for research and development of veterinary treatment for leisure and comp horse industry. Racehorses are uninsurable and therefore often don't get the same level of veterinary treatment as our pet horses do.

Sorry, this is nonsense. Insuring racehorses is my job. I also do a whole lot of equestrian sport horses from pony club to Olympic level and everything in between, but racehorses are our bread and butter. So I see both sides of what happens here. One positive thing I can say for the racing industry is that the veterinary care they get (here, anyway) is exemplary, usually with no expense spared. There's no doubt that the research and facilities that come out of this benefit all horses. You are correct in saying you can't insure racehorses for vet fees like you can equestrian horses, but this doesn't prevent the owners from spending money on vet fees. If a horse needs to be put down and you want that payout, you need to be able to show you've explored every possible treatment option before arriving at PTS. If you've decided to PTS based on the economic decision of not wanting to spend the money on vet bills, guess what? No payout for you. Even if PTS isn't on the horizon, if the horse doesn't get vet treatment it needs, it can't run. If it can't run you don't get the fun of owning a racehorse or the chance at any prizemoney and you've totally done your dough in your expensive little hobby. So the treatment happens. This is one reason why syndicating ownership is so effective - everybody contibutes to the vet bills and shares the load.

From what I see from my corner of the industry, the treatment horses get while racing is very good - for as long as an expensive investment is being protected. The worst things happen when the racing careers end and there is no residual value for breeding, which is where welfare really needs to up its game. Also FWIW I'd like to see whips banned and overbreeding stopped. Overbreeding, and the massive wastage it leads to, are the two biggest welfare issues facing racing, IMO.

 

[luckyoldme]

This is a brilliant thread.
I'm not a fan of racing but I can't join in many debates online because they tend to stray away from the facts.
It's great to have input from elf and the poster who has worked as a vet at the races.
I did read some daft poem by some bloke that thinks he's the only person up at the crack of dawn but for the most part I've learnt a lot.
I don't doubt for a moment the commitment and professionalism by the people around the horse's but most of the concerns I have are out of their control .
For me it's the wastage of young horses and what happens to them when they are finished racing and facing an uncertain future with physical and mental problems.
Evan though I don't like horseracing I can still see how insulting and frustrating some of the anti racers remarks (not so much this thread but more generally) would be to people working so hard within the industry.
elf...your wage is ridiculous. You could be working the same ridiculous hours for a lot more money!

 

[RachelFerd]

Sorry, this is nonsense. Insuring racehorses is my job. I also do a whole lot of equestrian sport horses from pony club to Olympic level and everything in between, but racehorses are our bread and butter. So I see both sides of what happens here. One positive thing I can say for the racing industry is that the veterinary care they get (here, anyway) is exemplary, usually with no expense spared. There's no doubt that the research and facilities that come out of this benefit all horses. You are correct in saying you can't insure racehorses for vet fees like you can equestrian horses, but this doesn't prevent the owners from spending money on vet fees. If a horse needs to be put down and you want that payout, you need to be able to show you've explored every possible treatment option before arriving at PTS. If you've decided to PTS based on the economic decision of not wanting to spend the money on vet bills, guess what? No payout for you. Even if PTS isn't on the horizon, if the horse doesn't get vet treatment it needs, it can't run. If it can't run you don't get the fun of owning a racehorse or the chance at any prizemoney and you've totally done your dough in your expensive little hobby. So the treatment happens. This is one reason why syndicating ownership is so effective - everybody contibutes to the vet bills and shares the load.
.

It's not nonsense - you've literally just agreed with me. You generally can't insure for vets fees like you can with leisure/comp horses - which means that racing owners often take more conservative treatment options than 'normal' owners do - where in this country you've usually got £5k per condition to play with until excluded after 12 months. This means that competition horses are more likely to be put through a thorough lameness/poor performance work-up than any racehorse is, where the owner will be more concerned with the overall cost of the treatment. Inaccurate diagnoses and conservative treatment does not lead to veterinary advances. Yes, lots of owners will pay out and do it all, but many won't/can't because it is beyond the budget that they've set for their social hobby activity. Instead they'll give the horse some time off and the trainer will bring it back in to work hoping for the best with veterinary intervention only when essential - whereas the leisure horse may have had more money spent on identifying and treating the problem, and therefore advancing knowledge about condition(s).

I worked as a racing secretary and I worked in a Newmarket vet hospital - i've seen two sides of this one at close hand.

 

[MotherOfChickens]

It was a while ago that I worked at a Newmarket vet hospital and then in a racing yard (late 90s) but racehorses were not covered for vets fees. I don't remember horses not getting diagnostics etc because of that in anything other than colic surgery but then as a nurse, I wasn't party to those conversations except in an emergency such as colic or a joint flush. Certainly the majority of the clients at this hospital were TB trainers/studs. Veterinary treatments have advanced through people being willing/able to pay for it through insurance-its the same in SA. Something of a double edged sword admittedly.

 

[LadySam]

It's not nonsense - you've literally just agreed with me.

Nope, didn’t agree with you at all. While it is a fact that racehorses can’t get vet fee insurance cover, I said that not being able to insure for vet fees does not stop owners spending money on vet fees and syndicated ownership helps share the load. Here, if a racehorse needs veterinary treatment, it gets it and it’s top notch. If it doesn’t get it there are consequences, financial and otherwise. I see this every day too. The notion that a pet horse owned 100% by one person gets better, more thorough treatment and more money spent on it because of 5k worth of insurance than a high value racehorse with a large syndicate of owners who have signed a contract obliging them to pay those treatment bills and a trainer who would be putting their reputation and ability to hold a license at risk if treatment were withheld for any reason is simply untrue.

Perhaps things are just vastly different in that respect here than they are there. What you have described just doesn’t happen with the racehorses, trainers, owners and breeders I deal with daily.

 

[RachelFerd]

Nope, didn’t agree with you at all. While it is a fact that racehorses can’t get vet fee insurance cover, I said that not being able to insure for vet fees does not stop owners spending money on vet fees and syndicated ownership helps share the load. Here, if a racehorse needs veterinary treatment, it gets it and it’s top notch. If it doesn’t get it there are consequences, financial and otherwise. I see this every day too. The notion that a pet horse owned 100% by one person gets better, more thorough treatment and more money spent on it because of 5k worth of insurance than a high value racehorse with a large syndicate of owners who have signed a contract obliging them to pay those treatment bills and a trainer who would be putting their reputation and ability to hold a license at risk if treatment were withheld for any reason is simply untrue.

Perhaps things are just vastly different in that respect here than they are there. What you have described just doesn’t happen with the racehorses, trainers, owners and breeders I deal with daily.

It is true. Here's the scenario - you have a horse who is very slightly lame. Really just a touch off behind 2/10ths lame. Vet comes to visit and there's nothing obvious or visible so suggests to find out more you need to refer to a vet hospital for full diagnostics

Scenario A (sports horse, insured for vets fees) - horse MUST be diagnosed and treated within 12 month window of symptoms first being shown, so is immediately sent for full lameness work-up at vet hospital. Nerve blocks, scintigraphy and x-rays pinpoint small change in a fetlock joint. Owner then given an option of surgery or more conservative steroid type treatment - whole thing ends up costing about £6k, but no stone left unturned - vets have lots of info they can use for academic research into the condition and outcomes.

Scenario B (racehorse, not insured for vets fees). No timeline on when treatment has to take place. Trainer thinks that the horse is sore from recent racing efforts, sends it on holiday out to grass, comes back in 4 months later, still not right, not sure its worth owner spending big vets bills on a horse that had already lost its form. Gets vet in to do a mobile x-ray which isn't great quality but is enough to suggest they could treat joint with steroids. Horse ultimately runs again, but not enough information gained through diagnostics about the condition for it to be any use in informing wider veterinary research. Costs the owner £1k all in, so they still have £5k left in the bank for something else.

The critical thing here (and i speak first hand, again, on this one) is that the TRAINER does not want the OWNER to spend lots of money on veterinary treatment for a horse who may not be that good, has already lost its form or is 'past it'. The TRAINER wants the OWNER to spend the £££££ on another horse - a better, newer, younger, sounder model. The 'past it' horse gets passed onto the open market for someone to buy and retrain, who subsequently insures the horse, gets some proper diagnostics on it and then treats it accordingly. Which is what i have done for EVERY SINGLE ex-racehorse that I've bought - because they've always been sold on when they've stopped winning races, rather than anyone asking WHY they aren't winning races.

 

[bonny]

It is true. Here's the scenario - you have a horse who is very slightly lame. Really just a touch off behind 2/10ths lame. Vet comes to visit and there's nothing obvious or visible so suggests to find out more you need to refer to a vet hospital for full diagnostics

Scenario A (sports horse, insured for vets fees) - horse MUST be diagnosed and treated within 12 month window of symptoms first being shown, so is immediately sent for full lameness work-up at vet hospital. Nerve blocks, scintigraphy and x-rays pinpoint small change in a fetlock joint. Owner then given an option of surgery or more conservative steroid type treatment - whole thing ends up costing about £6k, but no stone left unturned - vets have lots of info they can use for academic research into the condition and outcomes.

Scenario B (racehorse, not insured for vets fees). No timeline on when treatment has to take place. Trainer thinks that the horse is sore from recent racing efforts, sends it on holiday out to grass, comes back in 4 months later, still not right, not sure its worth owner spending big vets bills on a horse that had already lost its form. Gets vet in to do a mobile x-ray which isn't great quality but is enough to suggest they could treat joint with steroids. Horse ultimately runs again, but not enough information gained through diagnostics about the condition for it to be any use in informing wider veterinary research. Costs the owner £1k all in, so they still have £5k left in the bank for something else.

The critical thing here (and i speak first hand, again, on this one) is that the TRAINER does not want the OWNER to spend lots of money on veterinary treatment for a horse who may not be that good, has already lost its form or is 'past it'. The TRAINER wants the OWNER to spend the £££££ on another horse - a better, newer, younger, sounder model. The 'past it' horse gets passed onto the open market for someone to buy and retrain, who subsequently insures the horse, gets some proper diagnostics on it and then treats it accordingly. Which is what i have done for EVERY SINGLE ex-racehorse that I've bought - because they've always been sold on when they've stopped winning races, rather than anyone asking WHY they aren't winning races.

Only 1 in 10 horses win races, most of them are just money pits

 

[ycbm]

It is true. Here's the scenario - you have a horse who is very slightly lame. Really just a touch off behind 2/10ths lame. Vet comes to visit and there's nothing obvious or visible so suggests to find out more you need to refer to a vet hospital for full diagnostics

Scenario A (sports horse, insured for vets fees) - horse MUST be diagnosed and treated within 12 month window of symptoms first being shown, so is immediately sent for full lameness work-up at vet hospital. Nerve blocks, scintigraphy and x-rays pinpoint small change in a fetlock joint. Owner then given an option of surgery or more conservative steroid type treatment - whole thing ends up costing about £6k, but no stone left unturned - vets have lots of info they can use for academic research into the condition and outcomes.

Scenario B (racehorse, not insured for vets fees). No timeline on when treatment has to take place. Trainer thinks that the horse is sore from recent racing efforts, sends it on holiday out to grass, comes back in 4 months later, still not right, not sure its worth owner spending big vets bills on a horse that had already lost its form. Gets vet in to do a mobile x-ray which isn't great quality but is enough to suggest they could treat joint with steroids. Horse ultimately runs again, but not enough information gained through diagnostics about the condition for it to be any use in informing wider veterinary research. Costs the owner £1k all in, so they still have £5k left in the bank for something else.

The critical thing here (and i speak first hand, again, on this one) is that the TRAINER does not want the OWNER to spend lots of money on veterinary treatment for a horse who may not be that good, has already lost its form or is 'past it'. The TRAINER wants the OWNER to spend the £££££ on another horse - a better, newer, younger, sounder model. The 'past it' horse gets passed onto the open market for someone to buy and retrain, who subsequently insures the horse, gets some proper diagnostics on it and then treats it accordingly. Which is what i have done for EVERY SINGLE ex-racehorse that I've bought - because they've always been sold on when they've stopped winning races, rather than anyone asking WHY they aren't winning races.

I knew there was something (edited sp.) bugging me about the "but the veterinary advances come from racing" argument. I wasn't at all sure that was so true any more. Thanks for that Rachel, explains my doubts nicely.
.

 

[RachelFerd]

I knew there was Somerton bigging me about the "but the veterinary advances come from racing" argument. I wasn't at all sure that was so true any more. Thanks for that Rachel, explains my doubts nicely.
.

Yep - and I'm not claiming that conservative treatment is a welfare problem (at least not most of the time) just that when it comes to these types of orthopaedic poor performance issues, racing is not necessarily leading the way. And is probably contributing to the idea that ex racehorses always have soundness problems - because they are discarding ones that have underlying niggly problems without investigation.

 

[MotherOfChickens]

Only 1 in 10 horses win races, most of them are just money pits

and herein lies the problem. actually more than the one problem.

 

[stangs]

Waiting patiently for someone to give evidence of flat yards with as much turnout* as the NH horses get.


*not that it’s much at all

 

[Elf On A Shelf]

Waiting patiently for someone to give evidence of flat yards with as much turnout* as the NH horses get.


*not that it’s much at all

A lot of smaller yards do but not the ones in the big training centres such as Newmarket, Middleham, Lambourn, The Curragh etc. There are bits and pieces of land to turn horses out on but mostly when in training at the big places they don't get turned out sadly.

 

[marmalade76]

I don't approve of racing horses at two and have no interest in flat racing at all but NH I do and I think these horses have quite a nice life for working horses - they work with their mates, they generally carry no more than 12 stone, they don't wear crank nosebands or flashes, they don't have their heads tied down, they don't get rapped, they don't work in curbs, gags, gadgets, etc, they're not ridden in spurs. Let's be honest, most horses enjoy going along with a bunch of others, much more fun than being drilled in endless circles. A relative of mine works at a big NH yard and has done for years. All the horses go out in a paddock daily and spend their summer hols in the field with a big bunch of mates, they're all fed chaff before they work to help prevent ulcers - some trainers are moving with the times! Retired horses are rehomed with contracts and a personal grilling by the boss, I've had one in the past myself and have another on my yard right now belonging to a friend, both delightful, well mannered, sweet, vice-free boys who settled well into pet life.

 

[humblepie]

Read recently a really interesting article about bio banding and a trainer using that along with x rays and other scientific things to monitor their young horses and adjust their work and training. It is something that has come from youth development in football apparently. I am not scientific so prety rubbish explanation.

 

[Arzada]

And here's the treatment of Rich Strike, winner of the Kentucky Derby 2022 post race

 

[GSD Woman]

I didn't see the race and for some reason the video clip isn't cooperating. Did the horse get punched for trying to nail the lead pony?

 

[Elf On A Shelf]

American racing annoys me with how they treat the horses. The horse was getting frisky, his blood was up, he bit the pony on the neck and wouldn't let go for a moment, the ponies rider went totally OTT. Rather than carry on and see if the horse would settle he kept socking it in the gob with the rein he was holding. This wound up the race winner even more. What he should have done is let the horse go and moved away, let the horse and pony calm down then regroup for walking back into the winners enclosure. But Americans are too arrogant and want to prove they can do exactly what they want to do and be damned with the rest.

 

[HashRouge]

I don't understand why he held on to Rich Strike?! Wouldn't you just let go and give him a chance to settle. I can't think he really needs to be "led" anyway - so why not just ride next to him with a sensible gap in between?

 

[GSD Woman]

Hey Elf, don't forget I'm an American.

I wonder if in the heat of the moment the outrider just wanted the horse to stop biting the pony. It sounds like Rich Strike has a habit of biting of biting other horses. He should be kept out of range of other horses. This is considered the Big One in the States and I honestly don't know how I would have behaved under the circumstances. Hopefully by not whacking the horse in the face.

 

[Elf On A Shelf]

Hey Elf, don't forget I'm an American.

Sorry! Not all Americans are arrogant up themselves a holes!

But that pony rider certainly seems to be. And given the pony looks like a thoroughbred I would also say they are a little on the large side to be riding it. They weren't very nice to their pony either. I get that it's a big race but the world is watching and it looked utterly shocking and awful.

I do find the ponying in America and Autralia weird. We don't do it here though we are allowed to if the horse needed it. It just seems a bit unnecessary.

 

[GSD Woman]

I finally found a clip on YouTube of the whole mess with the outrider. Correcting the horse once for biting his horse is one thing. The rest of the stupid s@#t he did, argh. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't lose his job. (He ought to.) I can't believe how he kept yanking Rich Strike around by the bridle and then hitting him. And, the outrider was a bit large. So many Americans are overweight or obese that it is taking a huge bite out of our health care providers. It often takes 4 people to move a patient onto a hospital bed. Sorry, got sidetracked.

There is so much I don't like about American racing. Racing babies for big $$. No longer breeding horses for longevity or distance, it is all sprints and so many horses break down because of that and the doubling down on Northern Dancer<-I think that's the horse, who threw weak forelegs. And racing on dirt vs turf, I wonder who came up with that bright idea.

 

[Caol Ila]

Probably worth reading the COTH thread for the other side of the Kentucky Derby faff. I have no dog in this fight, but I saw the footage live and then some subsequent photos. At various moments, the colt had the reins in his mouth, the lead pony's neck, and the outrider's leg. Don't know what I would have done if an amped up stud colt was coming for me and my horse, and it was my job to hold the colt and get him to the winner's circle. Better these outriders than me. https://forum.chronofhorse.com/t/kentucky-derby-2022/772217/343

On COTH, people also ask why the outrider didn't just let the colt go. Potentially plausible reasons are given.

 

[GSD Woman]

Caol Ila,

Thanks for the link to the COTH discussion. I hadn't seen the picture of the bite to the outrider. I would have smacked the snot out of the horse too.