WARNING! There is no nutritional handicapping information in this post. If you are looking for help in cashing a ticket, find another post (this should probably be boilerplate on all of my posts, but I’m not going to be my usual concise self here, so I’ve added this for your protection).
J-
No offense taken and happy to see none given. To your points and questions (from both of your two most recent posts, in reverse order). You wrote:
“I think there is a big difference here. I am a private individual minding my own business enjoying my favorite hobby, and the Times (where my father and many friends of mine use to work and still work) decides it wants to beat up on and do away with my hobby.”
I don’t see it that way. Alan Schwartz and others in the NYT sports department have written some terribly damning stories about the NFL and the NHL. Is the Times trying to smother pro football and hockey with a pillow? Or, are they saying “we can do better”? I think this is what newspapers are supposed to do. I think the racing stories in the NYT are having such an impact because handicappers and industry insiders rarely discuss these things outside the temple, or with civilians. So when a mirror is held up to certain aspects of the game and the general public starts vomiting, industry people tend to get defensive.
You wrote: “Here is what is unfair about the NY Times reporting -- they want to say that the number of animal fatalities in one aspect of one hobby is scandalous, but they are unwilling to truly look at the question of what is an acceptable level of animal fatalities. Is that fair? Look, animals die in all sorts of ways while in the care of humans. It is unfortunate, but it happens. if no deaths were acceptable, we would outlaw owning cats and dogs.”
Generally, I don’t believe a newspaper can invent a scandal. A newspaper tells a story. It is up to the dreaded “general public” to determine whether or not that story is in fact a scandal. Otherwise, it’s fishwrap, and it goes away.
And here is probably a good time to address “acceptable deaths” for all animals in the United States. Essentially, under our laws, animals are the property of the people who own them. If I own a horse or a dog, and I get tired of owning a horse or a dog, there is no law stopping me from enlisting a compliant vet to euthanize the horse or the dog. But the law does draw the line at animal cruelty, to which Michael Vick or that hatrack Paragallo would most assuredly attest. Racing’s “image problem” is that millions of Americans perceive “business as usual” at the racetrack as just another form of animal cruelty. You can argue with their perceptions, but – absent serious changes in the industry – good luck changing them.
Also, it probably does not seem fair to many industry types, but horses (and dogs, I would contend) have special status among American animals. Even though, as sighthound has aptly noted here, horses don’t have a real presence in most American’s lives today, I think they still have a hold on the American consciousness. Between the Pony Express and John Wayne and cowboy culture, I think there remains the idea that men and women and horses built this country, and that we owe them something. (The horses, that is. Seems like women are still on their own).
You wrote: “The older article shows that the \"control\" group of countries the US is measured against are cherry-picked. Apparently, the \"control\" group consists of (1) \"Europe\" (specific countries not identified is it all or some of europe? - Where are Russia, Ukraine, or Turkey in terms of \"Europe\"?) and (2) those countries where racing is conducted less often and mainly on turf under more stringent rules (again,no countries specified -- obviously Australia is included though).
The point is, for all we know, this is a completely cherry picked group designed to get a result somebody wanted for their agenda.”
Here is Rick Arthur, the noted equine vet, from a speech he delivered at a Jockey Club Round Table (emphasis added):
“This is important so let me repeat: 90% of all horses suffering fatal musculoskeletal injuries racing or training have pre-existing pathology — a prior injury — at the site of their fatal injury.
Why are our examining veterinarians missing those pre-existing injuries? That is the question.
The examining veterinarians are concerned with two classes of drugs commonly used in racing in the U.S.: corticosteroids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Both are anti-inflammatories. Corticosteroids are cortisone drugs; phenylbutazone and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatories are drugs like Advil and Tylenol. The public knows non-steroidal anti-inflammatories as painkillers. That’s how they are advertised to the public, because they are painkillers. Obviously, our horses can’t talk. Veterinarians — trainers and jockeys for that matter — evaluate a horse’s well-being and soundness by clinical signs, signs that are masked by analgesics, that’s painkillers, and anti-inflammatories.
These drugs are not allowed in IFHA rules in places like Ireland, England, France, Dubai, Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, and other countries, but they are allowed in the U.S.
Racing fatality rates in the U.S. are two- to three-times higher than other major racing countries that don’t allow phenylbutazone and other drugs. My international colleagues have no doubt our medication policies, especially in phenylbutazone, are the cause of this disparity. I’m not convinced it is that simple, but there is no question medication regulation is the most glaring difference between U.S. and other major racing countries.”
http://www.jockeyclub.com/roundtable_10.asp?section=11
Please note that I did not “cherry pick” by leaving off the part following the emphasized section. And here is Joe Drape writing about the estimable Bill Nader. Again, emphasis added:
“Bill Nader, the executive director of the Hong Kong Jockey Club, said that Hong Kong did not allow Lasix on race day or any other day. It averages only 42 incidents of bleeding a season. After the first incident, a horse is banned from racing for three months. If there is a second incident, Nader said, the horses are often forced to retire.
The Hong Kong Jockey Club has perhaps the most restrictive medication rules in the world. Over the past five years, it has had only eight sudden deaths among 45,000 runners, or one per 5,692 starters. The American fatality rate is 2.14 per 1,000 starters.
Nader, a longtime executive with the New York Racing Association, said that Hong Kong’s commitment to integrity also meant stiff punishments for trainers and jockeys, as well as transparency — the veterinary history of each of its horses is available to the public.
The strict policies, he said, were good for business. Even though Hong Kong has a population of seven million and races only 83 days a year, bettors put $10.3 billion through the windows last year, almost as much as the United States.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/sports/medication-is-cited-in-horse-racings-decline-in-us.html?_r=0
Now, I don’t have anything for you on Russia or Turkey, but can you really consider that a valid comparison? To me, that is like some so-called liberal western-style democracy with a very noticeable wart that – when criticized for said wart - protests by saying “but look at Iran or North Korea!” Is this the new slogan for NYRA? “Hey! We’re not as bad as Uzbekistan!”
You wrote: “Finally, what about horses sent to slaughter? Why is it bad if a horse dies in a racing accident, but not bad if the same racehorse is sent to a slaughterhouse before it injures itself racing? Why aren\'t those horses included in the statistics for European racing or where they race less often and on turf and under more stringent rules?”
Yes, people eat horsemeat in Europe. I’ve heard people eat dogs in certain parts of Asia. This is what people are allowed to do with their property. We don’t allow horse slaughter here in the US any more, partly because of their special place in our national consciousness and also because we have neighbors to our north and south who will do it for us while we look away. I would have no objection to your including slaughtered horses in the European numbers so long as you also added our own unfortunates to the American numbers.
You wrote: “I guess horses are supposed to be immortal and never die. What about horse life expectancy? for all we know, horses in general are living longer than before, but a very small number are dying earlier in accidents”
How many times have you tossed a horse that seemed to be too fast to be running in a cheap claimer? When these horses break down, often times it is not an accident. Yes, this is all about one or two horses per 1,000 starts. Roughly one a week on the New York circuit. We can do better.
Bob
