Number of horses killed or badly injured while racing in 2006, 2007

[regret]

Does anyone have any figures of how many horses were put down or injured while racing in 2006-2007?

[Showpony]

I don't. But considering the number of tracks, races (flat and steeplechasing?), and racehorses just in this country alone, I would think hundreds, at least, were put down or died racing in 06 and 07 combined. Probably not a huge percentage, but too many none the less. Who knows how many were injured, that would be really hard to keep track of and how would you define injured?.

Although individual tracks might have records, I think I read somewhere there is no official record kept for those statistics, I could be wrong on both counts.

[regret]

I don't. But considering the number of tracks, races (flat and steeplechasing?), and racehorses just in this country alone, I would think hundreds, at least, were put down or died racing in 06 and 07 combined. Probably not a huge percentage, but too many none the less. Who knows how many were injured, that would be really hard to keep track of and how would you define injured?.

Although individual tracks might have records, I think I read somewhere there is no official record kept for those statistics, I could be wrong on both counts.

Flat tracks and seriously injured.

[miss_critic]

There have been recent studies on this to compare synthetics with dirt. I don't know the number off hand but I think its reported on # injured horses per 1000 horses. Bloodhorse and others reported the findings and um, correction. I am sure it's easy to look up.

[Drvmb1ggl3]

I've seen different figures posted for the number of fatalities per 1000 start. I'm not sure if there is one definitive number as there is no central clearing house for this info.
There were 421,340 total starts in the US in 2007 (420,003 on the flat and 1,337 over fences) if you want to try and work backwards.

[regret]

Thanks.

[I'm EBO]

I believe that I read in one of the threads here that there were 1.5 catastrophic (fatal) injuries per 1000 starts on dirt tracks. Where they have installed synthetic tracks, such injuries have been dramatically lessened. This was from a report put out by the NY Racing Board, or some other concerned NY agency. There were many more less serious injuries.

Scratch my first sentence. I just found this in an AP news article about the breakdown:

Reports by veterinarians at 34 tracks across the country between June 2007 and early this year showed synthetic tracks averaged 1.47 fatalities per 1,000 starts, compared with 2.03 fatalities per 1,000 starts for horses that ran on dirt.

So the synthetic tracks are avoiding about 25% of fatalities per 1000 starts when compared to dirt tracks. If we knew how many races are held, we could figure out how many horses were saved during that time period.

[Blueshadow]

I believe that I read in one of the threads here that there were 1.5 catastrophic (fatal) injuries per 1000 starts on dirt tracks. Where they have installed synthetic tracks, such injuries have been dramatically lessened. This was from a report put out by the NY Racing Board, or some other concerned NY agency. There were many more less serious injuries.

Scratch my first sentence. I just found this in an AP news article about the breakdown:

Reports by veterinarians at 34 tracks across the country between June 2007 and early this year showed synthetic tracks averaged 1.47 fatalities per 1,000 starts, compared with 2.03 fatalities per 1,000 starts for horses that ran on dirt.

So the synthetic tracks are avoiding about 25% of fatalities per 1000 starts when compared to dirt tracks. If we knew how many races are held, we could figure out how many horses were saved during that time period.

I think someone posted above over 400,000 starts in 2007. That would be roughly equal to 800 deaths for that number of starts, or between 2 and 3 per day which is what I had roughly believed the nationwide stat to be for racing related deaths.

But that does (presumably) not include deaths in the morning. Horses also sustain life-ending.catastrophic inuries in morning works and even gallops - do these numbers include those deaths? I don't know...

[Blueshadow]

I believe that I read in one of the threads here that there were 1.5 catastrophic (fatal) injuries per 1000 starts on dirt tracks. Where they have installed synthetic tracks, such injuries have been dramatically lessened. This was from a report put out by the NY Racing Board, or some other concerned NY agency. There were many more less serious injuries.

Scratch my first sentence. I just found this in an AP news article about the breakdown:

Reports by veterinarians at 34 tracks across the country between June 2007 and early this year showed synthetic tracks averaged 1.47 fatalities per 1,000 starts, compared with 2.03 fatalities per 1,000 starts for horses that ran on dirt.

So the synthetic tracks are avoiding about 25% of fatalities per 1000 starts when compared to dirt tracks. If we knew how many races are held, we could figure out how many horses were saved during that time period.

I think someone posted above over 400,000 starts in 2007. That would be roughly equal to 800 deaths for that number of starts, or between 2 and 3 per day which is what I had roughly believed the nationwide stat to be for racing related deaths.

But that does (presumably) not include deaths in the morning. Horses also sustain life-ending.catastrophic inuries in morning works and even gallops - do these numbers include those deaths? I don't know...

[Thomas_1]

Does anyone have any figures of how many horses were put down or injured while racing in 2006-2007? Yes.

The Jockey Club in the UK and your race regulators over there.

[LMH]

Here is a blog on the topic-

http://scrollsequus.blogspot.com/

And from another link, the numbers in Britain seem to be monitored here

http://www.horsedeathwatch.com/

the second link covers steeplechasing not flat racing

[Absolut Equestrian]

Dr. Mary Scollay-Ward is currently leading efforts to formalize a racing injury reporting system in the U.S. Here is a summary of the injury reporting program, I believe it has just concluded its first year

http://www.grayson-jockeyclub.org/newsimages/ontrack_form.ppt

[bobbybobby]

the information is very new and incomplete....speaking with a large number of vets,the poly is not a saving grace....there is a positive increase in soft tissue injuries,and carreer ending injuries....time will tell..but i think it will be very discouraging....horses are animals,they need a natural surface......is there no common sense left in the industry ?????

[I'm EBO]

Turf seems to me to be the best answer we have so far. I believe that the problem with turf is that the pace is slower--although I don't know how much slower. I don't get why they have to approach warpspeed anyhow; spectators/bettors seem to be plenty entertained at the trotter races.

Another thing is that turf courses in North America seem to be shorter than dirt tracks. Does anyone have information to the contrary, or a reason for the shorter courses?

[cloudyandcallie]

But you see, the figures that the racing industry gives you only counts the starts--of races. They do not show the number of horses injured daily and put down at the track while training. So you need to go to the track and see a horse breakdown and die. You need to watch and you will see horrible falls while galloping, because the horses are run too young on too hard surfaces and are worked too fast and too much. And of course they are bread with legs that cannot stand up to the impact of daily stress. Then they are "buted up" and run on stress fractures till they shatter. Get a picture of the xray of Barbaro's leg--that is a shattered leg, as though he were hit by an 18 wheeler, but it broke like that while he was running because he was bred to have legs like that--and people on this forum are touting his full brothers to be "just like him" - I hope not.

[SEPowell]

But you see, the figures that the racing industry gives you only counts the starts--of races. They do not show the number of horses injured daily and put down at the track while training. So you need to go to the track and see a horse breakdown and die. You need to watch and you will see horrible falls while galloping

Just curious, at what track(s) are you seeing horses having "horrible falls while galloping"?

[cloudyandcallie]

churchill downs, the track right across from st. louis, over in illinois, forget the name, and tracks in maryland and pennsylvania. I've lived in all those states, and frequented those tracks. try it sometime.
never saw any killed training in florida though cause I only visited there on race days. ditto california.
oh the pennsylvania track was a training track, the horses raced elsewhere.
forgot, saw the "breakdowns" in Louisiana also.

[cloudyandcallie]

and I am not against racing....I think it should be regulated to have older horses racing and less use of bute......when horses are galloping on a dirt track and break a leg cause they have a stress fracture but have been buted up to run, then they breakdown. Racing needs to be changed and our Derby should be for 4 or 5 year olds. but the $$$ issue requires horses to be raced as 2 or 3 year olds. disposable and expendable.

[brightskyfarm]

I once did a search on this, even posted what I found.... something like 2.2 per 1000 for Penn National, 2.6 (I think) for Philly....but, in comparison, like with flying, we only hear/see about the wrecks...not the millions of uneventful successes.

[ArtilleryHill]

<<I believe that the problem with turf is that the pace is slower--although I don't know how much slower. I don't get why they have to approach warpspeed anyhow; spectators/bettors seem to be plenty entertained at the trotter races.

Another thing is that turf courses in North America seem to be shorter than dirt tracks. Does anyone have information to the contrary, or a reason for the shorter courses?>>


The main problem racetrack operators here in the US have with turf courses versus dirt is that it is far, far harder to maintain and more susceptible to the weather, as you would imagine. You can't run long meets on turf courses, and US racing--to its detriment, in my view--is based largely on long, long meets, as compared to the 2-4 day meets that are usual at British tracks (exceptions are Keeneland and Saratoga and Del Mar, but even those are multi-week meets, not multi-day ones). Those long, dirt meets hark back to US racing's expansion in the 1930s, when state governments--still major stakeholders in racetracks in every state--built tracks as a revenue stream; they make money on every bet wagered, and longer meets provided a more reliable and steady stream of that revenue. Dirt tracks, being easier to maintain and more durable, were the choice material for that purpose.

In the UK, operators are also frustrated with the difficulties and expense of maintaining turf, which is the reason there are now synthetic tracks over there, too. You can imagine how hard it is to maintain delicate turf in UK weather! If you've ever had someone ride or drive over your lawn after a rainstorm you'll get the picture: divots, uneven spots, etc., that take time and effort to "heal" and return to a safe surface. Personally, I love turf racing, and I'd prefer that we run racing in the European style, but the above are some of the issues that caused US racing to develop differently, with long meets on dirt instead of short ones on turf.

As for turf courses v. dirt tracks in terms of length, traditionally in the US turf courses are built on the inside of dirt ones, but turf races in the US generally are longer in distance than dirt races are.

[Pronzini]

This probably isn't helpful but some of the worst breakdowns I've ever seen have been on turf courses. It is much, much tougher to maintain a turf course and horses like Landseer can step in holes while they are running as fast as they can.

OTOH, the gentler pace scenario probably minimizes microfracturing which may have played a role in this tragic accident so 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

[Laurierace]

But you see, the figures that the racing industry gives you only counts the starts--of races. They do not show the number of horses injured daily and put down at the track while training. So you need to go to the track and see a horse breakdown and die. You need to watch and you will see horrible falls while galloping, because the horses are run too young on too hard surfaces and are worked too fast and too much. And of course they are bread with legs that cannot stand up to the impact of daily stress. Then they are "buted up" and run on stress fractures till they shatter. Get a picture of the xray of Barbaro's leg--that is a shattered leg, as though he were hit by an 18 wheeler, but it broke like that while he was running because he was bred to have legs like that--and people on this forum are touting his full brothers to be "just like him" - I hope not.

I have been at a race track virtually every morning for the past 15 years. In that time I might have seen 3-4 horses break down while galloping. I have only seen one fall and that was because his bandage came undone and he stepped on it. I agree that there are a lot of horses that should have moved on to other occupations, but your dramatization is absolute fiction and does nothing to further the cause.

[solargal]

churchill downs, the track right across from st. louis, over in illinois, forget the name, and tracks in maryland and pennsylvania. I've lived in all those states, and frequented those tracks. try it sometime.
never saw any killed training in florida though cause I only visited there on race days. ditto california.
oh the pennsylvania track was a training track, the horses raced elsewhere.
forgot, saw the "breakdowns" in Louisiana also.

Wow! I am at the track everyday. We have training open year round and have been racing for a few weeks now. You want to know who many horses have been euthanized? None. Yep, five months of daily training, and some races thrown in and no fatalities. Ya, that is at one of the tracks you listed.

[DickHertz]

churchill downs, the track right across from st. louis, over in illinois, forget the name, and tracks in maryland and pennsylvania. I've lived in all those states, and frequented those tracks. try it sometime.
never saw any killed training in florida though cause I only visited there on race days. ditto california.
oh the pennsylvania track was a training track, the horses raced elsewhere.
forgot, saw the "breakdowns" in Louisiana also.

Fairmount Park

[DickHertz]

I have been at a race track virtually every morning for the past 15 years. In that time I might have seen 3-4 horses break down while galloping. I have only seen one fall and that was because his bandage came undone and he stepped on it. I agree that there are a lot of horses that should have moved on to other occupations, but your dramatization is absolute fiction and does nothing to further the cause.

Laurierace,

That wouldn't have been SW Clarence would it?

(this horse was one of the biggest horses I've ever seen. I heard he was 18.1 which I don't believe, but he was huge)

[Laurierace]

Yep, that was him. He was at least 18 hands, possibly 18.1 I am 5'9" and I stood under his throat latch with inches to spare. Amazing horse.

[Showpony]

I have been at the track in the mornings and have seen horses break down, none just galloping but several broke down working and breezing.

I wonder if the statistics include horses that had to be put down after returning to the barn, or days later, or just ones that had to be put down or died on the track?

[Laurierace]

Wow! I am at the track everyday. We have training open year round and have been racing for a few weeks now. You want to know who many horses have been euthanized? None. Yep, five months of daily training, and some races thrown in and no fatalities. Ya, that is at one of the tracks you listed.

Here is an interesting statistic. During the 2006 Pimlico meet, the equine ambulance was in use exactly one time.

[ArtilleryHill]

<<But you see, the figures that the racing industry gives you only counts the starts--of races. They do not show the number of horses injured daily and put down at the track while training.>>

Actually, in California, the stats include every death at every racetrack AND training center, whether the death was during racing hours, training hours, or in between. That is a state-mandated program that has turned out some of the best data in the racing industry on injuries and deaths. Dead horses are necropsied under this program, and it is a comprehensive accounting. It would be great if this program were expanded nationally, as it has helped set policies to benefit horses and their safety (and that of their riders)--and any move toward that goal, in whatever discipline, is very, very welcome.

[DickHertz]

Yep, that was him. He was at least 18 hands, possibly 18.1 I am 5'9" and I stood under his throat latch with inches to spare. Amazing horse.

I wonder who was bigger...Fred Bear Claw or SW Clarence

[Laurierace]

I wonder who was bigger...Fred Bear Claw or SW Clarence

I have no idea, I have never heard of the first horse. I know at the time Clarence was racing the form said he was the largest TB in training. Not sure how they knew that, but still.

[fish]

[QUOTE=Showpony;
I wonder if the statistics include horses that had to be put down after returning to the barn, or days later, or just ones that had to be put down or died on the track?[/QUOTE]

Me, too. E.g., I wonder if Barbaro would have been counted in this study, not to mention the many horses who've broken down on the track, but still managed to be saved (and worth the investment) for stud careers despite serious disabilities for anything else.

[Glimmerglass]

Yep, that was him. He was at least 18 hands, possibly 18.1 I am 5'9" and I stood under his throat latch with inches to spare. Amazing horse.

Author and some times COTH poster, Hallie McEvoy (http://www.amazon.com/Genuine-Risk-Thoroughbred-Hallie-McEvoy/dp/1581500920) owned a mare runner called Grade A Fancy (although on paper I think the wording was composed differently) who was 18-hands. She raced at Philadelphia Park in recent years but despite her size advantage was not terribly effective in races.

If I'm not mistaken, and I might be recalling this incorrectly, her size may have posed a slight problem in the gate and being able to break from it cleanly.