An Open Letter to the Industry I Love

I was only 8 years old when I fell in love with horse racing. I’d been a horse lover my entire life, born into a family with horses—a family with a tradition of watching the Kentucky Derby every year. The pre-race coverage of the 2004 Run for the Roses told the story of Smarty Jones, which enthralled me to the point I was inches from the television screen, jumping up and down, as the chestnut colt powered through the mud to win the Derby. That’s all it took. I was hooked.

I never could’ve imagined that 15 years later I’d be standing in the win photo of a Breeders’ Cup winner I’d worked with, Sharing. I’d spent hours at the end of her shank and countless moments at her stall, giving her affection and teaching her the wonders of peppermints and carrots. I left Santa Anita on a cloud far above cloud nine that day, overwhelmed with pride for a filly I loved so dearly and the team of horsemen and women surrounding her that I loved just as much.

Little did I know, just over 24 hours later, I’d be leaving Santa Anita with a dark cloud hanging over me. A cloud filled with sadness for Mongolian Groom, and with doubt for a future in an industry that’s been my life since I was 8 years old.

Unfortunately, that wasn’t the first time I’d felt so somber and uncertain about the industry—so much so that I doubted not only my own future in it, but its future altogether. I always considered myself so lucky to have found my passion at such a young age, but over the past year, I haven’t felt so fortunate.

It isn’t solely because of the anti-racing activists, politicians, and other parties who are fighting to end racing that I am forced to question a future in racing. It’s also the industry itself. As much as I love this industry and so many of the people of it, it has proven to be one that is resistant to change—entirely too resistant. And without change for the good – a lot of it, and as soon as possible – this industry will continue down this rocky path that could be headed for a cliff.

I’ve spent most aspects of my life since I was 8 years old working toward a career in racing, but over the past year, I’ve reconsidered my pursuit of a career in racing for the first time since elementary school. While I fully realize and admit that my experience in this industry as a 23-year-old pales in comparison to those who have been in it for decades, there are several glaring issues that I believe need to be acted upon quickly. So, as a young person who has always envisioned this industry as her future, I ask the industry leaders these questions:

Who exactly are our industry leaders?

We have our boards, committees, top owners, leading breeders, and elite horsemen. But who are the actual leaders in this industry? Why is there no governing body or league?

Most aspects of the industry are regulated at a state level. Compare this to other professional sports such as football, baseball, basketball, and hockey—all regulated by their own national leagues.

How can this industry implement dynamic change when rules vary between states? These discrepancies provide our horses with no uniform protection and our horsemen with no uniform rules and regulations to follow.

The Horseracing Integrity Act of 2019 (H.R. 1754) would achieve this to an extent, and on a front that is one of racing’s most crucial issues: drugs. The bill would establish a horse racing anti-doping authority (HADA), a private anti-doping entity that would regulate medication on a uniform basis under the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). While not a nationwide governing body for horse racing, this would at least establish uniform medication rules so that they no longer differ from state to state.

  

This would be a huge step in the right direction, but there remain other issues on this scale. Because racing has no true leadership, we have no real spokespersons to represent our industry in the face of industry issues that reach the general public, and to get out in front of those issues. Instead, we have statements from various entities—and sometimes not even those. Because of this, oftentimes the best the industry can often come up with is the “we love our horses” argument—one of which the public is not going to be convinced if the industry does not enforce change for the better. We cannot rely on this feel-good public relations effort; it isn’t working. We need to change.

Are we breeding durable horses?

When did “breeding to race” and “breeding to sell” become two different goals? Shouldn’t they be the same thing? This sport is called horse racing, after all.

I have massive respect for the bloodstock side of the industry, and have spent quite a bit of time in that aspect of the Thoroughbred world. However, what has been a significant argument for the popularity of racing could very well also be affecting the durability of the Thoroughbred: horses are making fewer starts. Though not always the case, these stunted careers are often a result of soundness issues. Regardless, more money awaits in the breeding shed and sales ring—a major catalyst in the short careers we so often see of today’s racehorses.

Because the sales are an incredibly important part of the industry, they assume major responsibility of our horses, as well. Earlier this year, America’s top auction houses banned the use of off-label bisphosphonates—certainly a step in the right direction. But what about surgeries performed to alter young horses’ limbs in order to artificially enhance their appearance? What about masking irregularities? Buyers should be able to be confident that they are purchasing horses that will be sound athletes.

Just how durable and sound are the horses we’re breeding if we’re mating horses with few races under their belt and known soundness issues? How sound are the horses we’re sending to the track if their physical preparation for the sales has been more focused on “looking commercial” than crafting an athlete?

Are our “best practices” doing enough to ensure the safety of our horses?

The tragically significant increase in deaths of racehorses this year at Santa Anita has certainly led to an increase in safety protocols and their improvement—and not just at that particular racetrack. But are they enough?

Are the pre-race exams performed by state veterinarians meticulous enough to detect issues that would deem a race day scratch? Some states don’t even require race day examinations of all horses by the state vet. . . Yet again, racing’s lack of uniformity is compromising the insurance of our horses’ safety.

Are we confident that our track surfaces are safe enough? Is a return to synthetic surfaces the answer?

Are we making enough change on the medication front?

The medication debate in racing is never-ending. Whether it be discussions over Lasix, bisphosphonates, horsemen with bad reputations and long rap lists, and the discrepancies in drug testing and investigations, medication is a constant issue in the horse racing industry—and one relevant to each of the questions raised above.

This is a matter greatly affected by racing’s lack of uniformity; medication rules vary state to state. Again, this is all the more reason to support the Horseracing Integrity Act.

In addition to that, it can be argued that reliance on various medications is affecting the durability of the breed. And medication absolutely plays a factor in the safety of the sport. Beyond that, our medication issues are among the biggest factors giving the sport a black eye in the public’s view.

How can we improve aftercare?

I’ll admit that this is an area in which the industry has made huge strides, but, of course, there is always room for improvement. The Thoroughbred Aftercare Alliance and the various organizations accredited by that nonprofit do an outstanding job of improving the aftercare of ex-racehorses, and organizations and events like the Retired Racehorse Project have made their mark by making off-the-track Thoroughbreds more marketable.

On an individual basis, many trainers and owners leave notes on the papers of horses that pass through their hands that provide contact information should those horses ever need help finding a home when their career is over. Efforts of this variety from horsemen are what the industry needs more of in order to further insure that the equine athletes that give so much to us land in a good spot following their racing careers. How can we encourage more horsemen to contribute to the safekeeping of our horses post-career?

I don’t have the answers, and I’m fully aware that an abundance of other issues exist in this industry—ranging from how we are marketing the sport, how we are taking care of our handicappers, you name it. But this is about the horse. Without the horses, there is no industry. And as far as a generous portion of the general public is concerned, if racing continues down the path it is on, there is no industry. 

The Jockey Club’s “Vision 2025” and its support of the Horseracing Integrity Act (H.R. 1754) are exactly the kind of causes this industry needs to rally behind. Rather than being reactive, this industry needs to be aggressive about implementing change. 

These answers and these issues are worth addressing. I’m in this for the horse. We should all be in this for the horse. And our horses deserve better.

x