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
