 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Location: Blogs Steve Eubanks |
 |
| Posted by: Steve Eubanks |
Monday, May 05, 2008 7:50 AM |
Another year, another dead horse: welcome to thoroughbred racing. OK, maybe it’s not that simple: Barbaro shocked us with a Joe Theismann moment a couple of years ago, and we were spared the gruesome close-ups of Eight Belles going down like she’d been shot after finishing second at the Kentucky Derby. But at some point the casual fan – the person who watches three horse races a year (Derby, Preakness, Belmont) – is going to recoil from animals dying in the shadow of sheiks’ turbans and women’s big hats.
Let’s review recent history, say, within the last two years:
Barbaro broke his leg in front of a zillion television viewers at the 2006 Preakness Stakes. Those viewers then got to see the injury replayed in slow-motion more times than anyone wanted. The horse was later euthanized.
Pine Island suffered a life-ending injury at the 2006 Breeder’s Cup and one of Europe's premier classic distance horses, George Washington, was put down after injuring a sesamoid bone and dislocated ankle during the 2007 Breeders Cup Classic at Monmouth Park.
Mending Fences broke his foot at Pimlico Park in 2007 and had to be euthanized, almost one year to the day after Barbaro's injury at the same racetrack.
Chelokee, who, ironically won the first Barbaro Cup, suffered a similar injury as Barbaro at the 2008 Alysheba Stakes at Churchill Downs, just one day before Eight Belles had to be put down while she laid suffering in the Louisville dirt.
Quick, name any other sport where five premier athletes have been killed and another has suffered a grave, life-threatening injury in competition in the last two years. NASCAR has lost one guy in the last decade and they added head-and-neck safety harnesses, soft walls, better seats, and in-car telemetry before finally changing cars altogether: all because of one freak accident. And Earnhardt knew the risks and had a choice in the matter. I didn’t see anyone telling Eight Belles as she entered the starting gate that she might not live through the next five minutes.
We’re not there yet, but another dead horse or two and thoroughbred racing is going to get lumped in with cock fighting as blood sport for callous and compulsive gamblers. Sure, it’s The Sport of Kings, but so were gladiator matches between Christians and lions. How did those turn out? Anybody remember?
|
|
| Permalink |
Trackback |
Comments (4)
Add Comment
|
Re: A Dying Derby |
By BvK on
Monday, May 05, 2008 11:38 AM |
| Whether you agree with Mr. Eubanks's thoughts or not, losing those big, beautiful creatures at the height of their prime is among the saddest elements of any sport. I am that casual fan who watches three races a year, yet I still mist up just thinking about Barbaro. Is there the possibility<br> that horses may be getting "juiced up" by their owners and that their legs can't handle the added weight? Seems these tragedies have been occurring more and more of late.... |
|
|
Re: A Dying Derby |
By Phil on
Monday, May 05, 2008 2:45 PM |
| I cannot understand why Churchill Downs won't follow Keeneland's lead and install the polytrack, especially after the last two years. |
|
|
Re: A Dying Derby |
By Carl Danbury on
Monday, May 05, 2008 7:47 PM |
| An injury to any "athlete" is an unfortunate circumstance. I agree with Phil about the synthetic surfaces as long as we can be sure that no long term effects result from inhaling the polymers that are contained in these "artificial" tracks. Even though I attended the Derby, I did not see the <br>resulting catastrophic event Saturday, but I sure did see Chelokee hobbling on three legs right in front of me on Friday. I also saw George Washington break down last year at the BC, as well as Pine Island the year before. It is so sad to witness these events and I certainly hope that the synthetic tracks will help. One statistic I would like to see is the number of injuries sustained on grass, the true natural surface for horses.<br><br>Dr. Larry Bramlage, who was at Churchill this weekend, said in an interview with Bloodhorse back in December the following:<br><br>"Typically, the synthetic surfaces are about seven inches deep, as opposed to three or four inches on a normal dirt track, and they have the same material all the way down. There is better consistency and depth. The main difference is that the synthetics are grabbier, so that the foot doesn’t slide as much."<br><br>And: "We are seeing that horses are less prone to catastrophic injuries. In general, there have been a decrease in fractures and an increase in soft-tissue injuries. But it has been a shift, not an elimination of either. People who thought that (artificial surfaces) would totally eliminate horses from breaking down were misinformed. Surprisingly, we are seeing a lot of foot soreness (on artificial surfaces). But we have seen catastrophic injuries markedly decrease at places like Turfway, Keeneland, and Del Mar.<br><br>"We have to examine all the data before we know where to go. It’s too early to anoint it the surface of the future. Nobody knows yet. With more uniform data we will find that out. The tracks that have made the switch to artificial surfaces were easily switched. Changes had to be made. But tracks (with conventional surfaces) like Churchill, Belmont, and Fair Grounds have been relatively good, so it’s a mistake to switch just because it’s popular<br>right now. I think we’re doing it the right way. We’re changing surfaces that needed it and we’ll continue to examine the data."<br><br>Said California Horse Racing Board Chairman Richard Shapiro: "Just look at the results,” said Shapiro. “Field sizes are up. Wagering, especially from out of state, has increased dramatically. We have hundreds more horses coming into the state from elsewhere. The barns are full; Santa Anita had a great meet (during Oak Tree); and Golden Gate Fields is doing terrific.<br><br>“No surface is going to be 100% perfect for animals as powerful as Thoroughbreds running on ankles little bigger than your wrist. But injuries are way down at each of the tracks with synthetic tracks. So overall, I’m ecstatic. I couldn’t be more pleased with the results.”<br><br>The jury is still out, but one thing we do in America that is forbidden in the UK are the drugs that horses are injected with. The UK doesn't allow drugs, period, while there is a long list of medications that are approved in the U.S. Maybe that is the root of the problem rather than the surfaces.<br><br>The only reason turf races become a problem is because of loss of revenue when those races scheduled for the turf can't be run. Otherwise, that is the best surface in my opinion.<br><br>Thanks for chiming in folks! |
|
|
Re: A Dying Derby |
By Carl Danbury on
Monday, May 05, 2008 7:48 PM |
| We need to fix this blog comment box. Tough to read isn't it? |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|