-
Available Subscriptions
RIU
1,715 topics in this forum
-
- 0 replies
- 625 views
-
- 0 replies
- 614 views
-
- 0 replies
- 556 views
-
- 0 replies
- 558 views
-
- 0 replies
- 560 views
-
- 0 replies
- 584 views
-
- 0 replies
- 555 views
-
- 0 replies
- 579 views
-
- 0 replies
- 561 views
-
- 0 replies
- 630 views
-
- 0 replies
- 649 views
-
- 0 replies
- 564 views
-
- 0 replies
- 429 views
-
- 0 replies
- 407 views
-
- 0 replies
- 385 views
-
- 0 replies
- 405 views
-
- 0 replies
- 673 views
-
- 0 replies
- 421 views
-
- 0 replies
- 380 views
-
- 0 replies
- 418 views
-
- 0 replies
- 374 views
-
- 0 replies
- 504 views
-
- 0 replies
- 455 views
-
- 0 replies
- 572 views
-
- 0 replies
- 375 views
Announcements
-
Posts
-
By Spatchcock · Posted
Another great night of entertainment. And all the more enjoyable because Brodie doesn't get it or understand it, and has to cry about it. Like EVERY. SINGLE. OTHER. THING. -
By Wandering Eyes · Posted
Earlier this month, the Association for Racing Commissioners International (ARCI) issued a 28-page report assessing the effectiveness of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) after three years of operations. The report covers a lot of ground, including the federal authority's approach to collecting and calculating its equine fatality statistics. In this regard, the ARCI identified several points of concern, namely: That “there has been no uniform reporting policy governing how this data is collected and maintained.” That in 2024, HISA reported thirteen fewer equine deaths than those officially recorded by HISA regulated state commissions. That the number of starters used by HISA to calculate fatality rates differs with those used by individual states and by Equibase. This is no small matter. Pretty much since Eight Belles's fatal breakdown in the 2008 Kentucky Derby, the sport's equine safety record has been under an unflinching public microscope. An overall declining equine fatality rate since then, however, has been one of racing's counterpoints. With this in mind, the TDN dug into the ARCI's findings. The result is a mix of explanations driven by what appears to be the vagaries of different bureaucratic approaches and a suggested pathway to avoid such problems in the future. Data Parameters Before launching into the mechanics of the program, it's important to outline what constitutes a racing or training fatality: Racing fatality: Horses that die or are euthanized within 72 hours of a race as a direct result of injuries sustained participating in a race. Training fatality: Horses that die or are euthanized within 72 hours of an injury directly sustained during training. In both cases, it includes injured horses who are transported to a barn or referral hospital and subsequently euthanized. Since the advent of HISA, every track is supposed to have a designated safety director. That person is required to report to HISA any relevant death of a “covered horse” within 24 hours. They input this info into an online portal, including information like the horse's name, date of death, and whether it's a racing or a training fatality. (The designation of “covered horse” is a key wrinkle that will be elaborated upon in a bit). That reporting timeframe isn't always met, however. Sometimes HISA will be alerted of a fatality through other avenues, like the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU) during their sample collection processes. “If we go back and see that that fatality hasn't been reported to us, we usually give a grace period of a couple of days beyond the 24-hour required timeframe,” says Anjali Salooja, HISA's director of operations, strategy and research, explaining how, in that event, she will typically reach out to the safety director directly. Either way, at the end of each quarter, HISA puts together a letter that goes to each safety director, detailing each fatality recorded during that period along the following parameters (among others): whether it was a racing or training event, the name of the horse, the date of death, and whether the injury was musculoskeletal, sudden death or neither of the two. “We require each safety director to certify to us that they agree with all of the information provided to them,” says Salooja. “Sometimes there is a back and forth if folks have different details. [For example], the musculoskeletal versus sudden death classifications. There might be some questions around that.” HISA apparently takes other steps to double-check the numbers. Every “covered horse” that dies during racing or training is now required to undergo a necropsy. “The HISA vet team uses those necropsies as a reference point to go back and compare,” says Salooja. When it comes to the annual data, HISA also cross-references its numbers with the Jockey Club. Despite the two organizations using different processes to collect their data, “our ratios have been across the board the same, both on an annual basis as well as by racetrack,” says Salooja. Why the discrepancies identified by the ARCI, therefore? Discrepancies In its report, the ARCI found differences between individual commissions and HISA's 2024 equine fatality numbers in the following states: California (19 state, 16 HISA), Indiana (3 state, 2 HISA), Iowa (6 state, 5 HISA), Maryland (10 state, 9 HISA), New Mexico (6 state, 3 HISA), and New York (15 state, 11 HISA). According to Salooja, a key reason for these discrepancies comes down to the definition of HISA's “covered horse”: one that has completed a timed workout at a regulated facility. The horse remains “covered” until its retirement is officially recorded. An easy way to remember what constitutes a HISA-related racing or training fatality, says Salooja, “is a covered horse in a covered race at a covered racetrack.” This opens the door, says Salooja, to a horse's death being recorded by an individual state but not by HISA, like horses who have not recorded their first workout, a pony's death, or those that occur in mixed-breed or non-Thoroughbred races. “We've seen this come up at Los Alamitos which does mixed-Thoroughbred races,” says Salooja. The ARCI also found differences in the number of starters used by HISA to calculate the fatality rate with those used by state commissions and by Equibase. “In 2024, the total number of Thoroughbred starters officially recorded in the states regulated by HISA was 175,918. HISA claims 178,564. Equibase claims 180,761,” the ARCI reports. One explanation for those differences, says Salooja, is that HISA doesn't count mixed-breed races among these totals. (Note: the TDN followed up to see if there were other factors that might explain the different numbers. HISA responded with the following emailed answer: “We cannot opine on the ARCI's process and how they calculated the numbers in their report, but we can confirm that The Jockey Club conducted a separate process from ours and reported 0.90 racing-related fatalities per 1,000 starts for racetracks subject to HISA's rules in 2024. HISA's starts reflect only those races that are subject to our rules.”) Do these explanations account for the discrepancies identified in the ARCI report? “Could their explanation be valid in some places? I don't know without going back. But our numbers were based on what we asked the racing commissions for or what they had published,” said the ARCI's president, Ed Martin, when caught Thursday morning at the American Quarter Horse Association conference. Martin added: “My point in drawing attention to the discrepancy is that everybody ought to get on the same page.” What would help achieve that end, therefore? Presentation of the Stats Because HISA is not bound by Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requirements, the public relies upon what the organization makes available. And the fatality data HISA outlines has grown progressively more detailed over the years. Indeed, the latest quarterly report provides a good overview of (among other things) states, tracks, racing vs. training, causes and injury type. Beginning in 2026, the organization will weave in other fatality-related information including the condition of the racetrack and some race-types (like a claiming race). Even so, HISA still doesn't publicly relay this information at its most granular level, which is to list the specific horse that suffers a catastrophic injury, as well as other key details related to the event. In other words, a database like that maintained in California and New York. A fully transparent national system like that would go a long way to clearing up any confusion. But it doesn't appear as though that's on the cards–at least not any time soon. “That's not to say that [couldn't happen] at some point in the future,” says Salooja. “But we haven't made an organization-wide decision yet as to whether we're ready to launch that for the public yet.” Are there any legal obstacles precluding HISA from doing that? “I'm not an expert in this, but as far as I understand it, there are some confidentiality considerations around the possession and transmission of horse-related medical information,” says Salooja. “I think before we got to the point where we were sharing that kind of information, we would want to have further discussions with our vet and legal team about that,” she adds. “But as you said, California and New York are doing it, so at least in some jurisdictions it's permissible.” The post HISA’s Fatality Stats: A Look Under the Hood appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions. View the full article -
By Spatchcock · Posted
it's 100 shares (10% of the horse) for $150 apiece ($15,000). Perhaps you should apologise for your slander. -
I think a lot of people do not realise that your banter is just that, banter with a sharp edge. Huey does, Freda does and so does Curious I think many of them are afraid of having their intellect or lack thereof exposed if they engage you. -
By Wandering Eyes · Posted
The two-minute win pool cutoff for computer-assisted wagering (CAW) bets that was implemented at Del Mar Thoroughbred Club over the summer in an effort to stabilize late odds fluctuations won't be in effect when the Southern California track hosts the Breeders' Cup Oct. 31 and Nov. 1, a spokesperson for the championships confirmed to TDN on Thursday. Back on July 29, in response to growing clamor among non-CAW bettors about the outsized role that CAW players had in driving a spate of marked late odds changes at Del Mar during the first two weeks of the meet, Del Mar president Josh Rubinstein said in a press release that the implementation of the cutoff was “part of an overall effort to ensure an optimal wagering experience for fans on-track, at simulcast locations and those playing via our advanced deposit wagering partners.” As TDN's Dan Ross reported at the time, the controversy involving CAW players typically surrounds the major edge they wield over regular gamblers because of their use of sophisticated technologies and specialized pool access that allows them to place massive wagers across nearly all pools in the final seconds of betting, as well as the attractive rebates offered to them that are unavailable to the average horseplayer. Other tracks, like those run by the New York Racing Association (NYRA), have had similar CAW policies in place since 2021. While Del Mar's cutoff only applies to win pools, (the most visible of all wagering pools), non-CAW horseplayers have hailed the decision as at least a step in the right direction toward mitigating the influence of CAW money. When Santa Anita Park opened for its fall meet last month, it continued the two-minute cutoff that Del Mar had initiated on the same circuit. On Oct. 16, when Rubinstein appeared before the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) to discuss the track's licensure for the upcoming meet, CHRB vice chair Oscar Gonzales asked him if the CAW win-pool cutoff policy would extend into the track's upcoming late-fall meet that includes the Breeders' Cup championships. “So that will continue for our fall meet,” Rubinstein said. “Related to the Breeders' Cup, that is a decision that they will need to make.” Considering that the two-day championships are just two weeks away and that such a significant logistical decision had likely already been made, TDN reached out to the Breeders' Cup to get better clarity. A Breeders' Cup spokesperson replied with the following statement, which was not attributed to any specific Breeders' Cup executive: “Fortunately, due to the substantial liquidity in our multi-million-dollar wagering pools, the late odds fluctuations that frustrate horseplayers have not been an issue at the World Championships, including last year at Del Mar. “In addition, the competitive nature of our races–with full fields of the best runners from around the globe–has historically provided recreational players with great betting value and opportunities for generous returns.” On social media, non-CAW horseplayers have been opining and debating for weeks whether or not the two-minute ban at Del Mar would apply to the Breeders' Cup championships, with some bettors suggesting they might not wager on the races if no cutoff will be in effect. The post No 2-Minute CAW Cutoff In Win Pools For Breeders’ Cup at Del Mar appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions. View the full article
-
-
Topics
-
