Letter To The Editor: Jena Antonucci

[Wandering Eyes]

As the global racing industry returns to its respective corners following the Breeders' Cup World Championships, the same drum is beating once again: “Regulatory vets are terrible. They have too much power. My horse is sound–we imaged them, we've had no issues, and we wouldn't send them if they weren't 100%.”

The truth is, all of those statements can be true at the same time–and often are.

Whether you're a casual fan, a critic, or a lifelong racing supporter, you could easily walk away from this spectacular week thinking that top horsemen and horsewomen train lame horses and don't even know it. Statistically, nearly 10% of the top horses in the world were scratched due to soundness issues according to the regulatory veterinary process, with press releases coming out faster than Krispy Kreme's “Hot Now” donuts. That optic isn't good for anyone–not for the industry, and most importantly, not for the horse.

I have the unique perspective of having worn all the hats in this debate–veterinary world experience, trainer, and participant–and one thing I know is that everyone needs to stop talking at each other and start talking to each other about solutions. So, here's my start.

I don't envy the regulatory veterinarians. Their job is incredibly difficult, and as a trainer, I've experienced the heartbreak of scratching from the Breeders' Cup myself. I also navigate the daily nuances of racing rules and HISA regulations.

Hear me out.

One simple step toward improvement–and a place where HISA already provides the framework–is this: regulatory veterinary exam comments should be visible in the HISA portal to the connections of each horse. These notes shouldn't be secret.

I support HISA–not blindly, but constructively. I support the effort to keep improving it, to make it better for our horses and our industry. I'm well aware of its shortcomings, believe me. But since HISA's inception, we've steadily built comprehensive veterinary records for our horses–records that regulatory vets access and review regularly. These records belong to the horses, and by extension, to their owners.

If a regulatory veterinarian has a medical opinion about one of my horses, I want to know it. I value their professional judgment–even if I don't always agree. The idea that medical information flows only one way doesn't align with our shared goal of putting the horse first.

Making regulatory notes accessible to trainers would turn the temperature down immediately. It removes guesswork and dispels the perception of bias–the notion that “a certain vet has it out for a certain trainer.” Transparency would help us focus on what really matters: the horse.

Will regulatory vets be right 100% of the time? Of course not. None of us are. But hiding their notes from trainers doesn't help anyone, least of all the horses.

In closing: we can't keep shouting “transparency” from the rooftops while winking on the side and playing pin the tail on the donkey. If we want a stronger, more accountable industry–for owners, bettors, fans, and above all, the horses–we can do better. And we must.

The post Letter To The Editor: Jena Antonucci appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

View the full article