It's undeniable that one of horse racing's most persistent troubles is perception; the belief among many of those in the public who don't like or watch racing (and some who do) that American owners and trainers are drugging, beating and abusing these animals for fun and profit.
It doesn't help when the people who are covering the sport can't get the story straight.
In the Oct. 6
New York Times, writer
Joe Drape (a
Media Eclipse Award winner) recounts the story of
I Want Revenge, the 2009 Kentucky Derby favorite who was scratched on race day. The injury that prompted the scratch has since spurred a lawsuit.
IEAH Stables -- which
bought a half-interest in the Stephen Got Even colt in a blockbuster deal ($1.75 million plus a 25 percent share in IEAH's 2-year-old champion filly
Stardom Bound) from owner
David Lanzman only days before I Want Revenge's
huge performance in winning the Wood Memorial -- claims the horse's injuries were not disclosed to IEAH leading up to the Derby scratch.
Drape's story is headlined -- and claims to illustrate -- that the "
Lawsuit Sheds Light on Use of Legal Medications in Horses."
But after reading it, and some supposedly supporting evidence, I feel like Drape and the Times actually left people in the dark.
Drape's lead paragraph claims that the court case exposes "the fault lines of administering legal drugs to America's thoroughbreds." But from what I can tell -- and certainly from most of what Drape has written -- the lawsuit is much more about honesty and full disclosure in business dealings than the doping of this or any horse. The legal medications administered to I Want Revenge are but bit players in this story.
Drape writes that IEAH alleges that I Want Revenge was "ailing as early as April 7" and that Lanzman failed to disclose the injuries to his co-owners. Lanzman denies the charge. Veterinarians have testified that the colt was treated with substances including
hyaluronic acid (a joint treatment) and
corticosteroids (anti-inflammatory meds) between the Wood and his Derby scratch. And apparently, IEAH wasn't aware of his medical needs.
Drape's first cringeworthy moment in the story comes early, when he writes that I Want Revenge's ankle "was injected with what amounted to new transmission fluid."
Now, I know the horse was not injected with transmission fluid. Heaven help me, I hope
you know the horse wasn't really injected with transmission fluid. But if there's anything an award-winning New York Times reporter should have learned by now, it's that a certain number of his audience are, in short, idiots. I suspect that somebody, somewhere has forwarded this story to animal rights advocates worldwide with a subject header akin to "Horse shot up with transmission fluid to keep him racing!!!!!!"
It's a horrible analogy, not particularly apropos, and needlessly inflammatory. And that's actually what prompted me to dig deeper into Drape's reporting.
What I found is that his story gets worse. That's because Drape claims the lawsuit is evidence of everything except what it really is -- a case of partners allegedly not communicating.
Writes Drape: "Regardless of the outcome of the dispute, the treatments are a striking example of how the use, and overuse, of legal medications have placed America's thoroughbred population at ever greater risk of injury and, in some cases, catastrophic breakdown."
A scathing accusation. So how about some evidence? Drape doesn't really provide it, namely because the sources he cites -- and to which the Times' Web site links directly -- don't particularly say what Drape claims that they do.
Drape writes: "There is a growing concern within the veterinary community that overmedication -- with drugs like corticosteroids, anti-inflammatories that can have dangerous consequences -- and lax oversight are part of the reason the United States has the world's worst mortality rate for thoroughbreds." His cited evidence, a link to this report, called "
Putting the Horse First: Veterinary Recommendations for the Safety and Welfare of the Thoroughbred Racehorse."
That report indeed addresses medications and veterinary care, namely the need for consistent standards across jurisdictions and a more thorough and accurate means of monitoring those standards. It also addresses the public's perception of racing and the need for the industry to put horse welfare first in order to maintain a positive image.
But it's a nine-page paper, including three that serve as a cover sheet, a history and mission statement of the
American Association of Equine Practitioners (which wrote the report) and a partial page including some of the veterinarians' names associated with the work. And in the roughly five and a half pages of content, the paper also addresses: 2-year-old racing; claiming races; the need for the industry to provide for retired horses; mandated rest periods of at least 10 days for all horses between races; the growing influence of "racinos" that are managed by people who don't understand horses and their needs; the need for continuing education for everyone from jockeys, trainers and stewards to track security officers. ... In other words, it's a catch-all paper that is not primarily nor even largely related to supplying the evidence Drape claims it provides.
In fact, not once in nine pages does that paper mention the mortality rate of U.S. thoroughbreds involved in racing, let alone as compared to other nations, though Drape cites it as supporting documentation for his making that comparison. And not once in the two pages that paper allots to the "veterinarian-owner-trainer relationship" and the subject of medications, including race-day meds, does the document even reference, let alone specifically make the claim, that "overmedication" or "lax oversight" of medication rules "are part of the reason the United States has the world's worst mortality rate for thoroughbreds."
The paper provides virtually no evidence for Drape's statements. And I can't figure out why he would believe or claim that it does.
Yet this is a mistake that Drape makes twice.
Later in the story, Drape writes: "There is a consensus among equine researchers and surgeons that legal medications and cortisone shots, over time, leave a horse vulnerable to a catastrophic breakdown."
He then throws gas on that lighted matchstick by citing the U.S. breakdown rate -- 1.47 per 1,000 starts for synthetic tracks and 2.03 per 1,000 starts on dirt, according to the
Kentucky Horse Racing Commission -- which indeed are higher numbers than he cites for England (0.8 to 0.9 per 1,000 starts) and Australia (0.44 per 1,000 starts).
But again, a paper Drape cites doesn't measure up to his claims.
In this case, Drape
links to a report submitted to the
Subcomittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, part of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce of the
U.S. House of Representatives. That report is the testimony of
Susan M. Stover, DVM, Ph.D., and professor at the
J.D. Wheat Veterinary Orthopedic Research Laboratory at the
University of California at Davis School of Veterinary Medicine.
The report is attributed only to Stover. In it, she refers to herself in the first person, singular, when offering
her insights.
I don't know about you, but I've never heard of a one-person "consensus." Or perhaps the "consensus" Drape claims is composed only of himself and Susan Stover -- whom he did not apparently contact nor directly quote for his story, only linking to her testimony.
I'm not suggesting Dr. Stover isn't an expert on this issue; undeniably, she is. I'm suggesting that Drape is unduly and improperly using her report as evidence that her thoughts speak for the bulk of equine veterinary practitioners.
Worse, Drape links to Stover's testimony specifically to support his story's claim that "legal medications and cortisone shots, over time, leave a horse vulnerable to a catastrophic breakdown." But while Stover does note that most catastrophic breakdowns are due to musculoskeletal injuries that often worsen over time and with repetition, she barely touches on the possibility that legal medications are intentionally or inadvertently masking injuries that should keep a horse from racing. In 10 pages, Stover writes one, inconclusive sentence on the subject:
"However, the
potential for permitted medications to mask mild injury and to contribute to injury development
needs to be assessed." (Emphasis mine.)
Stover later -- as part of an eight-point sentence on improving horse welfare that ranges from racing surfaces and workout patterns to hoof angles and toe grabs -- tosses in
just five more words about legal medications, advocating for the "reconsideration" of some race-day medications, none of which she lists by name. In fact, the word "cortisone," nor any part thereof, never appears anywhere in Stover's testimony, though Drape cites Stover's testimony as support for his claim that "cortisone shots ... leave a horse vulnerable to a catastrophic breakdown."
These two attempts by Drape to bolster his story with outside sources that don't or that just barely, with a measure of imagination, provide the evidence he claims are, at the very kindest, shabby reporting.
But Drape's effort to tie I Want Revenge to claims that the drug culture of the racetrack is killing horses would fall apart even without these weak links. That's because the story of I Want Revenge is actually the opposite of what Drape claims it to be -- a case that supposedly shows how horses are doped to keep them racing.
Why? ... Because I Want Revenge
didn't race.
As noted prior, Drape's story says that IEAH claims I Want Revenge "was ailing as early as April 7." That date is not only after the date that IEAH bought its 50 percent interest in the horse,
which was reported on March 30.
It was three days after he won the Wood Memorial. So Drape provides no evidence at all that I Want Revenge was kept performing (let alone at so high a level) by using legal medications that permitted him to race right through an injury. Nor does it appear that IEAH is making such a claim.
The story here is that I Want Revenge
didn't race when he was hurt. He wasn't fit to go, veterinarians made that determination, and his trainer,
Jeff Mullins, scratched the horse from the biggest race in America, the Kentucky Derby, in which I Want Revenge was favored.
Of course, there's no scathing story in "Vet and Trainer Make Right Choice for Horse."
It might be argued that the connections and their vets should've figured out what was wrong with I Want Revenge sometime during the month leading up to his race-morning scratch, but that isn't the case IEAH appears to be making in court. Nor does it seem that IEAH is claiming that the treatments of the horse were improper, detrimental to the horse, or undertaken to keep them from realizing that the horse was hurt. IEAH is simply saying that it bought into a horse -- for a princely sum -- and was not kept informed of the condition and welfare of their living, breathing investment until such point that he was scratched from the Derby and the colt's unsoundness was undeniable. In fact, IEAH claims it
asked Lanzman directly about a Derby Eve rumor that the colt would be scratched and that Lanzman was dishonest by denying the rumor, a claim Lanzman denies.
That makes for a good story. Such claims lead one to question the honesty and transparency of the back side at America's racetracks, and whether even the richest owners who have millions invested are really kept up to speed with what's going on with their horses. And actually, the writer does a very good job of detailing the facts and claims that IEAH has presented regarding
that aspect of the case.
It just isn't the story Joe Drape told you he was telling.
Posts
