Horse Welfare, Safety Discussed at Keeneland Summit

Six years after its launch, with detailed statistical information on 2.2 million starts and 150,000 horses, The Jockey Club's Equine Injury Database (EID) is now robust enough that it can predict with ever-increasing accuracy which specific data markers contribute to an increased risk for a catastrophic injury in Thoroughbred races.

“We're kind of getting there. At the moment our models are topping out around 65% [accuracy],” Dr. Tim Parkin, senior lecturer and associate academic at the University of Glasgow, said at the Welfare and Safety of the Racehorse Summit at Keeneland Association in Lexington on Wednesday.

“I've got to say how encouraged I've been by the U.S. situation where we've been enabled to take this step and use these models to see if we can actually predict with any success which horses we should be interested in prior to a race in terms of their risk of ending up with a fatal injury at the end of a race,” Parkin said.

“We're in a really positive position where we've got so much information that we're able to model the data in such a way to produce predictive models to…better inform people on the ground,” Parkin said, explaining that the database of racing injuries now encompasses 94 % of all starts in North America between 2009 and 2014.

But Parkin, who oversees the management of the EID, also said he thinks the industry can do better than the current 65% prediction rate, because he doesn't truly believe the other unaccounted-for 35% of variability in outcomes is totally random and unpredictable.

“We're never going to get to 100% here, but I'm sure that we can improve on this by including other variables in the models,” Parkin said. “Those confidences are becoming tighter and tighter, and that's simply because we have more information…There's much less uncertainty now that we have six years worth of data.”

Among the chief variables that currently factor highly into the EID predictive models are a horse's previous appearance on the EID, a previous appearance on a state vet's list, the time a horse has spent with the same trainer, race distance, race surface, previous race history, a drop in claiming price, and the age of the horse.

An even larger pool of data will enable the EID to branch out into multi-variable predictive models.

As an example, Parkin pointed out that shorter sprints in the U.S. can lead to an increased risk of injury. But is it the race distance itself or the fact that such races are run in quick bursts over a typically dirt surface truly causes the increased risk?

“Speed is a yet-unmeasured variable, but [it's] likely to have an impact on likelihood of risk,” Parkin said. “In the UK we see a very different pattern. We see an opposite direction where actually longer races are associated with an increased risk of fatal injury. In the U.S., we actually see the reverse, it's those short, less-than six-furlong, races that show the greatest risk, probably related to speed but also partially related to surface.

Parkin continued: “Modeling these things together enables us to tease out which of the two risk factors is actually most important, and which one should be potentially the target for intervention or modification if we want to do something about the likelihood of horses ending up with a fatal injury.”

The data pool is also large enough now that Parkin said some common myths can be factually disputed, such as the thought that is prevalent among some in the Thoroughbred industry that horses that race too young are prone to injuries.

“This perception that you shouldn't be racing 2-year-olds, I have to say again and again, it's a total misperception,” Parkin said. “The earlier you start racing a horse the better for their long-term career in terms of their bone health. I'm not saying that you should hammer a 2-year-old too frequently, but certainly exercise at an early age is a good thing for the racehorse, and this is borne out by these data.”

One finding that Parkin noted was that the risk of injury for increases “quite dramatically” for a horse's first race with a new trainer. The reasons for this are not quite clear, but it could be related to the high turnover related to claiming races.

“Regardless of the age of the horse, the longer a trainer keeps the same horse, then the safer that relationship is going to be,” Parkin said, citing a 60% greater risk for injury for horses racing for the first time with a trainer compared to a horse that has been under the same trainer's care for four years.

“It's important to know that when a trainer takes on a new horse, that individual horse is immediately at greater risk, simply because you have less knowledge about the individual background of that individual horse, and you need to be a little bit wary about how you enter those horses into races.”

Parkin said there was only a 2% difference in the increased risk of injury for a horse dropping more than $10,000 in claiming price (16%) compared to a horse dropping for less than $10,000 (14%).

“Those percentages aren't enormous,” Parkin said. “Nevertheless, it's a highly significant variable with a moderate impact.”

He said the claiming aspect needs more study to see what other variables might be involved.

“We have to recognize there are bound to be a lot of local factors that are simply missed by the EID or not recorded at all,” Parkin said. “But it does underline the importance of local knowledge…Understanding something about the local knowledge at these different tracks is critical and certainly shouldn't be underestimated,” he said.

“There are bound to be unmeasured variables that we haven't taken into account, and there are tons of them if you think about it,” Parkin added, pointing to detailed training records, medical records, and a horse's race-day health status as examples of current unknowns.

“Things that we don't have access to are bound to be associated with risk,” Parkin said. “The availability of medical and treatment records, we believe, is critical.”

Jockey Injury Database Must Keep Pace…
Humans and horses are obviously different. But in terms of trying to keep them both safe on the racetrack, Dr. Carl Mattacola, an associate professor and division director of athletic training at the University of Kentucky, said it's important to think of the Jockey Injury Database (JID) and the Equine Injury Database (EID) as twin works-in-progress whose continued evolution can only benefit each other.

”Think of jockeys, in essence, the same as we do with an equine–as a high-performance athlete,” said Mattacola.

“We've had some really good momentum in the last year,” Mattacola said. “The database numbers have continued to increase. People, and particularly the jockeys, are more aware of [the fact that] this information is really there to help them, and the Jockeys' Guild has been working tirelessly to look at equipment modifications.”

But, Mattacola cautioned, the progress achieved so far by the JID is not yet close to reaching its full potential, primarily because participation in the JID is entirely voluntary among North American racing jurisdictions.

“In the U.S. we're quite a bit behind Australia and the United Kingdom as far as having a systematic way of assessing injury data relative to the jockey and horse together,” Mattacola said. “Until you know the types of injuries and the trends relative to injuries, it's very difficult to offer an intervention and see if it worked.”

And when compared to other team sports that the industry often tries to emulate, a lack of standardized first-responder practices keeps a more complete cohesion of care from taking root.

“So if you think of standard of care in other sports, there are expectations for emergency management in football, baseball, soccer; everywhere from middle school to high school to college and professional sports,” Mattacola said. “And that's not always the case in racing, which I have found interesting. The medical personnel at a track vary quite differently [from jurisdiction to jurisdiction].”

Mattacola continued: “It's much more of a challenge in the racing industry because the organization is set so much more on a state-by-state level. So it's been a challenge for me to continue to grow the participation in this database.”

One point Mattacola said he especially wanted to get across to increase racetrack participation in the JID is that the information he gathers for the database is fully anonymized. He said tracks should not be scared away from participating out of unfounded fears they'd be sued for negligence or liability.

“This is all unidentified data. So when we receive this information, all we have is they types of injuries and information relative to the types of injuries,” Mattacola explained. “I have no idea what track it came from, no idea what jockey was involved. Basically we are just looking at the numbers. I know that's been an issue in the past…with concerns that the information could be used against a track. So if that's an issue, as you're going back and working with folks in your own regions and jurisdictions, if you could help us help you, we would appreciate it very much.”

Now that the JID is on the cusp of surpassing 700 incidents collected since 2012, Mattacola said he is able to draw some preliminary conclusions.

• The 699 incidents in database represent any report in which the jockey “came off the horse,” whether in the paddock, post parade, starting gate, or running during a warm-up, race, or gallop-out.
•Of those 699 incidents, 232 resulted in some form of jockey injury.
•Of all incidents, 50% were classified as “non-breakdown” incidents. Incidents specifically attributed to “breakdowns” represented 20%.
•The most common jockey injuries were fractures, strains and sprains. Concussions represented 8.5 percent of reported injuries.

“Of those that were injured, 80% did not return to ride the same day, 20% returned to ride the same day. I think that's a really important stat,” Mattacola said.

“Much of the work that the Jockeys' Guild is doing relative to modifiable factors is looking at upper extremity and lower extremity padding, particularly helmets, as well as head and facial opportunities to improve protective gear. Right now the Jockeys' Guild is working with several companies to identify vests that are a little bit lighter and have increased force-reduction capabilities.”

Mattacola said one surprise in the JID that he will be following more closely as the database grows is a disparity in types of injuries between male and female jockeys.

In male jockeys, 6% of all injuries are concussions. In females, 33% of all injuries are concussions. Mattacola said lower-back injuries showed a similar lopsided distribution.

“That isn't anything I would hang my hat on yet,” Mattacola said. “I think as we continue to gather more information, we can make more substantive comparisons. I think [the difference between the sexes] is something that we can keep an eye on.”

Track Supers' Job: It's All About Reducing Injuries…
The first thing you have to do to understand the modern role of a track superintendent in preventing equine injuries is toss out the antiquated idea that the job primarily involves maintaining a racetrack and its facilities, Dr. Michael “Mick” Peterson Jr., the executive director of the Racing Surfaces Testing Laboratory, said at Wednesday's Welfare and Safety of the Racehorse Summit.

“I look at it as the responsibility of the track superintendent is to reduce musculoskeletal disease in the horse,” Peterson said. “That's a very different job from frontside maintenance, backside maintenance and track maintenance.”

Peterson, a mechanical engineer who has consulted with tracks nationwide and currently has nine racing associations implementing his specialized surface protocols and methods of data collection, moderated a panel of three superintendents that included Glen Kozak (vice president of facilities and racing surfaces for the New York Racing Association), Jamie Richardson (track superintendent at Churchill Downs) and Jim Pendergest (general manager at The Thoroughbred Center training facility near Lexington).

“Track surfaces are complicated, it's one of the reasons they are controversial,” said Peterson, who detailed the myriad variables involved in maintaining dirt, turf, and synthetic tracks while learning from an ever-growing database of measurements related to ground density, moisture, turn and straightway banking, plus wind and weather variables.

“This is the pre-takeoff checklist. This [is like] sitting there on the tarmac, waiting for the plane to take off and knowing you're ready for the race meet,” Peterson said. “We end up with a large matrix of data that we're taking every day at every track… [and] every day you have to adapt to the weather. That's the real challenge that superintendents are facing in their reduction of musculo-skeletal disease.”

But now matter how advanced daily maintenance techniques and long-term data mining become, Peterson pointed to one variable that most affects track maintenance, and, by extension, racehorse safety.

“There is one thing that we have verified that does matter immensely,” Peterson said. “Water, water and water is what matters on that track. Maintaining a wet racetrack, drainage on a turf track, irrigating a turf track, or using water trucks in maintenance. This is an overwhelming issue.”

The most important tool in their maintenance arsenals, the panelists agreed, is a probe that works by utilizing time-domain reflectometry (TDR) to measure sub-surface moisture content.

“For the expense of what a TDR probe is, I can't recommend that enough to tracks,” said Kozak, who said the readings it provides can pinpoint pockets of water or drainage trouble spots that aren't discernible by eyeballing a dirt track or turf course. “Our testing is probably one of the biggest things that we push for. We're testing so much more than we ever have in the past.”

Kozak detailed how NYRA is in the midst of wrapping up a two-year “seven figure” investment in a turf irrigation system at Saratoga that will completely replace the outdated manual watering system for the Spa's twin turf courses. He explained it was “challenging to say the least” to effectively water both courses properly in the brief window of time between a long Saturday racing program and the start of Sunday morning training.

Once the Saratoga installation is completed this fall, a similar system will be installed at Belmont Park, where the watering of the dual turf courses is complicated by their vast expanse and a complex array of hedges, gaps and rails.

Collectively, the track superintendents agreed that the perception that tracks will “soup up” a main dirt track prior to a big day of racing is difficult to live down, even though that's exactly the opposite of what they are trying to achieve.

“For us, we try and approach [GI Belmont S. Day] as any other day with the racetrack being prepped correctly,” Kozak said. “We want to fly under the radar and have it consistent day in and day out, and one of the things that certainly has helped us do that is this maintenance database.”

Richardson agreed, adding that morning maintenance also has to be consistent.

“You never make everybody totally happy,” Richardson said. “A challenge in the morning at Churchill is opening the track at 6 a.m. for training and having it not too hard for the first set that goes out there, then not having it knee-deep by the break. There's a fine line. Consistency to me is key, and the information that we gain through data helps keep that consistency.”

Kozak added: “Every trainer is looking for something different, but at least if the track stays stable and consistent, they can work their patterns or their training accordingly.”

The phasing out of synthetic racing surfaces only got a passing mention during this panel, with general agreement that synthetics still have their place in the sport, even if only used as training tracks. As for actual racing, Turfway Park and Woodbine were cited as examples where the synthetic tracks still seem to work well.

Peterson pointed out that synthetic tracks are not as affected by moisture as dirt or turf courses. Synthetics, he said, are more prone to performance swings based on temperature.
Would NYRA ever consider adding a synthetic track, even if only for training?

“In New York, we're exploring all options at this point,” Kozak said. “We've certainly done our due diligence…I think once the timing with the privatization of NYRA [is complete] and the development of what takes place at Aqueduct and Belmont [is examined], we'd certainly look at all of our options. I think [a synthetic track] has a purpose and could be a useful tool for the trainers…We have the luxury at Belmont to be able to fit a synthetic inside the current configuration, but at this point we're just exploring what's out there.”

Post-Mortem Exams All About Teaching, Not Trying to 'Find Fault'…
The topic of whole-horse, full-life-cycle care has gained considerable traction within the racing industry over the past several years. While much of the attention has been focused on preventative measures in living Thoroughbreds, the area of post-mortem exams, necropsies, and fatality reporting also has a place in the equation, primarily as a teaching tool.

“A lot of times people think that pathologists are too late. We may be too late for one horse, but what we really need to focus on is the population,” said Dr. Laura Kennedy, an assistant professor and veterinary pathologist at the University of Kentucky Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory.

“One point I want to make is that this is a fact-finding effort,” said Dan Fick, a Racing Officials Accreditation Program board member and a track steward at Prairie Meadows. “It's problem solving. We're trying to eliminate the different factors so you can zero in on what may be the cause or causes. We're not trying to find fault. This isn't an inquisition. There are not going to be penalties assessed to the trainers or whoever might be involved. It's so in the future, we can eliminate catastrophic injuries.”

Those remarks, along with contributions from Dr. Mary Scollay, the equine medical director for the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, and Dr. Megan Romano, a KHRC veterinarian, were the underpinnings of a panel titled “Proper Diagnosis: Lessons learned from Post-Mortem Programs” that concluded Wednesday's Welfare and Safety of the Racehorse Summit.

Fick estimated that about half of the states in which pari-mutuel racing is legal have some form of necropsy or equine fatality review programs. But Kennedy detailed how fragmented those pathology protocols are. California, she said, has been doing post-mortem exams for 25 years, while states like Texas and Colorado are just coming to grips with implementing similar programs.

“It's very scattered,” Kennedy said. “There is very little communication between the laboratories. So we're trying to develop a working group, to kind of standardize things, get all the information, and see if we can't harvest the data as much as we can.”

The KHRC, Kennedy explained, has been working up pathology reports since 2008, starting with just in-race fatalities. But in 2012 the state began requiring necropsies for any equine death that occurs at a track, including those from colic, laminitis, or pneumonia.

“Those are a very useful control population,” Kennedy said of those fatalities that are not the result of a catastrophic injury. She detailed the process of what happens when a horse dies on KHRC-regulated property.

“At the time of the death of the horse, the horse becomes the property of the racing commission,” Kennedy said. “A unique identifier is put on the horse. They are then shipped to the laboratory, generally by a contractor. They come to the lab, but even before they get to the lab, communication is established between the racing commission and the laboratory.”

A KHRC vet certifies the causes of death using a fillable PDF form on a laptop or computer tablet. The form has dropdown boxes and spaces for the vet to enter comments.

“This has really helped us, because when something happens, [a vet] is not thinking about everything you need to write down. But if it's there on a form in front of you, it's a lot easier to do. It's very standardized,” Kennedy said.

At the pathology lab, the corpse gets a “standard gross examination” that includes detail on the condition of its internal organs.

If there has been a catastrophic injury, both the affected limb and the contralateral (opposite) limb are scrutinized in detail via digital radiography.

Kennedy said the opposite limb is examined because “when you're looking at the fractured limb, there's a lot of artifact within the injury, something that happens at the time of the fracture, and it's going to obscure a lot or pre-existing pathology. However, all of that is going to be visible in the contralateral limb….90 percent of these horses have pre-existing lesions, and [because] pathology is symmetric, [the same pre-existing conditions] will probably show up in the contralateral limb.”

Kennedy said pathologists would be wise to not just write up any pre-existing findings, but to document them with photographs.

“When you're tying to address a problem with a trainer and say, 'OK, this is what was going on with the horse,' numbers are great to put into our spreadsheets, but the photographs are what is really going to help you. So when I'm doing my exam, I am really thinking about the end user,” Kennedy said.

Kentucky, Kennedy said, is striving to use necropsy reports in a “start-to-finish” protocol that traces the lifespan of horses from birth to death.

Fick said it's essential that such documentation gets evaluated at the on-track level by a “catastrophic injury review” committee made up of horsemen, vets, racing officials, the racing secretary, and members of track management.

“There's a tremendous potential here to learn from the catastrophic injury review and especially from the necropsy report,” Fick said, emphasizing the need for standardization. “It's going to be essential that we get these necropsy programs doing it on the same basis so we've got comparable information from one jurisdiction to the next.”

Kennedy explained that hindrances to standardization include veterinary pathologists questioning a racing commission's request to do post-mortems in cases where the cause of death is “terribly obvious.” And some pathologists, she said, indicate that they feel the work is too complicated.

“That's really not what we need,” Kennedy said. “What we need are detailed exams and a minimum database from all of these horses, which is not rocket science…It's just a very thorough, well-documented exam…It isn't hard. It's detailed. It takes a lot of patience. But it's not a difficult thing as far as capabilities. If you're a capable pathologist, you can do this. And I think there are a lot of pathologists that would be very happy to have guidelines, so that's what I'm trying to do, trying to harmonize a little bit.”

Romano said she initially started attending post-mortem exams to help with the pre-race exams she gives to horses at the track on a daily basis. It's quite one thing to palpate a limb, she said, and another to be able to visibly see with her own eyes what a dissection reveals.

“Because we already do such a thorough exam, it didn't change at all my exam procedure,” Romano said. “But I've definitely become more consistent in recording the findings and really knowing what to call different things that are palpable in the standing horse.”

Romano concluded: “So where to go from here? I don't have all the answers. I mostly have questions. But I do know that there needs to be a collaborative effort. We've got a lot of ways to go still, but we're definitely on the right track.” –by T. D. Thornton