Vet Scratch Data: “I Guess I'm Still Stunned by the Attrition Rate”

Horse racing is a sport genetically programmed in high emotion. It's hardly surprising then that the vet scratch-the ultimate sucker-punch after weeks and months of best laid plans-should prove such a test of nerves.

The problem is, diagnosing subtle lameness can be such a subjective venture. And where there's uncertainty, doubt can quickly escalate to condemnation.

A recent TDN compendium of data collected from around the country, however, shows that scratched horses run a much higher than average risk of harboring an injury.

Numbers from California, Florida, New York, Kentucky and Washington State tell a similar tale: That horses scratched on race-day for unsoundness are notably more likely to face extended periods of time off than non-scratched horses. They typically take longer to get back on the work tab and the track of an afternoon. A significant number simply never make it back to competition.

Among those that crunched the numbers, a common refrain is affirmation. Among the trainers interviewed here, a sense perhaps of inevitability.

“If in fact the numbers they're reporting are true-which I assume they are-then what they're doing is helping,” said Dubai World Cup winning trainer, Mike Stidham.

Overall Reactions to the Numbers

“These were horses that, but for the regulatory scrutiny, would have participated in a race,' said Jennifer Durenberger, who was a New York Racing Association (NYRA) steward when she ran 2018 numbers from the state and subsequently presented them at an OwnerView conference.

From that 2018 New York data, 18% of the 125 horses scratched during the morning exam never raced again, while 16% of the race-day afternoon scratches failed to compete again.

“The question is: Would they have competed well, to the best of their ability? Or would they have perhaps aggravated something minor and made it become something major? I think the quality of life for these racehorses is improved by that regulatory scrutiny,” Durenberger added.

Dionne Benson crunched five years of data for Santa Anita and Gulfstream Park. She used the Equine Injury Database to screen for horses that were scratched for lameness the day of the race only, and found that between 26% and 29% of these horses never raced again.

For every horse scratched, Benson randomly selected a horse that made a start in the intended race as a means of comparison. Among this group, 4% and 5% never made a return to competition.

While intervention by official veterinarians will never be a perfect system, “if you were a major league batter, you'd take 50 percent. And I know that sounds flippant, but this is a hard job where you often have seconds to make a decision. And by and large, the vets are making the correct decision,” Benson said.

“I feel like our state veterinarians are doing a great job at identifying the at-risk horse, and the return to racing, return to high-speed work data I think supports that,” said Will Farmer, Churchill Downs equine medical director, who used the Equine Injury Database to screen for the same scratched horses as Benson.

At Churchill Downs, 32% of scratched horses never raced again, while 11% never worked again. The same stats for Turfway Park were 39% and 19%. For Ellis Park, they were 49% and 21% respectively.

Behind the overarching numbers, however, there are all sorts of ways to slice and dice the numbers to get a much more detailed picture of what's happening.

Synthetic surfaces are one clear reason that may affect a horse's return to racing, Farmer said. “Certainly, the data supports it being an overall safer racetrack.” Time of year can also skew the numbers. And so, how does the age of the horse factor?

“Based on time of year, are we seeing more 2-year-olds [scratched] in the fall? These are the late 2-year-olds that are maybe getting pushed harder to get a start in. Are the 2-year-old scratches higher in the spring, when they're trying to get them up and going? I think there's a really good research project there,” said Farmer.

“I guess I'm still stunned by the attrition rate,” said Mary Scollay, who was equine medical director of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission when she ran 10 years of vet scratch data (2000 to 2010) from Calder and Gulfstream Park.

Coady Media

From those numbers, Scollay found that 21.5% of the horses scratched for lameness on race-day never raced again. Scollay also tracked a group of horses from each race the scratched horse was omitted from and found that only 2.9% of these horses never raced again.

The landscape in which official veterinarians operate has evolved markedly since the years captured in Scollay's research project.

“There was a time when many examining veterinarians were employed by the racetracks alone,” said Scollay, who recalled an incident at a prominent Florida track many years ago, when she had scratched from a race the outright favorite.

“The president of the racetrack just casually stopped by the starting gate to let me know how much money I'd cost the racetrack,” she said. “I think most people who grew up in my era experienced such conversations.”

Still, as George Mundy, interim equine medical director of the Kentucky Horse Racing and Gaming Corporation, sees it, “Thoroughbred racing safety protocols are currently in their infancy.”

Mundy added that his “best analogy” is TSA screening. “Post 9/11, the TSA was created, and the air travel process changed forever. The TSA has implemented and refined, and in some cases eliminated, screening processes and procedures over time continuing to ensure and enhance the safety of air travel.”

Indeed, prior to the advent of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA), there were tracks that didn't even perform pre-race exams.

Furthermore, regulatory veterinarians are, if not exactly a rare species, highly sought after. While some tracks are well-served, others rip their hair out trying to find the personnel to cover even the most basic regulatory requirements. The thoroughness of race-day veterinary oversight, therefore, remains something a patchwork quilt nationwide.

What's to be done?

As to what can be done better right now in horse racing, Mundy sees as the “low hanging fruit” the overtly lame or the “not training just right” horse.

Catastrophic fractures aren't events that suddenly materialize overnight. Bone pathology is a progressive process that takes place over a matter of weeks, maybe months. It begins with tiny little micro-fractures in the bone that gradually grow under the cycle of daily training until something gives-unless someone intervenes first.

The problem is, this oftentimes very subtle bone remodeling process can be tough to identify clinically. On occasion, fresh perspective may identify those subtleties which may otherwise seem to be the norm. This dynamic is similar in effect to the parent of a toddler undergoing a growth spurt-it takes a visit from a distant grandparent to spot the difference in height.

Which is why Mundy is a proponent of maintaining a veterinary presence trackside during morning training-something several tracks and jurisdictions already do.

“Regulatory veterinary presence during training, in the short-term, while not making the system more efficient, would definitely have the most effect,” he said.

Again, however, tracks across the country are already struggling to recruit knowledgeable and experienced regulatory veterinarians to their ranks, said Farmer.

“While it would be great if everybody had four veterinarians for every racetrack available to watch horses, and be competent racetrack-based veterinarians, the reality is, from a financial and labor standpoint, most racetracks and jurisdictions aren't able to accomplish that,” he said.

Which is why Farmer sees advanced diagnostic technologies-like PET, MRI and CT units-as a key aid for the regulatory vet.

These technologies have proven significantly more adept at diagnosing brewing issues in problem areas like the fetlock and the condyles much earlier than more traditional imaging tools (think X-rays and nuclear scintigraphy).

“We can certainly feel confident that when those areas light up on a PET scan that that's significant,” said Farmer.

That said, these machines aren't designed to be a screening tool for lameness, but rather something to be deployed in conjunction with a clinical exam. For one, there are all sorts of factors-including the age of the horse, training style and its history-that might affect what shows up on the scan.

Benoit Photo

Which is why SoCal-based veterinarian Ryan Carpenter explained to the TDN in October that veterinarians would be best served by a historical record of scans for the same horse.

“Sequential imaging is extremely important because obviously [with one lone scan], you're just getting a snapshot in time. If you had the ability to monitor or track changes, then I think you would be able to make more accurate diagnoses,” said Carpenter.

Furthermore, PET and MRI units aren't cheap. It takes between 45 minutes to an hour to scan both fetlocks with MRI. The radioactive isotope used in PET can also prove hard to get. And as Farmer puts it, “the hard part is the accessibility of it.”

So, how best to marshal the industry's already limited resources?

“The resources are better spent giving the trainers, giving the attending veterinarians, giving the exercise riders the tools to recognize subtle changes before they would become apparent to a regulatory veterinarian stationed at the track,” said Durenberger, who now heads HISA's equine safety and welfare arm.

“This is the wearable technologies, right?” she added. “You allow everyone in that horse's ecosystem of care to have a better picture of what's going on with that horse.”

Technologies like StrideSafe promise to identify subtle lameness at high speeds-issues all but undetectable to the rider and the trainer watching. Other biometric sensor technologies like Arioneo can also monitor the horse's heart rate-a useful tool as researchers seek to better understand the causes of sudden cardiac death in racehorses.

“You have to rely on the people who know the horse better to make better decisions,” agreed Scollay. “If the only time they're making the right decision is when the regulatory vet is breathing down their neck, we really haven't accomplished much.”

The Frontlines

In the days after an initial chat with the TDN, Eoin Harty, president of the California Thoroughbred Trainers, reached out to the StrideSafe team, and was impressed with what it offers, he said. “I'm all in favor of it,” he said, adding that while the product is not a catch-all for lameness, it'll likely prove another valuable layer of diagnostic information.

“Am I going to base all my decisions on it? No,” Harty said. “But it's going to be a very useful tool going forward. If I can advise anybody, I'd say at least take a look at it, and avail yourself of what's available to help your decision making.”

As for the current system with which regulatory veterinarians are deployed, Harty suspects that in some jurisdictions, there might be some bureaucratic overkill. But overall, the system works as intended.

“We [in California] were and we are the guinea pigs, simply because of what happened back in 2019,” said Eoin Harty, alluding to the widely publicized spate of fatalities at Santa Anita. “I think since then, we've gone to a little bit of overkill compared to other jurisdictions. Some of it is a bit unnecessary.”

However, “the more eyes the better,” Harty added. “I wouldn't do away with a lot of the stuff that's been initiated. The pre-work, pre-race checks with the trainer or assistant and their veterinarian, I think that might be the biggest game changer to date. That, and the [tighter] intra-articular joint injection rules.”

In situations where a questionable scratch is hotly contested, Harty suggested bringing in additional expertise.

“If you've got a trainer who's adamant that this horse is 100 percent sound, and a regulatory vet who says, 'I see something else,' I think maybe you should bring another vet or two in for a tie-breaker,” he said.

That said, the fiery confrontations that regulatory veterinarians unfortunately face too often are as much a losing move on the part of the trainer as they are a dirty blot on the profession, said Harty.

“Some people are on the wrong side of the regulatory vets, and whether it's real or perceived, they see themselves as victims all the time,” said Harty. “And once you make their radar, it's really hard to get off it. You're probably better off kicking the horse out sixty, ninety days.”

Stidham sung a similar song. “In my opinion, this situation was created in part by the horsemen,” he said.

“The large majority of horsemen do an excellent job of policing and overseeing and doing their due diligence of monitoring their horses. This means getting rider feedback. Having horses on a jog list every day-a list of horses that have worked. Horses that you might have got a bad report back from the rider. I've always done this in my barn, even before HISA started,” Stidham said.

“But then, you've got the guys that don't necessarily do the due diligence of overseeing their horses, bury their heads in the sand,” Stidham said. “They're hoping there is no problem. And, for that reason, you get a certain amount of horses that do need to be checked by the vets. And these guys do need to be told, 'hey, this horse isn't fit to race.'”

Yes, some horses simply have a peculiar way of going that might not necessarily betray a simmering bone issue, he said. “That is a problem. But I don't see a way of getting around that,” said Stidham, who encouraged patience and common sense on both sides of the equation.

“I've had situations where a vet would come by and question a horse. But they would give me an opportunity-if it's maybe a foot or something-for it to be corrected. I could get the blacksmith over, make a little adjustment that could help the horse, and they would come back a couple hours later, recheck the horse,” said Stidham.

“But look, in most of the cases, these horses might be a degree of lameness off,” he said. “And if they are, they probably just need to be scratched.”