Animal Science

Great story, SavvyExacta! I'm excited about CR4's new Animal Science Blog and look forward to reading more of your work.

Here's an additional thought about the high rate of fatalities in horse racing. Although jockeys wear helmets and chest protection, such equipment is pretty sparse compared to the gladiatorial gear worn on the football field.

Very true Moose - jockeys can still sustain serious injuries despite helmets and protective vests. Broken bones of all types, collapsed lungs, and neck/spinal injuries are not uncommon.

And what about the horses? The only meager "protection" that they wear are the "bandages" around their legs, little more than tape to protect their tendons from being too banged up by their own or others' hooves.

That's not to say all of the participants don't know about the possible injuries before they partake in the sport. Clipped heels, getting banged up in the gate, bumping against other horses in the struggle to gain position, the nasty tangle of a fall, and even the invisible internal injury that many Thoroughbreds suffer from - bleeding from tiny burst blood vessels in the lungs - are all potential dangers. Those in charge of the sport need to look for ways to prevent such tragedies rather than pasting a band-aid over them (i.e. medication to stop bleeding, twisting an ear of an unruly horse in the gate only to have it flip over, etc.).

"there are 128 fatalities per 100,000 participants in horse racing."

I'm sure glad I am neither a Horse nor a Jockey. One more source of demise scratched!

Does racing to the john have any status?

"Does racing to the john have any status?"

Not in this study - but I can think of situations where it might! (My freshman dorm brings back memories...)

At least the organizations of the sport recognize the problem and are attempting to make it better through surface improvements, the topic of my future blog entries. Steroid and drug use? Well that's a whole other matter!!

Comparing equestrian sport - In racing, the rider is travelling faster and is prone to the type of injuries a motorcycle rider might sustain. The hat adds to the rotational speed of the head on impact, giving (arguably) greater risk of brain damage. Also, the rider is likely to be trampled by other horses. In show-jumping, the rider is prone to a wide range of fall types, and possibly more risk of crushing by their own horse. Either event carries a high risk of neck/brain injury, with a force much greater than a blow in boxing. With boxing, a lot of the damage is cumulative, resulting in the 'punch-drunk' description. It might be interesting to see a breakdown of injury to racing jockies based on cause being own horse/others horse/ground impact. A comparison with accidents and 'going' (hard/soft etc) would also be interesting. In show-jumping there's possibly scope to re-design courses and jumps. The object is to test agility/skill, but choice of materials might minimize accident damage to horse and rider.

I don't ride or box, so feel free to correct my speculation !

What kind of statistics for death include animals? Does a sky diver jump with his or her dog? Do you shoot a sky diver because they have a broken leg? If you are going to compare apples to oranges don't include the orange tree!

I walk, run, jump, did ride, did box, did just about anything and everything immaginable and still around-knock wood-good wood but not from the Amazon. Why Amazon? I spent some time about 20-years ago with a guy from the Amazon who wanted to buy factories (and did) to make wood out of the trees in the Amazon rather than let the "others" from outside of the Amazon make the BIG money. He said at that time what is happening today with the Amazon forests. He also predicted that the East Coast someday would be under water if it continued. He said that it shouldn't stop now but, "after him, and after he made his money." Hey, back on the subject matter.

What nobody is taking into consideration are the millions of others who ride and jump each day of the year, race machines, etc., and those who like small places to punch others out in or to be punched out. These figures nobody hears about other than the parents of these kids "wannabes." This is where the problem lies and not with the professionals who are a lot more careful. We others are not so fortunate in that professionals are a lot more sturdy than our others. These figures would be stagering if researched, I know, for sure, in that I did things with horses that shouldn't have been done for either rider or horse, and both in the ring and outside of the ring did things that those inside of the ring would not have ever done. This does not include Tyson (remember him) punching out his wife (remember?). What a winner! His small wife of all things. Let me have ten minutes with him and Don King. OK?

Have a good ride, ok?

DK

chinacixibearings@earthlink.net

Adding in horse fatalities is a deceptive manipulation of the data. If you are going to add animal fatalities, the deadliest sport is more likely to be cock fighting or dog fighting where 50% of the animals die and an occasional owner dies of a heart attack.

"the deadliest sport is more likely to be cock fighting or dog fighting"

How about we stick to legal sports?

If you check out my earlier comment, there is still a large number of jockey injuries based on a study of them ALONE. A good reason to combine the numbers, however, is because they do have an impact on one another. If a jockey puts his horse into the wrong place, boom, a collision can happen and multiple injuries can occur. If a horse takes a bad step and goes down, his rider can get hurt either simply from the fall, by his mount, or by another horse. Of course the injuries don't always occur in tandem, but the odds are good. In a two minute race (or less) there isn't much margin for error.

In a future blog entry I'll write about how there were over 240 injuries/breakdowns of Thoroughbreds in the state of California alone in a period of just a couple of years. Maybe the study I quoted in this entry isn't perfect, but the numbers are still high - too high for a sport that could definitely stand for some improvement in the area of safety.

The whole issue of safety at equestrian events is actually a question of philosophy. The British Upper Classes are responsible for most sports and equestrian ones particularly. British equestrianism divided on simple lines, working class (practical and as safe as possible) and Upper Class, ostentatiously brave. Here is the 1911 Encyclopaedia Brittannica on Carriage Driving " But from very early times driving, especially of horses, has also been regarded as a sport or pastime. This probably arose in the first instance from its association with battle." see http://naturaldriving.co.uk/content_carriage.php

The Upper Classes define a sport or pastime "from its association with battle". Yeah don't we all. But if war is a sport, courage is vital. So the equestrian events are seen as a test of courage of both horse and rider. And to test courage you need risk. Eventing has killed 11 people in 14 months according to Horse and Hound and yet, to quote the article, "But course-designer Mark Phillips and British team trainer Yogi Breisner believe these could encourage riders to take risks and horses to "lose respect" for fences, and would change the character of the sport unless there was a penalty for breaking them."

This was discussing safer jumps. "respect" takes on a whole new meaning. Respect me or I break your neck!

11 dead in 14 months riding horses cross country at speeds up to 40 mph.

Formula 1 Motor Racing. Insane speeds, flammable fuel, outer limits of engineering, so how many dead in the last 10 years? 50, 100, 200

None, because the drivers decided that dying for the spectators wasn't really worth it.

Simon

a SAFE horseman.

Good points. It's nice to gain perspective from a knowledgeable participant. Cross country, as you know, is supposed to mimic natural obstacles. Many of today's fences do not look or behave naturally when hit - perhaps going back to more natural obstacles would fix some of those problems. I'm not sure about the United Kingdom but here in the USA, we have adapted the "short format" where roads and tracks as well as the steeplechase phase have been eliminated at many of our events - in order to help prepare for the Olympic games where the format will be the same. Perhaps course designers feel that by making the obstacles more difficult, they are keeping the challenge as high as possible.

Getting back to the topic of this blog entry and the final point of your comment... I don't think that saying the fact that there were no deaths in Formula 1 racing was up to the drivers is fair. Do cars suddenly, out of the corner of their eyes (headlights?) see a spectator wearing a big, floppy (and scary!) red hat and decide to leap sideways several feet? (The basic fight or flight instinct.) Do cars think that umbrellas are objects that have been designed to kill them? I don't think so. But many horses do.

My point is, and nearly everyone knows this, horses are unpredictable animals. If a paper plate blows across a horse racetrack, it's probably going to spook a horse and cause an accident. If a paper plate blows across an automobile racetrack, I suppose it could get sucked up under a car and cause a problem, but it's more unlikely. And I don't think the driver will be as concerned with it - there's not an awful lot he or she can do at that speed. In either case, with the horse/rider combo, there are TWO sets of eyes on it while with the auto/driver combo there is only one.

You say cross country is supposed to mimic natural obstacles, but in the UK that always seems to be "natural" obstacles round stately homes. The obstacles aren't natural and the horse would naturally go round them. it is artificial, the rolled and mown grass surface is artificial, the activity is artificial.

To make it safe, use 4 inches depth of chopped bark surface for the 50 yds up to the jump and 100 yards after it. Use either closed cell foam or inflatable obstacles and make them look "natural" as you like. The challenge to the horse would be as great, the difference is that you wouldn't kill riders or horses.

Re Formula 1, it used to kill a driver a year on average from 1960 to 1970. 1970 to 1986 seems to be one death every couple of years. Then none till 1994 when Ayrton Senna and Roland Ratzenberger died at the San Marino Grand Prix. Since then nobody has died in Formula 1 that I have heard about.

And they stopped dying because the drivers fought for new safety standards, and the whole world had stopped accepting accidental deaths as a natural part of a spectator sport. And eventing has accepted 11 in 14 months and doesn't seem to want to do anything about it.

And I drive my pony through city centres in total safety because I follow Formula 1's safety philosophy, not Three Day Eventing's. And I train him to accept odd things.

Simon

My point was that today's obstacles are NOT the natural things you'd encounter in the hunt fields of days past. The giant wooden ducks "floating" in the Head of the Lake at Rolex aren't anything I've ever seen occurring naturally... at least I've never seen a duck the size a horse could jump over!

Not being a part of the eventing community I can't comment on whether the participants and those at the head of the sport "want" to do anything to improve the safety and welfare of the participants, but I'm sure they do. Of course these things take time, funding, and retraining of all involved. Like any legislation it will be slow to come. But I highly doubt that they've accepted any number of deaths as normal.

As far as you driving your pony safely through cities, that is commendable. I've driven miniature horses and found it to be both enjoyable and challenging. But not all horses are wired for such tasks. My own pony loves jumping, loves competing, and loves food. Does he love indoor arenas or pigs? NO. Horses' natural fight or fight instincts can be trained away, you're right, but they can still take over. You can't train for every occurrence. Like every human, every horse has at least one fear. I was able to compete in indoor arenas with him (on a limited basis - we received some great ribbons some days, other days, well...) but no amount of anything convinced him that it wasn't a scary place. As far as the pigs go, he only had a few encounters and not having a place to work with him around them regularly, it's pretty impossible to train him to accept them. I've read that nearly all horses have a natural fear of pigs. To bring this back to the blog entry - I wonder if racehorses at the track get nervous when they smell ham?

I agree with the above comment that questions why the horse is included in these statistics. Yes, you cannot have one without the other, and the horses do bring in the money, but the same arguement could be made for race cars. I also question how many of these sports included potentially life ending injuries to which the victim survived? (Im thinking of course of the recent hockey player who had the major artery in his neck severed during a game and was gushing blood everywhere, but pulled through.) How many of these tallies include such injuries and/or deaths to innocent bystanders (like when a monster truck or stock car loses control and crashes into the seats)? What about injuries which directly correlate to a shorter lifespan? I think the statistics are misleading as well in that saying 128/100000 is alot...how many jockeys/horses are there? 1000? 10,000? If we said (and I admit Im just taking a shot in the dark here) there were 5,000 (2500 jockeys and 2500 horses) thats only 6.4 fatalities for both. In contrast, if one NASCAR driver dies, in a field of 43 drivers in the sprint cup series, that would be like saying that there are 2325.6 fatalities per 100000. Or Major league baseball, with 30 teams, each with a 40 man roster, one death would be 83.3/100000. I guess it all comes down to when the surveys were taken - certainly there are going to be good years and bad years. I also question how many of the horse deaths were as the result of euthanasia administered after the race due to injury. These statistics also do not state what kind of horse racing is so deadly...is it thoroghbred racing? Quarter horse racing? Harness racing? Or are they all lumped in together? If so, did the people making the surveys lump all auto racing together (stock car, indy, IMSA, etc)? Minor and Major league baseball? The AHL and the NHL? The study cited was also published in 1984..is it safe to say that these stats still hold true more then 20 years later?

99% of all people know you can make up statistics for anything....

Avery Montembeault

True, almost any statistic can be disproved and there were some holes in this study. I used these numbers to make a basic point. But you can't argue with the fact that putting a small, lightweight person on the back of a young, unpredictable animal moving at speeds of 35-40mpg in a herd of other animals doing the same is dangerous. Especially when you add in other factors such as the animal itself and the environment (which I'll get to in future entries) and human interference like steroids and other drugs.

To attempt to answer some of your questions, as far as I know the actual fatality rate among jockeys is fairly low. The number of jockeys who are paralyzed or otherwise unable to continue in their "normal" line of work is higher than in other sports. Deaths of horses via euthanasia can come from two reasons. One, because the injury was that catastrophic and merited it (often if a horse is unable to get up on its own, it must be euthanized). Or two, because the owner could not afford the post-injury rehab of the horse (either money or time).

So the statistic 123 in 100,000 participants may have ZERO human fatalities or injuries. And the horse fatalities depend on the decision of the owner...not based on the horse race?

Very manipulative and to me animal rights driven propaganda.

I can honestly understand the plight of the horses, but why present it in such a manipulative manner.

Horses do die "on their own". A few summers ago at Saratoga (America's oldest racetrack in upstate NY) a horse collapsed and died of heat exhaustion or a heart attack just past the finish line in front of the stands where I was. Not a pretty sight. If you refer to the first paragraph of my blog entry, you'll see that the pieces I quoted from the study refer to "fatalities per 100,000 participants". So, yes... the statistic very well may include human fatalities.

And if you take another look at my quotes from the study, it was called "BRAIN INJURIES IN BOXING". It really had nothing to do with animals or horse racing or other sports at all. It just used them for a comparison - probably to say boxing isn't as bad as x, y, and z. So I don't think it has anything to do with the "animal rights driven propaganda" you were referring to.

I can't find the original data of brain injuries in boxing, it occurs in Wiki and a couple of boxing blogs but the Jockey injuries statistics look iffy if you look at this quote

The positioning of the jockey on the horse approximately 3m above the ground in a forward

I think this must be in Texas, in England we don't race horses at 30 hands. And NO deaths are mentioned at all in the study, so the data from McCunney and Russo looks pretty questionable.

But I go back to the point and suggest you read the Horse and Hound article which refers to 11 deaths in 14 months in eventing and quotes Mark Phillips, a top eventer and ex husband and father of top eventers, Princess Anne and Zara Phillips as resisting safer jumps.

11 dead people, they haven't even counted the horses>

Perhaps the person writing the study got their conversions backward? 1m = 3f, it looks like they thought 3m = 1f. Let's say that the average racehorse is 16 hands. I'll translate that to 4 feet and then another 3 - 5 feet for the rider's torso and his crouched two-point/racing position... that would be almost 9 feet, which translates incorrectly to approximately 3 meters for the position of the rider's head, no? So it's not entirely off the mark.

I did read the Horse and Hound article you mentioned the first time you posted it. Your quote by Mark Phillips was a bit out of context... you didn't post the part about cardboard rails and puzzle piece jump parts. So his point is valid, although it's something that should be explored and experimented with. Then again, maybe safer jumps aren't the solution. Have they really changed much in the past few years? Perhaps it is people (and horses) moving too quickly through the levels, improper training methods, etc. that should be looked at as well.

That aside... the point of my blog entry was that horse racing is a dangerous sport. You seem to agree with me there despite arguing with my reasoning. I simply wanted to show that what to many looks like a fun day out at the track where you can "play the ponies" has a different side as well (don't get me wrong, I love a nice day at the races). I also think that there are ways that the safety of racing can be improved. I'm just not necessarily sure what they are.

Sorry, back to the data again. Here it is a different way. Same survey, information from Courier Journal 2007

Scuba diving 1,100 Deaths

Sport Parachuting 370 Deaths

Mountaineering 308 Deaths

Hang Gliding 169 Deaths

Motorcycle racing 77 Deaths

Horse racing 23 Deaths

College Football 11 Deaths

Boxing 10 Deaths

According to Jim Adams, the data was per 10,000 deaths not per 100,000. A minor detail but it changes the figure for racing from 128 to 12.8. Now look at the notes to the research.

* The authors studied deaths between 1945 and 1979. These numbers remain widely quoted today, although some authorities have criticized them. For example, a report to Congress by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in 1998 cited another study showing the death rate for college football to be much lower – 0.01 per 100,000. However, yet another study in 1987 found total football deaths to be similar to those reported by McCunney and Russo.

Horse racing now appears to cause 23 deaths in 34 years, not a massive problem.

I thought horse racing was dangerous but the research you quote, one shows approx 0.66deaths per year and the other zero, whereas when I quote 11 deaths in 14 months from December 2006 to January 2008, you make no comment.

I accept your point that the researchers could have transposed feet for metres, but my point is that rigorously checked work avoids such errors. Anyway a crouching jockeys head is only a foot above the withers when racing so under 2 metres not 3 metres and on that basis on a smooth level pavement I fall 1.85 metres if I trip over a match.

I did comment on your point about cross country, but didn't bring it into focus as much because my blog entry is about horse racing and I'm trying to keep the comments on topic.

Okay, we've (you've) discovered the study isn't perfect. Thank you very much for your in-depth research and the time you've spent doing that for me - I do appreciate it. In all honesty, I did take the information that is cited in my resources section from the Wikipedia site. Perhaps you should correct that as well, since it is also misleading. It certainly mislead me as I wrote the above.

Finally, I will say it for the last time, I still think that there are a lot of career-ending injuries if not fatalities in racing. This brought the push for synthetic surfaces in America, which you can read about in my future blog entries. I certainly think there are other causes/solutions of the accidents (and there's no doubt there are accidents - even at "friendly" tracks like Saratoga, I know first-hand that there is at least one spill per week during the eight week meet).

Your Blog Entry is titled The Science of America's Deadliest Sport (Part 1) and you say "my blog entry is about horse racing and I'm trying to keep the comments on topic"

How was I expected to know the rules? Why should I be criticised for being "off topic" when I have discussed the evidence you have useed and submitted evidence of a sport that is clearly much deadlier. If you wish to discuss your own experience "I know first-hand that there is at least one spill per week during the eight week meet." then label the forum as a discussion of the risks of racing at Saratoga. Out of interest, how many deaths at Saratoga in "America's deadliest sport"? And how many deaths per race, per thousand competitor years, and is the death rate increasing or decreasing.

If you want a scientific debate on the risks of horseracing, sure, lets have it, and lets have the data that inspired you to start this blog.

Simon

I did point out and thank you for discovering the data I used was in error. Did you read that part of my previous comment?

I added the point about Saratoga not to give you the solid numbers per thousand that you crave, but because I am a frequent visitor there. I see the falls with my own eyes. I see the horse ambulance drive away with an occupant and hope announcer Tom Durkin won't say the dreaded words "Unfortunately, as a result of the accident in Race number...". I read blogs adding another jockey's tumble to the list.

Thank you for your comments - they do add to the conversation, I was not trying to discourage your discussion. I was simply trying to point out the way you seem to be going with this - your first comment made valid points, the second valid points of your own opinion, the third/fourth true that I did choose the wrong study for this blog entry. They also started to get very defensive of your own and negative toward my comments. The point of my blog entry is to point out that something is wrong with racing in America. Perhaps I chose the wrong title - so be it.

Here are some numbers from Arlington Park and the industry as a whole in 2006 (probably derived from injury reports filed with the track): "About one of every 200 starters at Arlington has had to be put down; the industry as a whole averages about one fatal breakdown per 1,000 starters."

So if these numbers are indeed correct, then you are correct, and America's deadliest sport is not horse racing (although the jockeys are not accounted for here). 1 in 200 at a single track is not a good number. I know that in California during that time frame, over 240 horses were put down in a two year period.