Some good news: Fatality rate drops to lowest level since 2009

[Elkchester Road]

Originally Posted by SkunkApe

Although the decline is certainly good news, the overall rate still strikes me as ridiculously high.

To put it in perspective:

An NFL team has 11 players, so 22 players per game.

There are 544 games per year. 544 X 22 =11,968 starts per year.

At rate of 1.39 deaths per 1000 starts, we’d have 16.6 dead NFL players per year.

I realize, of course, that horses aren’t people, but still…

Going to pass on your "perspective".

[Thomas Roulston]

If more tracks replace their "conventional dirt" with Tapeta, the mortality rate will go even lower.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Does anyone know the breakdown rate for standardbreds?

I used to go to Yonkers and Roosevelt every week when I was young. I don't recall ever seeing a horse break down.

They never broke down, but the harness horses I bet on always broke stride!

[SkunkApe]

I understand that we love the sport (I do, too), and that contributes to the (largely) vehement reaction to my perspective.

Let me try another way:

1.39 deaths per 1000 starts is equal to one death per 719 starts.

With the average field size of 7.37, (2021 data from bloodhorse.com), that’s one horse death for every 97 races.

Again: One dead horse every 97 races. How many races do you watch in, say, a month?

This, improving or not, remains an atrocious figure to me.

As the they say, the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

[SkunkApe]

Originally Posted by Elkchester Road

Going to pass on your "perspective".

Not unexpected at all. Refusal to acknowledge uncomfortable truths is a common coping mechanism.

And the truth is that a helluva lot of horses die for our pleasure.

Maybe we say “that’s OK, it’s worth it.”

Or maybe we say “this is bad, we can do much better”.

(I intellectually lean towards the latter, while obviously supporting, through my actions, the former. Guiltless, I am not.)

But what we shouldn’t do is stick our collective heads in the and and ignore the reality.

[Elkchester Road]

Originally Posted by SkunkApe

Not unexpected at all. Refusal to acknowledge uncomfortable truths is a common coping mechanism.

And the truth is that a helluva lot of horses die for our pleasure.

Maybe we say “that’s OK, it’s worth it.”

Or maybe we say “this is bad, we can do much better”.

(I intellectually lean towards the latter, while obviously supporting, through my actions, the former. Guiltless, I am not.)

But what we shouldn’t do is stick our collective heads in the and and ignore the reality.

I never said that Racehorse fatalities weren't an issue. I also never said fatalities weren't an outright problem. I am saying that you aren't doing any type of service to Racing trying to compare Horse Racing Fatalities to a Human sport that participants CHOOSE to participate in...and, if injured, do not have their Life terminated. Opinions like yours fuel the factions trying to abolish Horse Racing.

How about you not "stick your head in the sand" and ignore this "reality"?

[Bustin Stones]

I doubt comparison shopping is appropriate here.
For instance, I bet the fatality rate is much higher in dog fighting than thoroughbred racing. So, we got that going for us.
Animals die in lab experiments. Animal rights groups object to that also, but these animals give their lives so that our lives can be made better.
Dog fighting and horse racing are strictly entertainment. We want something to gamble on. Would people allow their home pet to be abused in order for people to have something to gamble on? Of course not.