this town hit the crazy level yesterday, it'll officially be insane today, even moreso tonight (most bars don't even close tonight), and will somehow exceed that on saturday and saturday night...all for a 2 minute horse race! crazy.

No. Horse (odds)
1. Cool Coal Man (20-1)
2. Tale of Ekati (15-1)
3. Anak Nakal (30-1)
4. Court Vision (20-1)
5. Eight Belles (20-1)
6. Z Fortune (15-1)
7. Big Truck (50-1)
8. Visionaire (20-1)
9. Pyro (6-1)
10. Colonel John (4-1)
11. Z Humor (30-1)
12. Smooth Air (20-1)
13. Bob Black Jack (20-1)
14. Monba (15-1)
15. Adriano (30-1)
16. Denis of Cork (20-1)
17. Cowboy Cal (20-1)
18. Recapturetheglory (20-1)
19. Gayego (15-1)
20. Big Brown (3-1)

this year has a rare fillie entry (#5, eight belles). as a favorite, i'll take colonel john, and my longshot is z fortune.

If I was betting on the race, I'd pick Eight Belles. There's just something about those gray horses I really like.

a filly has never won the derby, could this be the year?

hillary said last night that chelsea was going to be @ the derby and was going to place a bet on eight belles for her, that she was betting on the filly to make history and be the first to win the derby. i wonder if she had a not-so-subtle hidden message in there.

Actually, three fillies have won the Derby before: http://www.kentuckyderby.com/2008/blogs/ca...oses-or-lillies

The last one was in 1988.

damn, i hate to be w...w-r...w-r-o...w-r-o-n...g.

i wonder if i misheard hillarys quote then...

Maybe Hillary was just misinformed.

well, the first big race, "the oaks" just ended, now the town starts to party and goes crazy...

I'm glad somebody is. It just gets worse for us from here on out.

It will definitely be a horse...

I still have hours to make my bets.

Unless I make Pick 6 bets.

I hope the rain stays away---the vodoo lady did not earn her money this time if not!

not sure if it'll hold but as of right now, it couldn't be more beautiful here. just in case, slip that vodoo lady another $20 for me, will you?

unless one of those crazy lachey boys wanders out on to the track. your cuz's nick and drew were partying hardy last night...

callie was invited to the exclusive annual "playboy" party last night, i'm kind of afraid to call her this morning.

ok, i'm picking...

1) z fortune 17-1
2) pyro 5-1
3) eight belles 8-1

edited to revise the odds

wow, how amazing and how sad. "big brown" may be the super horse he was billed to be. winning by 4+ links while coming from the outside at the start. an amazing run.

and "eight belles," an incredible run to finish second, only to suffer a life ending injury at the end of the race.

triumph and tragedy indeed.

Such elation for those associated with Big Brown and such sadness associated for those associated with 8 Belles-----that is the nature of that sport and business--but it still has to be tough to lose a gorgeous animal on which so many hopes are placed.

Now, the question is--can Big Brown go on to be the first Triple Crown winner in many decades??? I would like to see some horse do it--but I wonder if it is still possible since the world of horse racing is so different today than in the past.

Damn.

I love watching horse races, but ever since I saw Ruffian break down on live television, when I was still a child, I've known how risky the sport is for those beautiful animals. It's heartbreaking to see it happen to the horse I picked to win.

(On the other hand, I wonder what kind of omen Hillary might think that ending was...)

Brian ended up getting a $4 exacta to pay him around $282. I had a win for Big Brown, paid about what I expected. My exactas were all a little off.

I would be sweating if I were Hillary.

Even though it's a tight horserace, she's surely nervous that she could lose even by a nose to "Big Brown" Obama after seeing what the results were for poor Eight Belles.

Why did they euthanize the horse? I mean, if my understanding is correct, it broke a couple ankles, right? That's fixable with surgery. Sure, it will never run a derby again, but....

Surgery may be able to heal the injuries, but the recovery would be too painful. With both front ankles broken on an animal that ispends most of its life on its feet she would likely not recover at all. The horse needs to stand to eat, cannot lay down for long periods of times, the weight shifted to the hind legs could cause more injuries there, and horses will fight to get out of slings and casts. Barbaro attempted recovery with only one ankle broken, and unfortunately it did not take due to many of these reasons. This was probably the most humane way of dealing with an injury of this type on a horse.

After breaking both ankles even after surgery it would not be able to stand, let alone run.

Also, until we get an official report we won't know the full details. There may have been other conditions that led to the fall in the first place.

Hmm, I guess that makes some sort of sense. Still seems cruel, but I'll admit to be totally against euthanization of animals to begin with (even considering becoming a member of PETA, heh).

No, it's not fixable. Stiv already explained the physique of the horse as a major factor. The shear weight of the body makes the healing process impossible. One leg may be fixable, but two is a huge disaster. There are many complications that could arise, such as laminitis or an abscess. The most common problems happen with the loss of circulation in their narrow legs, with infections and possible loss of limb. All of those outcomes mean excruciating pain for the horse. You actually think that's more humane than putting the horse down?

Would you prefer the horse be forced to endure excruciating pain while forcing it to stand and it suffered through everything else? I hate to see animals put down. But to not do it in this case because I don't like it is selfish and cruelty to the animal in and of itself.

No argument here.

It does beg the question, though, as to whether horse racing is humane at all. Barbaro, now this one.... countless others in less well-broadcast races. We train and condition these animals from birth to run, for our amusement, and when it breaks them we put them down and call it "humane."

A friend said he's starting to liken it to dog fighting. That's extreme, but I got his drift.

T.

I agree with Troy here. Putting a horse down isn't the issue here, as much as the conditions which lead to such a tragic ending.

Here is a column from the local paper on the subject.

I guess what really gets my goat about this, is, as someone with really bad ankles, it bugs me to no extent that anyone (human or animal) would be put down because they broke thier ankles.

Like I said, I am not claiming to be an expert on horse physiology - I guess it makes sense, although one might argue if this type of thing happens in Horse Racing, perhaps horse racing should be made illegal.

Ok, sorry, I'm getting a little too political here. I'm backing out of the thread now. Sorry.

then perhaps so should football, players frequently suffer concussions and have also died of heart problems during practice. and while we're at it, let's ban baseball too, a first base coach was killed by a foul ball last year during a minor league game. and NASCAR, i'd say ban that sport too, if i considered it a sport, too many deaths to name on tracks. and sonny bono died when he hit a tree while skiing down a mountain. i say we ban it from the olympics and close all the resorts...

all sport or competition can be dangerous, and yes due to recent breakdowns in high profile races, horse racing has gotten a black eye. and maybe it deserves it, i don't know. here in kentucky the thoroughbred industry is a major employer and a big part of the economy, so maybe i'm not totally objective. but these horses are major investments to their owners, as much for breeding purposes as for racing (but, the more they win, the more valuable they are as breeders) and i can guarantee you, that at this level, their health an wellbeing is not taken lightly and of utmost concern by their owners and those who govern and/or regulate the industry.

since the derby, there has been a lot of introspective talk about everything from breeding, is there too much emphasis on size and speed (eight belles was a huge horse for a filly, which is why she could compete so strongly against the boys at that distance)? to track surfaces, dirt vs. synthetic? to should a relatively young horse (the triple crown is exclusively 3 year olds) be running that distance (a mile and a quarter) that early in the season? due to the gaming aspect of the business, it is already among the (if not "the") most regulated sports in the world. personally, i favor giving the industry a chance to "fix itself" before we start talking about banning it.

these animals are born to run, born to compete, much like all natural born athletes (if you have any doubt, just go to a little league park or a youth football game on any weekend), it's what they do naturally and what they love to do and in many cases voluntarily their risk lives or long term health and well-being to do. because it is simply what they do.

so is it "inhumane" or cruel (imho), no. is it dangerous, yes. could it be improved and safer? (imho) absolutely. will it be? hopefully.

but, would anybody go to a NASCAR race if the track was twice as wide and the cars were governed to 55 miles an hour? nope. would you go to an NFL game or watch it on TV if the linebackers were regulated @ 150 lbs and they played touch? doubt it. danger is as much why "we" watch sports as is the competitive aspect, so maybe were as much to blame as spectators and consumers as the industry is. just sayin'

Sorry, Bill... completely disagree. All the sports you mention have willing participants. Horses don't get the option of saying "no thanks" and getting a desk job. Not the same thing, my friend. We make these animals perform for our amusement, and they get injured through no fault of their own.



Not day after day, on a 1.25 mile track, hard dirt, at a steady pace, they're not. They're not naturally racing horses... they're just horses.

Extreme is an understatement. Thoroughbreds run, be it on the track or in a field, the breed has been doing it all along. Yes, horse racing is an industry of breeding, yes there is entertainment from horse racing, but it is in their blood to run. Talk to some trainers and owners, these horses love the competition. Eight Bells' trainer even said that when she crossed the finish line she was happy. These trainers know their horses.




Sure, we can look at changes to the industry, hell we need to. We put in artificial surfaces in hopes that it will be safer, however there is not enough information yet to show whether it is or it isn't. We do need to look at longer periods between races. We have vets on the track that say yes or no to a horse running. Trainers scratch if they don't feel the horse is ready or the track is unsafe. I am sure there are any number of other things to make it better. I completely agree with making it better, it can only help the industry.



We've already addressed the broken ankles issue. If a person breaks both their ankles, we fix it with surgery and put them in a wheel chair or bedrest for weeks to months. Not possible with a horse. It is the way the animal is built.

Perhaps if horses were put down everywhere, every day because they fell down maybe we make it illegal. I simply do not see it as wide spread as it is being implied here. These animals are doing what they love to do. I have seen horses in steeple chase races fall down on a jump, lose the jockey, then get up and finish the race without the jockey.

We have seen three high profile horses injured in 2 years, there are probably others at other low profile tracks as well. This sucks. But I do not believe it to be anybodys fault other than a tragic accident. There are many injuries in horse racing that do not result in the immediate putting down of the animal. The horse recovers, may never run again, but it can breed. Injuries happen in sports, unfortunately due to the nature of the horses physiology some injuries are life threatening.

respectfully disagree, so does the dictionary

first, these are not "just horses" they are thoroughbreds. secondly, the track is far from "hard dirt," millions of dollars are spent maintaining the surface of that track to keep it in perfect racing condition. and the track is graded from "sloppy" to "fast" before each race giving the owner/trainer the option to scratch a horse from the race if they desire.

and they never, ever race "day after day." ever. i think this was the eighth race in her life, for the winner, big brown it was just his 4th race, ever.

I'm not sure if you read the column I linked. It echoes your statements.

Look guys, I think there many options between "the sport is just fine" and "ban the sport to hell forever." The column mentions pros and cons to PolyTrack, also suggests the Triple Crown races might be spread wider than just 5 weeks apart. It asks about breeding practices, medical conditions, the trainers, etc. There are a myriad of things that can go awry in sports. Barbaro and Eight Belles bring this all to the headlines.

Hhmm... Day after day? 1.25 mile track? Let's see:



That looks like a month between each race for this filly. Looks like Saturday was the first time she had ever ran 1:25. Oh maybe they worked her out hard every day. Nope:

i think you just said what i said with much fewer words. thanks. except, i don't think i or stiv ever said or implied that "the sport is just fine." i know i addressed specific issues of what could possibly be wrong with it; breeding (emphasis on size & speed), surface and distance.

there are issues that need to be addressed and corrected. here's hoping the leaders of the industry will do the right thing. to the benefit of the industry, themselves and more importantly, the horses.

again, I'm really sorry. I really didn't mean to cause an argument here. I was just offering up a food for thought thing (about perhaps horse racing should be banned). I'm not sure if I agree with it or not. I do know that the local tracks are probably more apt to be abusive to the animals then the Kentucky derby. I guess it really depends on the owner.

But seriously, how often DOES it happen? Educate me here. I will be the first to admit that accidents happen, so was this all this is? A freak accident?

and troy, i think that potentially helps prove my point. that given opportunity, the choice...the true human "competitor," those with the natural gifts will generally choose to "do what they were given the gifts to do." with free will, they choose to do it. regardless of the risk of personal danger and injury, they accept it and do it day after day, time after time. from their youth through their adulthood, many staying well past their prime, increasing the risk further (look at george foreman). with yet, consistantly with full knowledgle of the risk, they still instinctively choose to compete. why would we expect an animal, which relies much more on instinct and breeding to be much different?

considering the thousands of horses that run in the thousands of races all over the country annually...yes, i think this could be considered a rare occurance. i'm not even sure if the word "accident" applies, she never touched another horse, the rail, nothing...she ran a clean, excellent race. maybe rare and unfortunate occurance states it better. maybe that's why it's so shocking and so disturbing...because it just shouldn't have happened.

and fwiw, no need to apologize, i don't consider this an argument, nothing wrong with a spirited disagreement among friends.

I am going to do some research on this Aaron. I'll ask around at work and talk to our research and pedigree departments. No need to apologize. I would not jump to say that the smaller local tracks are more apt to be abusive, but they are not necessarily in the public eye, and therefore not scrutinized nearly as much. But the majority of racing is run at a relatively major track that is likely governed by stricter guidelines. The same guidelines that govern the top tracks; such as Churchill Downs, Keeneland, Santa Anita, Belmont, etc.

Just to show a counter point, and there are some good stories from injuries. This is from The Bloodhorse.

Bill - do you mean to say that the horse understands that running on a round track, against other horses, with a human on its back, as a natural inclination, and that the horse further understands that it stands to be injured in such a way that it will be killed by the humans, and that the horse accepts this risk? Sorry dude, but you're comparing human athletes with logical reasoning against an animal that is an unwitting participant. Wanna let it "run, as it's born to do?" Buy 1000 acres of land and let it go free. What we're doing, instead, is training these horses to run a track they'd never run, at a pace they'd never run, and then crying when we break them.

Actually, horses run FASTER in the fields than they do on a race track as they will go as fast as possible to out run the other horse(s) as this is part of what determines who leads the herd. On a race track, their speed is doled out by the human on their back so that they run their best possible race while dramatically lowering the chances of them injuring themselves. The animal is a willing participant or they don't ever make it to the track. Only Thoroughbreds with the will and desire and burning passion to run ever make it to the heights that Eight Belles achieved. As for the 1000 acres, horses that are in this environment are the ones that really suffer because race tracks are a controlled environment with specialized surfaces specifically designed with out gopher holes, barb wire fences, or a host of other problems that can arise for these animals running wild and free. You paint a nice dream but one that shows an absolute lack of research into the breed. Injuries occurring to animals in fields running wild are much higher than they are on the controlled environment of a race track plus there are no veterinarians only 30 seconds away to help these animals when they are injured. So, if I understand you correctly, you support leaving these animals in an uncontrolled environment where they will run, as they are subject to do, but not under any supervision whatsoever and without medical help close at hand for them so that they must lay in the field and suffer and possibly die a horrible and painful death if they are injured. Now that is truly cruel.

I know nothing about horses but this discussion has been very interesting to me.
It is so amazing that such a powerful animal in so many respects can also be so delicate.

I support leaving them out of our racing rings, is all. I suggested to Bill that if he thought they were born to run that they should run free... my stance is that forcing them to run for our amusement is inappropriate, in the philosophical sense. Your point re: the terrain is well-taken, but not compelling to me. Here's why:

You clearly enjoy horse racing, so it makes sense that you support the premise of it, so be it. But please don't imply that my (admitted) lack of horse-and-horse-racing knowledge means that I don't have a point in saying that this horse wouldn't have broken both her front ankles if she hadn't been running the Kentucky Derby. Would she have hurt herself in a field instead? Perhaps, who knows. But that would be nature's choice, her choice, not ours. To run on that track is nothing she would have done on her own. And so long as humans bred that beast to run for fans, and since that's where she died, at our hands, then I would submit that humans can take some responsibility for it. That seems a lot more reasonable to me than simply chocking it up as us saving her from a far worse hypoethical fate in a field somewhere.

If the end result is that at least some consideration is given to the nature of this form of entertainment, then no one will be worse off for it. If the sport can't stand the scrutiny of this kind of debate then it shouldn't be out there any way, and if you're right then the merits will stand for themselves. But I would submit that this sport is at least unnecessary to anyone's survival, ours or the horses, and since the horses can't speak for themselves regarding their interest or willingness, then I vote that we assume it's not our decision to make for them.


T.


.

troy, from what i see here in kentucky, a center of this sport, there is a lot of self scrutiny and evaluation. a ton of it. there seems to be no attempt to sweep this under the rug, but a sincere effort to try to figure out how to make the sport safer.

and sports in general are "unnecessary to anyone's survival" (ok, except for a few sleazy low life agents), they could all disappear tomorrow and we would all be just fine. sports are a diversion from life, simply for our enjoyment, and if they stop being that and become a headache and a downer, people will move away from them. and most are aware of this, which is why the horse racing industry must fix this problem.

I don't doubt that, and it's good to hear. I don't doubt the horse folks love for the horses.



I get what you're saying, but (at the risk of sounding redundant) you can't compare human participants with animal participants. Is cage fighting inhumane? It's not, because the participants join willingly and know what they're getting into, what's at stake, and what's to lose. Is dog fighting inhumane? You betcha, because it's unwilling, the participants don't have a say, and they don't have the ability to think through the stakes. Again, I'm not comparing horse racing to dog fighting.... but I hope you see my point regarding buy-in.

While you say that it may be "unnecessary to anyone's survival", It is a huge part of our economy and a very large employer. Right now, the sport is necessary for my survival as it provides food for me and my family and a roof over our head. It is even more so necessary to the survival of the owners, breeders, trainers, jockeys, and so on, for anyone who makes their living in this business.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with scrutiny . . . provided it is coming from a source that has actually researched and understands the topic they are scrutinizing. Part of the problem with society today is that everyone has an opinion on everything without truly putting in the time to research and understand what they are offering their opinion on. They are simply content to make profound statements about what they believe and yet they can offer no evidence or support as to why they believe it. Since this is the path you want to take with your "scrutiny" then let us pursue it all the way to the end with this line of thinking. Here it goes:

Free the dogs!!!! For too long we have fed them, watered them, and let them live in our households for nothing more than our own pleasure. They have never once told us that is what they want so it is high time we freed them to let them roam the countryside as they please because they have every right to do so and who are we to stand in their way when they have never told us differently! Free the cats!! They shouldn't be curled up in our laps where we can pet them for nothing more than our own pleasure. They belong out in the fields hunting mice and birds to survive on. They have never told us they want to live with us so it is high time that we let them go!! Free the hamsters . . . the gold fish . . . the guinea pigs . . . even the pot bellied pigs!!! What right do we have to keep them cooped up in a cage or a fish bowl? They have never opened their mouths to tell us this is what they want!!

It is proven that we as human beings don't need meat to survive so undoubtedly we are eating meat for our own pleasure. Therfore, free the steers!!! Let them roam the countryside for we don't need their steaks and burgers they provide! Free the cows!! Let them graze on the open field for we don't need their milk or the cheese they provide! Free the pigs as we use them for nothing but their bacon and pork chops and ham. . . nothing but our own pleasure! Free the chickens!! We have no use for eggs!! No more fried chicken!!

Let us just free all the animals for not one of them has ever said that this is what they want!!!

Horses depend on us just as much as dogs and cats do. You would see this if you drove up to a field of horses with a bag of grain or a bale of hay. They don't open their mouths to tell us this is what they want but when they come running as hard and fast as they possibly can across the open field to get to you, something tells me they aren't too upset by it. Thoroughbreds are not raised simply to provide us meat or any other type of food that we don't have to have to survive. Thoroughbreds do nothing more than what they want to do and that is to run. In the end, horses like Eight Belles are raised in beautiful open fields and sleep in stalls that are probably nicer than the residences we live in. They are given the very best medical care possible. They are heated in the winter and cooled in the summer. And, for them, the best of all, they are allowed to run.

Do I take pleasure in watching them do what they want to do most? Yes, I do because I love them, I will not apologize for it. What happened to Eight Belles was truly heart breaking but what in a way is even sadder is that it wasn't we as people that led to her ultimate demise but she who did herself in. She was not forced to continue running after one of her ankles broke. Her jockey tried from the moment she hit the finish line to stop her . . . which was prior to her ankle breaking. She refused to stop running though and even after her first ankle broke, she continued to keep running until the other broke despite the best efforts of her jockey to make her stop. No, what is truly sad here is that her desire to run overwhelmed the pain she felt and she fought to continue doing what she loved to do the most. No, she didn't open her mouth and tell anyone this but sometimes actions speak louder than words.

The general consensus from the folk at work is probably less than one percent of horses are euthanized at the track. This is not based on any hard facts as these are not kept in any centrally located system. This is based on educated guesses from former breeders, handicappers, and owners. They are basing this on about 1500-2000 races daily nationwide, with an average of 8-10 horses per race. This does not mean that there are not retired horses that are euthanized on the farms where they grew to a ripe old age, or as I stated earlier injure themselves outside of the track.

There are race horse retirement groups out there that will take retired horses in and let them graze, run, and grow old and pass on quietly.

i have nothing to base this on other than the anecdotal evidence of spending a few days a year at the track but i would think anywhere close to 1% would be very, very high. considering 12 races per day, if there was an average of 10 horses per race, @ 1%, that would mean one horse per day, per track would be put down. and that seems very high. in all of my visits (admittedly not that many) i have never seen a horse injured or put down, not once. in all honesty, if i saw that happen every time i went to the track i would consider that excessive, have trouble with it and probably not partronize (or defend) the sport or industry.

fwiw, i just found this stat online (unfortunately, it didn't give the date and/or source)...Fatality rates per 100,000 participants: Horse racing: 128 (that would be a little over 1/10 of one percent) and that was the total fatality rate, at the track like "eight belles" and situations like "barbaro's" which required euthanasia at a later date due to an injury caused at the track.

I think Troy's gone a little Marisa Tomei on us.

Where did you find that stat Bill? I looked for something and couldn't find it.

If I did, I'd never leave the house.