So the comments have started, in blogs and on comment boards and in conversations, wherever the Derby is being talked about.
Porter and Jones should never have raced Eight Belles against the boys.
All tracks need be changed from dirt to synthetic surfaces.
I have many reservations about horse-racing; when Ruffian broke down, I turned away from horse racing, paying only sporadic and convenient attention to racing until 2000, when I deliberately turned back to this sport, carrying with me concerns, questions, and fears about its safety and its humaneness.
And I’m cynical about a lot of it; I believe that trainers juice their horses to win races, and I believe that horses are raced too young (though, God, I love those two year old races at Saratoga), and I believe that there are times when money pays a big role in the decisions that are made (as it does for all of us, so that’s not a blanket condemnation).
But I don’t believe, ever, that a trainer or an owner would put a horse on the track that he believed had a chance of breaking down. Color me naïve in this regard, but I do believe that trainers—especially trainers with smaller outfits—are as attached to their charges as we are to our household pets. Following Eight Belles’ breakdown, Larry Jones said,
“I did get to see my son yesterday, and I got to see my daughter today, but
I got to see Eight Belles every day. She was our family, she’s been with us for
a year — a lot of great footage with (ESPN’s) Jeannine Edwards today, and I
guess it will be my last ride on her,” Jones said as he began to choke up.“Losing animals like this isn’t fun,” he continued after he gathered his
composure. “This is the unfortunate side, I don’t know what to say — we’re
heartbroke. We’re going to miss her.” (Curb My Enthusiasm)
I have been a big fan of the New York Times racing blog The Rail (and not only because it linked to me last week), but I was disturbed Saturday night by its photo of Eight Belles on the track after she broke down, and by the hysteria and misinformation generated in its comment section. I am disheartened, disappointed, and disgusted by the commenters’ easy willingness to believe that those involved in horse-racing are heartless mercenaries and by their enthusiasm in spreading rumors and downright wrong information about Eight Belles and horse racing in general.
Should we be asking questions about horse racing and how to make it safer? Should we refuse to accept death as an inevitable part of the game? Absolutely. There’s a lot wrong with racing, and it’s the responsibility of those of us who love the sport to press those with influence and authority to ask hard questions and demand answers.
But hysteria speaks louder than reason, and I want Dr. Larry Bramlage’s voice and words to be heard. On Saturday evening, when asked questions about the circumstances surrounding Eight Belles’s injury, he said that he
“does not think this incident is a reason to suggest that fillies should not run
against colts.“One incident is not an epidemic,” he said. “As bad as it seems right now, it’s once (sic) incident — fillies race against colts on an intermittent basis.”
(And before anyone brings up Ruffian, or if you believe that Rags to Riches’ win in the Belmont ruined her, three incidents in thirty-three years isn’t an epidemic, either. Just ask Ouija Board. Or Genuine Risk. Or Winning Colors.)
Bramlage also said that he does not think the breakdown of Eight Belles would have been prevented by Polytrack.
“I don’t think that you can look at the injury on the racetrack and say that
Polytrack could have prevented it,” he said. “This is not like Eight Belles was
deep in the middle of a stretch battle and hit a bad step, she was done with the
race and was all the way through to the end, and I don’t think the forces on her
legs pulling up would be virtually any different on an artificial surface.“I doubt there would have been any difference, she could have been on the grass or
on the dirt,” he said. (Curb My Enthusiasm)
Many, many thanks to Michael at Curb My Enthusiasm for his on-the-scene and detailed reporting.
Fortunately, The Rail offered a counterpoint to what I consider Melissa Hoppert’s irresponsible blogging and the photo above it, in Jim Squires’s piece posted late last night. It doesn’t seem to be getting quite the traffic that Hoppert’s post did, but at least it’s spawning a higher level of discourse about the troubling subject of equine breakdowns.
I don’t want to talk about synthetics and inter-sex horse racing, because I don’t think that they get to the heart of the answers that we need to make our sport safer; they are simply convenient, superficial excuses that people use to criticize a sport that they don’t understand and, I would offer, really don’t like.
To those who claim that the death of a horse is nothing more than a commercial loss, I can tell you with absolute certainty that when a horse goes down—whether it’s in the Derby or on a February Wednesday at Aqueduct—we grieve. We turn away, and we wince in pain, and we hope that we don’t have to see it again. We could turn away entirely; we could abandon the sport as others have chosen to do. But as fans and horse lovers, we choose instead to support the game, to support the players, and to work, with our money and our time, toward making sure that our equine athletes come home safely.
Brooklyn Backstretch 
Well done Teresa. I thought that photo at The Rail was outrageous and no doubt drew the commentary they had to have been looking for. It would be one thing it that type of outrage could/would be channeled into addressing the complexities of the current state of racing so startlingly and sadly illustrated by Derby 2008 (officially known as Worst Derby Derby ever), but what are the chances of that happening? People who already hate the sport are feeling mighty justified now, it would be nice if we could figure out how to use their outrage, along with our own, to help move racing in the right direction.Jim Squires actually has a good piece up this morning at The Rail. I’m glad it was the first thing I read as it was just the thing you want to hear from someone inside in the industry on the morning after such a tragedy. He really covered it all, beautifully.
I’m wondering how racing against the boys had anything to do with the breakdown, but, as usual, as thoughtful a piece as we can hope to read. — J.S.
Nicely worded, Teresa.As I mentioned to Dana last night, it is not those who are looking for another reason to hate the sport that I am worried about. The Derby is the one race that brings in all those who never think about racing on any other day of the year. They don’t hate the sport, they simply see it as another social event. I watched the Derby yesteraday at the Philadelphia Turf Club. At one point a 40-ish mother sat near me and tried to explain the simplified PP to her teenage daughter (who looked like she could not care less). Then she announced to her (and everyone seated nearby) that they were betting the “girl” and perhaps another horse who had “pretty colors.” How many people like her bet Eight Belles yesterday? Combine them with the countless others like her who didn’t even bet…they just watched at home. It’s these folks, the largest group of all, who will speak the loudest, despite their ignorance of the sport. This is why on a beautiful Saturday at Belmont, it still feels empty in the stands. People who follow the sport closely, like us, know that this is part of the sport, no matter how saddened we are.Yet we continue to be fans. The general public, however, can’t bear it.
First, I don’t understand the disdain for the New York Times photo if it’s the same one that’s up there Sunday morning. It’s not nice to see, but it’s not graphic. I saw a much more graphic AP photo on-line Saturday night where the filly’s pained face was visable as she tried to get up as the outrider held her down. Here’s the link. You tell me which photo is worse:http://sports.aol.com/story/_a/big-brown-wins-tragic-kentucky-derby/20080503183509990001That said, my frustration is that these breakdowns are occurring during the few times when the national spotlight is on racing. Count all these I can remember.1) Eight Belles2) Barbaro3) George Washington4) Pine Island5) Go for Wand6) Ruffian7) And several other that I can’t remember at this time.For whatever the reason, the sport seems jinxed.
**standing applause**Teresa, thank you again for a very well worded post that mirrors my sentiments. Last night CNN’s website and this morning the Lexington Herald Leader had photos of Eight Belles down. I don’t think I will ever become accustomed to media hype and drama for sensationalism to envoke people’s feelings in that manner. I agree with Dana if something good would emerge instead of the “US” verses “Them” (ie good trainers vs bad trainers, synthetic vs dirt, drugs vs no drugs, insert any debatable racing topic here) mentality that always ends up instead, all the casualities/injuries would not be in vain. (I’m going to include injuries because much of the “discussion” began Friday with Chelokee’s injury with the track conditions and climated with Eight Belles.) Dana – what can we do, where do I sign up to help, any ideas?Adam – You hit the nail on the head. I see it every day during Keeneland. One big social event, you would have thought you were at Churchill yesterday instead of a simulcast at Keeneland observing everyone’s state of dress. Plus the attendence was well over 22,000 (which is a normal race day for Keeneland) and that’s not counting all the people still in the parking lot tailgaiting.
Terrific post, Brooklyn. Maybe you and I and all the others who love those 2-year-old races—maybe they SHOULD be three-year-old races, and the Derby SHOULD be for four-year-olds. Pipe dream? Probably. But that WOULD make a difference. I always respect those who admit mistakes. We as a nation have made countless. The courage to correct them, specifically in our little world, in our beloved game, would set a fine example for all of sport, whose demons rage in every major pastime.Some posts I’ve been reading (and you mentioned) are so frantically uninformed, I don’t allow them to register.
Tom D, I’ll tell you my disdain for the Times running the photo… how often do they show photos of wounded soldiers or body bags coming home from Iraq? If they had the guts and integrity to do that, then I wouldn’t quibble with it as a “journalistic” choice.
What a wonderful post. THIS should be up on The Rail.
Theresa – your post here lifted me up from the doldrums of depression following the Derby. If I could hug ya, I would. Bravo – well said.
To tell you the truth, I don’t think Larry Bramlage has a clue whether the injuries would or would have not occurred on a synthetic surface. His answer was a superficial dismissal of the possibility that a synthetic surface might have made a difference. Without knowing the exact sequence of the injuries and the condition of the track where they occurred, it’s impossible to say one way or the other. The only accurate answer was “I don’t know.”