From the Thoroughbred Safety Committee on Soundness Issues:
Charge number one: The training and racing of 2-year-old Thoroughbreds is predisposing these horses to accelerated rates of injury and prematurely shortened careers.From a 2007 Talkin' Horses interview:This charge is leveled by some people in and out of the horse industry, especially people outside of racing. It is a very popular theme with animal welfare organizations that are ill informed on the topic of racing and the horse; it is also parroted frequently in the popular press.
To examine these data The Jockey Club Information Systems extracted one-year windows at five-year intervals, using the years 1975 through 2000 as data sets. Horses were divided into the categories "raced as two-year-olds" and "raced, but not as two-year-olds." The data shows a definitive answer to this charge.
The first category of data examined was average starts per starter lifetime. The data shows that horses that raced as 2-year-olds raced many more times in their lifetime in each of the years examined when compared to horses that did not race until after their 2-year-old season. Some of these starts were made in the 2-year-old year for the horses that raced at 2, but the difference was more marked than the 2-year-old year alone would account for.
Average lifetime earnings per starter for horses that raced as 2-year-olds are almost twice the amount earned by horses that did not race as 2-year-olds.
Career average earnings per start for horses that raced as 2-year-olds exceeded average earnings per start for horses that did not race as 2-year-olds in every one of the years from 1975 to 2000 examined.
Lastly, the percent stakes winners in horses that raced as 2-year-olds is nearly three times higher than in horses that did not race until their 3-year-old year or later.
This data is definitive. It shows that horses that began racing as 2-year-olds are much more successful, have much longer careers, and, by extrapolation, show less predisposition to injury than horses that did not begin racing until their 3-year-old year. It is absolute on all the data sets that the training and racing of 2-year-old Thoroughbreds has no ill effect on the horses' race-career longevity or quality. In fact, the data would indicate that the ability to make at least one start as a 2-year-old has a very strong positive affect on the longevity and success of a racehorse. This strong positive effect on the quality and quantity of performance would make it impossible to argue that these horses that race as 2-year-olds are compromised.
These data strongly support the physiologic premise that it is easier for a horse to adapt to training when training begins at the end of skeletal growth. Initiation of training at the end of growth takes advantage of the established blood supply and cell populations that are then converted from growth to the adaptation to training. It is much more difficult for a horse to adapt to training after the musculoskeletal system is allowed to atrophy at the end of growth because the bone formation support system that is still present in the adolescent horse must be re-created in the skeletally mature horse that initiates training.
Wynnewood, PA:
Thank you for taking our questions, Dr. Bramlage. Mine relate to what can be done to minimize injury to the racehorse. Also, more specifically, given finances aren't a factor, what is the ideal age to place a racehorse in training? For example, is there an optimal age wherein appropriate remodeling must occur? Can they still adequately remodel if serious training is withheld until a later age?
Bramlage:
This answer is easy, and well documented by science. The best age to train a horse is to start right at the end of growth and maintain the bone formation mechanism that has been doing the growing, and just shift it to responding to training. So, late yearlings and early two year olds train better, last longer, and make more starts than horses that wait until later to start training.
Now TOBA has released the findings of their study of “career-ending did not finish” (CEDNF) statistics, and they have found that "that horses that began racing as 2-year-olds are less likely to have career-ending incidents than those who began at a later age."
Now I'm not making any statements regarding how this affects the horse's soundness later in life and as their bodies start degenerating as part of the natural aging process. Clearly this study relates only to the impact of racing 2 yos on their racing careers. Racing is one of the most physically stressful disciplines a horse can participate in, and the more years of doing it the harder it will be on their bodies, obviously. It's been demonstrated (to my satisfaction) that racing at 2 means more longevity on the racetrack, not less, so I'm not ready to conclude racing at 2 automatically = more degeneration or injury in middle age or senior years, and I would be more inclined to think the length of racing career will be more of a factor on middle age and senior health than 2yo racing.
Additionally, the scientific evidence that does exist tells us is that bone remodeling done at that young age does not get "unbuilt" later in that horse's life. The bone built by stress stays that way - "Once a horse's bone had remodeled appropriately--yielding a shape adapted for the stresses placed upon it--it would actually stay that way for life." (see http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=4651)
If it's true that longevity of career is more harmful to a horse's later health than 2yo racing - and if racing would legislate with horses' future usefulness in mind (which is why these studies only consider how factors in question affect their racing career, because up to now racing has NOT taken an interest or funded research for how this job affects them in second careers - understandably, as that would be a purely philanthropic endeavor and getting research funding is hard enough already) - then a cap on racing age/number of years eligible to race would make more sense than a restriction on racing horses at age two. Welfare enthusiasts generally worry about legislation for injuries to racehorses, the shortsighted/immediate/"the bad guy" - injuries incurred during race careers (fair enough!) - rather than long term legislation that might protect horses better and longer, after their racing careers - perhaps a more or at least equally valid concern.
The issue of racing 2yos is not as cut and dry as many knowledgeable horsepeople think it is. TB racehorses are the most studied and richly funded subjects of equine research in the world. I am always surprised at how many horsepeople, despite clear scientific evidence from preeminent and numerous sources stating otherwise, make the sweeping statement that starting/working/physically stressing 2yos is always bad. Despite seeming common sense that physically stressing a immature horse to the extent racing does would be a bad idea, hard science tells us otherwise - at least when we are referring to the extent of that animal's racing career. Beyond that we do not know.
Synthetic v. dirt
Those outside of racing might not know how contentious the synth v. dirt question is. There has been conflicting evidence and reports of how much more safety, if ANY, is really being afforded by racing over synth. It is not a black and white issue. Quality, composition, maintenance, and age of surface all play a part whether synth or dirt. The best dirt track, meticulously maintained, might be better than the worst synth track as far as injuries go. There are several makers of synth tracks too. There was some evidence in CA that the tracks there produced fewer catastrophic injuries but many more soft tissue injuries. One thing is pretty clear - bettors hate them. Many, but not all, fans say they dilute the excitement of the racing experience (for a variety of reasons that change the pace scenario and effectiveness of dirt runners/bloodlines). Add to this the typical problems of research - methodology, interpretation, etc and there seems to be no clear cut or agreed upon opinion of whether synth is good or bad for racing.
To some, even if it is proven safer, it's not worth it as it shakes up long held breeding and racing dynasties as some regal and expensive stallions become potentially useless. Many of the top stallions the the KY bluegrass rely on brilliant dirt runners to be what they are. Top trainer Bob Baffert has famously remarked "synthetic tracks make good horses look ordinary and ordinary horses look good," although most agree really great horses can and do run well on both (Zen). What is clear is synth is not the cure-all for which racing had hoped.
This study finds
.19% CEDNFs on synth
.39% CEDNFs on dirt
- a difference that means 9 CEDNFs per "average hypothetical race meet" on synth instead of 18 on dirt, or about half the CEDNFs.
Incidentally, turf had a .26% average of CEDNFs, or 12 per hypothetical race meet.
But what about soft tissue injuries? They were not a part of the study. If synth produces a significantly larger number of soft tissue injuries than dirt, and we go to all synth (CA did) does that mean we'll have a fraction more of horses retiring from the track (rather than dying there, or being euthed eventually from injuries) but a higher percentage of OTTBs with tendon and ligament injuries? Is that improving safety? Is safety measured only in catastrophic injuries, not minor or soft tissue ones? Might partly depend on whether you think euth is better or worse than lifelong disability, which, of course, depends partly on the conditions of the disability (is the horse in pain?).
Read the write up or the study for more. http://www.paulickreport....hetic-stands-for-safety/

