Horse Racing Wrongs

By Published Updated
On this page 6 sections
  1. Fatalities and Bad Drug Tests
  2. US Horse Racing Authority
  3. How the Industry Is Addressing Its Wrongs
  4. Is Horse Racing Safe in the United States?
  5. What national oversight now covers
  6. How to compare a welfare claim with its evidence

2019 was a difficult year for horse racing. Fatal injuries at Santa Anita drew sustained attention, and a Triple Crown winner’s earlier medication test became the subject of public controversy. All of the horse racing wrongs that were brought to light have renewed the protests of animal rights groups and others who want to end the sport as we know it. There are things in horse racing that need to be corrected. This point cannot be argued. Should the sport be banned, or is there a way to right the wrongs of horse racing?

Fatalities and Bad Drug Tests

The horse racing wrongs of 2019 began with the Santa Anita race meet. Fatal injuries during this meeting prompted investigations and changes to safety practices. Calling the total a record requires a defined period and comparison data, so it should not be asserted from the headline count alone. Horse racing can be a dangerous sport for both the horses and the jockeys who ride them, but the serious cluster of breakdowns in the Santa Anita meet caused a negative spotlight to be thrown on the sport.

In late 2019 horse racing suffered another blow when it was revealed that the most recent Triple Crown winner, Justify, had failed a drug test at Santa Anita prior to winning the Kentucky Derby. The issue concerned a scopolamine-positive sample after the 2018 Santa Anita Derby and the California authority’s handling of that case. The effect of an earlier disqualification on Kentucky Derby qualification is a counterfactual question, not proof that public disclosure alone would automatically have barred entry. The test became widely reported in September 2019; subsequent proceedings must be distinguished from the original public controversy.

All of these events have combined to give the critics of horse racing a lot of ammunition in their ongoing quest to have horse racing regulated or banned. It should be noted that the horse racing wrongs in question all relate to horse racing in the United States. Welfare debates also occur in horse racing in Australia, France, or the UK. Differences in reporting definitions and regulatory systems need investigation before making international comparisons.

US Horse Racing Authority

Horse racing in the United States is managed a little bit differently than it is in other parts of the world. In Hong Kong, for example, there is one organization that oversees all of horse racing. The Hong Kong Jockey Club is responsible for making sure the rules of racing are followed at all of Hong Kong’s race tracks. All trainers have to answer to this organization in regards to the safety of the horses under their care.

In the United States horse racing is conducted differently. In 2019 there was no HISA national framework, and state commissions administered their jurisdictions. Today HISA has national safety and medication programs for covered Thoroughbred racing, while state commissions retain other responsibilities. Justify’s California case involved contested rules, administrative decisions and litigation; the existence of separate jurisdictions does not itself establish a deliberate cover-up or prove that a national body would have prevented the controversy.

Many insiders in horse racing have been calling for the creation of a national racing commission in the United States. That historical debate preceded the 2020 federal legislation creating HISA. The relevant present question is how its rules are applied and how official outcomes are reported, rather than whether the old article’s prediction might still come to pass.

How the Industry Is Addressing Its Wrongs

The horse racing industry’s response to the criticisms levelled at it has evolved significantly over the past decade, driven by a combination of regulatory pressure, public scrutiny, and genuine internal reform efforts. The establishment of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act in the United States created a federal framework for uniform anti-doping and safety standards for covered Thoroughbred racing alongside remaining state responsibilities, rather than replacing every state function or covering every racing discipline. This structural change represents the most significant governance reform in American racing history and reflects an industry-wide acknowledgment that self-regulation had proven insufficient.

Welfare reforms have extended beyond medication and safety to address the full lifecycle of thoroughbreds, including retirement, retraining, and rehoming. Organisations like the Thoroughbred Aftercare Alliance in the US and similar bodies in other countries have developed structured programmes that provide post-racing support for horses, addressing one of the most persistent welfare criticisms the sport has faced. These initiatives are not yet universal in their reach, but they represent genuine progress toward a more responsible industry culture. For bettors who care about the welfare dimensions of the sport they wager on, our article on do race horses get treated well covers the welfare landscape in detail. And our guide on what happens to race horses when they stop racing covers post-career outcomes.

Is Horse Racing Safe in the United States?

Horse racing wrongs in the US most frequently address the treatment of race horses. Animal rights activists and organizations are quick to point out that horse racing claims the lives of many horses each year. This cannot be disputed, but advocacy sites such as HorseRacingWrongs.org present their own evidence and conclusions. Evaluate the underlying records and definitions rather than dismissing a source as dishonest without demonstrating a specific error.

Yes, the race meet at Santa Anita in 2018-2019 was very bad for horse racing. A reported total near 30 for the winter-spring Santa Anita meet included racing and training incidents; a count is not a mortality rate without an exposure measure. The article’s former claim of no Del Mar fatalities throughout 2019 was also too broad. The CHRB’s 2018/19 fiscal-year report lists 11 Del Mar fatalities across racing, training and other categories. That July-to-June reporting period differs from the summer meet, illustrating why periods and categories must match before comparing venues.

True fans of horse racing do not like to see horses come to harm. They are also concerned with horse racing wrongs. One can only hope that measures will continue to be taken that promote safety in horse racing for all involved. Now, it is time to explore some horse betting sites so do check our Bovada racebook review, Twinspires review or even our Betamerica review. All great choice if you are in the US. online racebook comparison for folks anywhere!

What national oversight now covers

This article discusses the 2019 debate over the absence of a national US framework. The landscape has since changed. The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority’s Racetrack Safety Program took effect in July 2022, and its Anti-Doping and Medication Control Program followed in May 2023. The governance discussion above now distinguishes that historical context from current covered Thoroughbred racing.

National rules do not erase every state racing commission or resolve every welfare problem. When assessing a new incident, distinguish the date and jurisdiction, whether the race falls within HISA’s scope, and whether the issue concerns track safety, medication, stewardship or a local licensing decision. Consult the official ruling and the underlying test or veterinary record before drawing a conclusion from a headline. The practical question is whether the record shows a rule applied, an investigation completed and a clear explanation of the outcome.

How to compare a welfare claim with its evidence

Scroll horizontally to view the full table
Questions that make safety comparisons more reliable
Claim type Evidence needed Common comparison error
Fatality count Track, period and included categories Calling a raw count a rate.
Fatality rate Exposure measure and consistent methodology Comparing starts with training sessions.
Medication controversy Test, rule version and official decision Treating a headline as the final ruling.
Safety reform Implementation date and measured outcomes Assuming adoption proves effectiveness.

HISA’s program overview dates its safety program to July 1, 2022 and medication program to May 22, 2023. California’s official decisions directory provides a route to the Justify case’s administrative records. Equibase’s March 30, 2024 report records a disqualification from the 2018 Santa Anita Derby; that is distinct from revoking his Triple Crown race results. Read the specific race and decision date before describing what changed.

Related research

Continue the Analysis

Browse the full research library

Similar Posts