Kentucky Icons Blow Cover; Demonstrate Reluctance to Create Meaningful Change
With all the talk in recent months surrounding the welfare of the thoroughbred, much of the dialogue has been quietly and discreetly shifted away from the core issue of genetics. Rather than dealing with what has truly led to an increasingly fragile thoroughbred (genetics and the irresponsible breeding practices of commercial breeders), our industry has chosen instead to deal with peripheral issues such as medications, whips, steroids, and racing surfaces. Even the most primitive forms of logic recognize the latter issues are less significant if we can unite as an industry and create rules/incentives encouraging the production of more durable racing stock.
Recent comments by John Sikura of Hill 'n' Dale Farms, Bill Casner of WinStar Farm, and Robert Clay of Three Chimneys Farm point to a clear resistance on the part of Kentucky's larger breeding farms to enact sweeping changes in the way breeding stock is selected and utilized.
In a letter to the editor of The Blood-Horse magazine, Sikura sums up his view of necessary industry reforms: "Let's work together and accomplish the following right away: abolish toe grabs, reform use of the whip, take a break in the racing schedule, test every racing surface for cushion and safety, institute a thorough pre-race veterinary inspection of all horses competing in Triple Crown and Breeders' Cup events, institute uniform medication rules, and institute lifetime bans on those who are caught using a designer drug."
As part of his proposed solutions, Sikura conveniently fails to address the issue of genetics. His only reference to the issue appears earlier in his letter where he uses anecdotal examples (Danzig and Mr. Prospector) of why a stallion's own durability should be overlooked when he's allowed to influence the breed.
Casner's unwillingness to look at genetics as part of the equation is illustrated when he attacks a pedigree consultant's opinion in the June 7, 2008 issue of USA Today. In response to her belief that more and more breeders are aiming for the sales ring rather than the racetrack, Casner says "it's so easy for somebody to make an assertion that's based on an assumption".
Casner claims his farm breeds mares and stallions most likely to produce sound individuals and "there are a lot of other breeders out there that do exactly the same." Casner's statement conflicts with views he expressed seven months earlier in Brian Hiro's Eclipse award-winning series, "Death and Durability of the Racehorse". Casner's perspective appears to have flip-flopped since the Eight Belles tragedy in May.
"One of our problems is that we have interrupted natural selection," Casner said last fall at a safety/welfare summit. "We used to select for a much stronger horse. The economics of our day and age have changed the way we breed our horses. At an earlier time, a horse had to earn its way to the breeding shed. Durability was certainly one of those things that was selected for. Now, sales dictate breeding decisions. When matings are planned, one of the big questions is, 'Is she going to give you a pretty baby? Is this mating going to give you a good-looking horse?' It's a beauty contest out there." When the industry wasn't under intense scrutiny, Casner's willingness to be more candid and forthright was obvious. Now he throws stones at those who want to keep the issue alive in the forum of industry debate.
The most laughable, and clearly biased comments come from Robert Clay in the same June 7 USA Today article. When asked about the frequency of undesirable traits being passed along by stallions, Clay conveniently narrows the conversation to one of bad feet, mustering up an unconvincing "we have had stallions that have had less than perfect feet and have not passed that along. It can be inheritable, but more often it is not." Rather than discussing the issue from an intellectually honest perspective and acknowledging the obvious... that while not all foals sired by stallions with poor feet have poor feet themselves, the odds of getting a foal with poor foot structure by using these same stallions undoubtedly increases, Clay appears to be laying the groundwork to combat naysayers who argue that Big Brown's poor feet should preclude him from entering the gene pool. Considering Clay's vested interest in the Big Brown syndicate, his opinion on the inheritability of poor foot structure should hardly be considered unbiased or useful.
It's imperative we understand that we can't look to those who have a vested interest in the commercial market to help institute change. Sikura, Casner, and Clay are clear examples of this dysfunctional dynamic. If worthwhile changes are to take place, industry leaders (and potentially, federal lawmakers) have to stay aware of the commercial bias, and look for support from those who are truly vested in the welfare of the horse and can look beyond the short term financial setbacks likely to impact stallion syndicates and commercial markets.
