American racing under fire; industry responds

Cover image courtesy of Keeneland

It's not at all unusual for the New York Times to publish anti-horse racing pieces, something it has done dozens of times. But in Friday's edition, the Times held nothing back in what was arguably its most negative story yet.

In a scathing 4,600-word guest essay written by Noah Shachtman entitled “Dead Athletes. Empty Stands. Why Are We Paying Billions to Keep This Sport Alive?,” the author's main conclusion is that governments should not be propping up a dying business in horse racing, whether that is through revenues from casinos or loans, like the one made to the New York Racing Association to rebuild Belmont Park, or through direct subsidies paid to the New Jersey and Maryland purse accounts.

According to a short bio of the author that runs above the story, Shachtman is a contributing editor at Wired, who previously served as the editor-in-chief of Rolling Stone and The Daily Beast.

Shachtman realises that there was a time when the relationship between state governments and racing worked in favor of both. Call it racing's "glory days", when racing was, outside of Las Vegas, the only gambling game in town. The tracks were granted licenses to run and, in return, they generated millions in tax revenues for the states.

In his eyes, as racing's popularity has declined - and it has found it hard to compete with casinos, lotteries, sports betting and other legal forms of wagering - the relationship between the tracks and states has taken a 180-degree turn. Shachtman writes that tracks no longer support the government, but it is government that supports the tracks.

He cites the many arguments the racing industry uses to justify its existence, but isn't sympathetic. “Every dollar they get to skip in taxes is one that, at least in theory, has to be made up elsewhere,” he writes. “The sport belongs to us. It's time to think about whether we actually want it.”

The 4600 words gives the writer plenty of opportunity to run through the laundry list of topics racing's critics use to demand that the sport be banned or have its alternative forms of revenue taken away. The sport still has serious problems, but, particularly when it comes to breakdowns, the game is headed in the right direction. Shachtman doesn't seem impressed.

He notes that other sports get subsidies, but says there is a distinction: “Those other sports don't routinely kill their athletes. The anti-racing advocacy organization Horseracing Wrongs has shown that 11,000 horses have been put to death at American racetracks since 2014.”

The writer focuses in on the story of New York Thunder (USA) (Nyquist {USA}), who broke down while well on his way to victory in the 2023 GI Allen Jerkens Memorial Stakes at Saratoga. Instead, he broke down and fell in a heap a few yards from the wire. It was one of the ugliest breakdowns anyone had seen at the racetrack.

Shachtman writes: “Veterinary records reviewed by the Times and a pair of post-mortem reviews later conducted by the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority, the New York Racing Association and the New York State Gaming Commission revealed more than a few clues (so far as why the horse broke down). And already that year, New York Thunder had been scratched–withdrawn from a race–four times, at least two of which were for medical concerns. The race New York Thunder was running in had a $500,000 purse. As the financial rewards of racing get bigger, so do the incentives to keep running the animals. But breeding practices that favor speed over durability have caused successive generations to grow genetically homogeneous and vulnerable to injury. These days, multiple veterinarians tell me, nearly every thoroughbred is running wounded.”

The author does note that the breakdown numbers have dropped sharply since the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority and the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit have taken over and are responsible for such things as track safety, drug testing, and veterinarian checks meant to keep unsound horses off of the racetrack. But this development is covered in one sentence.

The 11,000 figure he uses from Horseracing Wrongs includes Quarter Horse races, and the writer fails to make the distinction. He writes that Bob Baffert was banned from Churchill Downs for “doping,” a word the Times loves to use every time it covers the Baffert saga. Baffert was not charged with doping but for failing to follow the guidelines when it came to a therapeutic medication, betamethasone. There is a clear distinction.

There's also no mention that revenue from slot machines at the New York racetracks is not used solely to prop up racing. The casino at Aqueduct, Resorts World NYC (RWNYC), is New York State's largest taxpayer and generated more than US$4 billion in revenue supporting the state's public education fund since the casino first opened its doors in 2011. Should a full casino license be awarded this year to RWNYC, New York State would see an immediate US$500 million financial windfall from the initial casino license fee alone, and hundreds of millions of additional dollars in new, direct annual revenue.

One area in which the Times might have gotten right is when Shachtman talks about the working and living conditions for the backstretch workers, who are mostly paid minimum wage and work long hours. Thanks to the generosity of prominent horsemen like Michael Dubb and groups like the New York Race Track Chaplaincy of America, progress is being made. But more needs to be done.

But, like so many other things that are positives when it comes to racing, the Times conveniently ignored that fact. The author sees this as a black-and-white issue, with no room for the discussion of what's going right and, yes, what racing could do better. No. The only solution is to pull whatever plugs are keeping the sport going.

“Few things are more inspiring than seeing a horse run, and the feelings that these animals evoke in humans can border on the mystic,” Shachtman writes. “But that's neither an economic nor a policy rationale for spending billions on an unpopular sport. So why do it? Why keep propping up a pastime that, despite many attempted overhauls, can't keep its fans and takes such a heavy toll on its athletes and workers? Our state and local governments struggle to pay teachers what they're worth, to build affordable housing, to put enough firefighters on a rig.

“With sports betting exploding across the United States, it makes less sense than ever for the public to be coddling this sport like some sort of delicate foundling. The obvious solution here is also the simplest: Just stop. Let the sport stand on its own and dwindle to whatever size its fan base supports.”

Like so many other anti-racing stories that have appeared in the New York Times, that's the only side of the story their readers will hear.

Light Up Racing responds to NYT article

Light Up Racing is pushing back against a New York Times article on horse racing with a message by Vicky Leonard sent to its members Friday. The message reads in part:

“A new New York Times article on horse racing has been published, and unfortunately, it follows a familiar pattern: misleading claims, outdated narratives, and a failure to acknowledge the industry's real progress. They frame the industry as reliant on subsidies while overlooking the hundreds of millions it contributes in tax revenue. They call racing a dying sport, but ignore the record Kentucky Derby audience and the US$2 billion invested in track infrastructure.

"They question safety standards, even though racehorse fatalities have dropped 27 per cent since HISA's implementation, marking the safest period in modern racing. Misinformation spreads when it goes unchallenged. That's where this community comes in. With the Kentucky Derby approaching, the grassroots network we've built is more important than ever in ensuring that the real story of racing is heard.”

Light Up Racing also included a Google document with key talking points related directly to the article and encouraged readers to share it and “help set the record straight.”