Santa Anita 2019: When Racehorses Kept Dying

Timeline

1. Dec 26, 2018Santa Anita's winter race meet opens.
2. Dec 30, 2018The first of 23 racing and training deaths in the cluster studied by regulators.
3. Mar 3, 2019Santa Anita holds its last races for nearly a month while the dirt track is inspected and renovated.
4. Mar 14, 2019After a 22nd death, The Stronach Group announces zero tolerance for race-day medication and limits on the whip.
5. Mar 15, 2019The Los Angeles County District Attorney forms a task force to investigate.
6. Mar 29, 2019Racing resumes with reduced race-day Lasix doses.
7. Jun 26, 2019Governor Gavin Newsom signs SB 469, letting the CHRB suspend race-meet licenses to protect horses and riders.
8. Dec 19, 2019The District Attorney reports no criminal wrongdoing and issues safety recommendations.
9. Mar 10, 2020The CHRB publishes its report on the 23 deaths.

The ethical issues

• Animal welfare in a sport that depends on high-intensity exercise.
• Medication practices that may mask pain or injury.
• Pressure on trainers and tracks to keep horses racing.
• Conflicts of interest in veterinary oversight.
• Whether legal practices can still be ethically unacceptable.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Racehorses	Freedom from avoidable injury, pain and death.
The Stronach Group (track owner)	A viable racing business and public support for the sport.
Trainers and owners	Competing, earning purses and caring for their horses.
Jockeys	Their own safety and the tools to ride safely.
California Horse Racing Board	Regulating safety and integrity in a legal wagering sport.
Animal welfare advocates and the public	Ending preventable deaths, or ending racing altogether.

The case

Background

Santa Anita Park in Arcadia, California, is one of the most famous racetracks in the United States. During its 2018–19 winter meet, horses began dying at an alarming rate. Over 11 weeks from December 30, 2018, to March 31, 2019, a period of unusually heavy rain, 23 horses died from racing or training.^[3] The deaths drew national attention, protests and investigations, and forced the track, regulators and lawmakers to act. The case asks what an industry owes the animals whose bodies it depends on.

The rules and governance

Horse racing with wagering in California is supervised by the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB), which sets safety standards for tracks and equipment and regulates medication.^[3] Tracks are run by private operators; Santa Anita is owned by The Stronach Group.^[9] Before 2019, the CHRB had limited ability to act against a track’s license short of an alleged rule violation.^[5]

Many medications are legal in racing. Some, such as the anti-bleeding drug furosemide (Lasix), could be given on race day, a practice the Los Angeles Times noted was allowed only in the United States and Canada.^[8] Others, such as anti-inflammatory drugs and joint injections, are permitted in training within limits.^[3]

The deaths

According to the CHRB, 22 of the 23 horses suffered a fatal musculoskeletal injury and one died suddenly during training. Thirteen were injured in races and 10 during high-speed morning workouts; 17 incidents occurred on the dirt track and six on turf. The horses ranged from 3 to 7 years old.^[1]

Racing stopped after March 3, and the dirt surface was inspected and renovated. AP reported the track had been hit by nearly a foot of rain during an unusually cold and wet winter.^[9]

The industry responds

On March 14, after a 22nd death, Stronach Group chair Belinda Stronach announced “zero tolerance for race-day medication” at Santa Anita and Golden Gate Fields. “What has happened at Santa Anita over the last few weeks is beyond heartbreaking,” she said. “It is unacceptable to the public and, as people who deeply love horses, to everyone at The Stronach Group and Santa Anita.”^[6] Her plan included banning Lasix; tighter limits on anti-inflammatory drugs, joint injections, shockwave therapy and anabolic steroids; full transparency of veterinary records; more out-of-competition testing; and investment in diagnostic equipment. She said the riding crop “should only be used as a corrective safety measure.” “Racing at Santa Anita and Golden Gate is a privilege, it is not a right,” she said.^[6][7]

The final compromise was more gradual. When racing resumed on March 29, the race-day Lasix dose was cut from 10 cc to 5 cc, with 2-year-olds to be barred from race-day medication the following year. Of 67 horses that raced that day, all but two ran on Lasix.^[8][9] The CHRB voted to restrict the whip to situations where the safety of jockeys or horses is at stake; the Jockeys’ Guild had asked for a delay, saying there had not been enough time to present scientific evidence.^[8] Stronach Group chief operating officer Tim Ritvo said the company believed protecting horses might mean “short term losses in business but we’ll have long term gains in sustainability,” and warned that people outside the sport’s fan base were “the ones that will go to Sacramento.”^[9]

In June, Governor Gavin Newsom directed the CHRB to set up a review group to screen horses before races at Santa Anita; 38 horses were scratched or denied entry under that process. On June 26, he signed SB 469, allowing the CHRB to suspend race-meet licenses when necessary to protect horses and riders. “Business as usual has resulted in too many horse deaths,” he said.^[5]

The investigations

The Los Angeles County District Attorney formed a task force on March 15, 2019.^[3] In December it reported that “the District Attorney’s Task Force did not find evidence of criminal animal cruelty or unlawful conduct.”^[3][4] It found eight legal substances in a number of the horses’ toxicology reports, none at levels violating CHRB rules; found no evidence that anyone knowingly raced an injured horse; and found no evidence that the track unduly pressured trainers to race. It noted that trainers receiving free stabling “understand they are committing to racing their horses.”^[3] Experts it consulted disagreed about whether sealing a wet dirt track was safe.^[3] The report put Santa Anita’s 2018 rate at 2.04 racing deaths per 1,000 starts, against a national average of 1.68.^[3]

The District Attorney recommended more than two dozen measures, including mandatory investigations of all fatalities, an annual fatality report, stronger penalties for rule violations and a tip line.^[4] Lacey said, “Horse racing has inherent risks but is a legally sanctioned sport in California. Greater precautions are needed to enhance safety and protect both horses and their riders.”^[4] An animal rights group, PETA, criticized the finding, arguing that trainers who medicate horses “obviously know that they are injured and sore.”^[10]

The CHRB’s own report, published in March 2020, found “no illegal medications or procedures.”^[1] But it found that 21 of the 22 fatally injured horses had pre-existing damage at the injury site, presumed to be associated with high exercise intensity; that 19 had fractures of the proximal sesamoid bones; that 11 had received joint corticosteroid injections, two within 14 days of injury; and that 39 percent of the deaths occurred on surfaces affected by wet weather.^[1] It found that most trainers had not previously reviewed necropsy reports on their horses, that record-keeping was poor, and that having track veterinarians supervised by the track’s racing office “poses an inherent conflict.” Sixteen horses were under the care of trainers with at least one other fatality within 12 months.^[1] The CHRB published redacted necropsy reports and exercise histories for each case.^[2]

Aftermath

Deaths continued but at a lower rate. The District Attorney reported 49 deaths at Santa Anita in fiscal year 2018–19, and seven more from September through November 2019, the last of them on November 2, 2019.^[3] It also noted that between April 29 and May 17, 2019, more than 7,000 timed workouts and almost 800 race starts took place without a fatality.^[3] The CHRB recommended reforms including compulsory imaging and rest based on exercise history, mandatory necropsy reviews and restructuring of claiming rules.^[1]

The core dilemma

Racing horses at high speed carries risk that cannot be eliminated, and many practices that may contribute to injuries were legal. The industry had to decide how much business and tradition to sacrifice to reduce deaths, and regulators had to decide how far to intervene in a legal, popular sport.

Competing values

• Animal welfare vs. economic livelihood: fewer races and stricter rules cost money and jobs.
• Tradition vs. reform: medication and whip practices long accepted in US racing.
• Legality vs. ethics: no crimes were found, but deaths were not inevitable.
• Track autonomy vs. public oversight: who decides when conditions are unsafe.

Strongest arguments

For sweeping reform: Most fatally injured horses had detectable pre-existing damage.^[1] Medications and injections may hide pain.^[1][10] Veterinary oversight was compromised by a conflict of interest.^[1] After reforms, fatalities fell markedly.^[3]

For caution about blame and reform: No illegal drugs or crimes were found.^[1][3] Experts disagreed about track surfaces.^[3] The weather was extreme.^[9] Jockeys argued whip rules were rushed.^[8]

Applying the frameworks

Care ethics

Care ethics centers on the vulnerable party in a relationship of dependence. Racehorses depend entirely on trainers, owners and tracks. A caring approach asks whether those responsible paid attention to the signs of strain, such as unreviewed necropsies and poor records, and acted to protect animals that cannot protect themselves.

Utilitarian

Utilitarians, from Bentham to Peter Singer, count animal suffering. They weigh the pleasure and livelihoods racing produces against the suffering and deaths of horses. Measures that cut fatalities at modest cost, like pre-race screening, score well; whether racing itself is justified remains contested.

Virtue ethics

Virtue ethics asks what a good horseman, track owner or regulator would do. Compassion and prudence argue for erring toward horse safety. The CHRB’s findings about poor record-keeping and limited understanding of pathology suggest a gap between professed love of horses and practiced care.^[1]

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue: A cluster of horse deaths at one track.
2. Gather facts: Necropsies, medication records, track data and exercise histories.
3. Test options: Close the track; change medication rules; screen horses; restructure veterinary oversight.
4. Check codes and law: CHRB rules, animal cruelty law and new legislation.
5. Decide and document: Publish findings and reasons.
6. Communicate and follow up: Track fatality rates and adjust reforms.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: Twenty-three horses died in the cluster; no illegal drugs or crimes were found; reforms and SB 469 followed.^[1][3][5]
• Contested: the role of track conditions and medication; whether reforms went far enough; whether racing can be made acceptably safe.^[1][3][10]

Why this case matters

Santa Anita shows that legal practices can still produce unacceptable harm, and that public pressure, data and independent oversight can drive change. It raises lasting questions about animal welfare in sport and about who protects participants who cannot speak for themselves.

See also: Federal Drug Rules for Racehorses: HISA’s Medication Program on Trial.

Key terms

Duty of care

The responsibility of coaches, organizations and institutions to protect the health, safety and well-being of those in their charge. It is not a license for total control.

Non-maleficence

The duty to avoid causing harm, often paired with care ethics when setting safety rules.

Legal but unethical

Law sets out what can be punished; ethics asks what is right. Compliance is a minimum, so an action can be lawful and still wrong.

Institutional accountability

Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.

Conflict of interest

A situation where a person’s private interest could improperly influence a decision they make in an official role.

Stakeholders

Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Investigators found no crimes. Does that mean no one acted wrongly?
2. Should race-day medications like Lasix be banned? What are the arguments on each side?
3. Who should decide when a track is too dangerous to race on: the track, trainers or regulators?
4. Is it ethical to race horses at all if catastrophic injuries cannot be eliminated?
5. What does an industry owe to animals that cannot consent to the risks they face?

Sources

1. Santa Anita Fatalities Report (Dec. 30, 2018 – Mar. 31, 2019) — California Horse Racing Board
2. Santa Anita Fatalities Reports: case necropsy reports and exercise histories — California Horse Racing Board
3. Santa Anita Task Force Report of Investigation — Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
4. District Attorney Jackie Lacey Issues Report on Horse Deaths at Santa Anita Racetrack — Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
5. Governor Newsom Signs Legislation to Strengthen Horse Safety and Race Track Accountability — Office of the Governor of California
6. Amid Breakdown Epidemic, Santa Anita to Ban Race-Day Medication — Thoroughbred Daily News
7. Racing! TSG announces sweeping changes — Los Angeles Times
8. Santa Anita to reopen Friday after horse deaths lead to limits on whip use and race-day medications — Los Angeles Times
9. Racing resumes at Santa Anita after shutdown — ESPN / Associated Press
10. Prosecutors: No Evidence of Crime Or Animal Cruelty After Rash Of Horse Deaths — NPR