As horse death toll grows at Santa Anita, fans and foes of racing see a hard battle over sport’s future

The controversy over the shocking number of horse deaths at Santa Anita racetrack this season veered onto political turf this week. Talk about treacherous footing.

When U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday called on the California Horse Racing Board to halt racing at Santa Anita pending further investigation of 23 fatal injuries to thoroughbreds there since December, she emboldened animal-welfare activists and raised anxiety among the sport’s promoters.

In a week when racing fans are trying to pick winners in the Arcadia track’s two biggest annual events, Saturday’s Santa Anita Derby and Santa Anita Handicap, others find themselves handicapping the future of racing itself.

The consensus, among horse-racing proponents and opponents and political insiders: Public and political attention to equine health and safety problems at Santa Anita puts the racing industry in more jeopardy than ever — the potential repercussions include the possibility of a campaign to ban racing through a state ballot proposition or legislation.

They also say an effort to abolish horse racing at California’s nine thoroughbred, quarter-horse and harness-racing tracks would not come quickly, cheaply or without political intrigue.

“It certainly takes everything to another level. It’s taking (the animal-welfare issue) out of racing’s hands,” Wendy Davis, who watches racing trends as director of the University of Arizona’s Race Track Industry Program, said of the calls for at least a temporary shutdown at Santa Anita by Feinstein and Rep. Judy Chu, D-Pasadena.

What has changed? Observers say:

• More people are more sensitive to concerns about the treatment of animals, a change reflected in successful efforts to improve conditions in zoos and circuses and ballot-initiative victories such as last year’s California measure setting minimum space requirements for farm animals, said Kathy Guillermo, senior vice president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Davis attributes the different attitudes to the fact fewer people grow up with animals used for commercial purposes.

• Social media make it easier to spread awareness of problems and fire up activists.

• Activists can see a path to outlawing horse racing after a 69 percent of Florida voters approved a state constitutional amendment in November 2018 that will phase out greyhound racing at Florida’s 11 dog tracks by the end of 2020.

• With its fan base shrunken by increased competition from other forms of entertainment since the era when it was the only legal gambling game in town, horse racing has fewer people to stick up for it.

By signaling interest from California politicians, Feinstein “gives us momentum,” said Judie Mancuso, a Laguna Beach resident who is founding president of Social Compassion in Legislation, which sponsors animal-protection laws.

Not so fast?

Perhaps oddly, public discussion about the Santa Anita crisis posing a danger to horse racing’s future seems to be coming loudest from racing-industry leaders, in their zeal to sound as if they’re taking the problem seriously. Rick Baedeker, executive director of the California Horse Racing Board and a longtime racing executive, was quoted saying the sport is “at risk.”

That said, any push to end racing in California would be complicated and expensive.

“It’s not so easy,” Mancuso said of trying to drive racing out of California. “I have people contacting me all the time saying, ‘Judie, please do something to ban racing!’ I say, ‘Find the money!’”

Backers of last year’s Proposition 12, the farm-animals confinement initiative, spent $13.3 million on their winning campaign. (The losing side spent $689,000.) That’s on top of the $2.2 million they spent for signature-gatherers to fill petitions to put the measure on the ballot. Mancuso called those figures “daunting.”

The chances of state Senate and Assembly members leading a racing abolition movement, either by writing a piece of legislation or by putting a referendum before voters, would depend on other elected officials, such as Gov. Gavin Newsom, offering signals of encouragement, Mancuso said. And, even if proposed, any bill threatening racing could still stall in either house’s Appropriations Committee, whose members could worry about losing the revenue that racetracks contribute to the state. In the 2017-18 fiscal year, according to the CHRB, racing provided $16.4 million directly to state government coffers.

“Knowing elected officials, they’re afraid to stick their neck out on something unless they know they’re not going to get their head chopped off,” Mancuso said. “They’d want to know who’s on what side (and know) where Gavin stands. Is it safe?”

Newsom’s office referred a reporter’s question about the governor’s view of the issue to Russ Heimerich, spokesman for the California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, which oversees the CHRB. Heimerich said Newsom is “troubled by the recent horse deaths at Santa Anita Park and is monitoring the situation closely.”

The CHRB has called a special meeting Friday, April 12, at Santa Anita, and could take action to move racing dates to another track for the rest of this year’s season, which is scheduled to continue through Sunday, June 23.

Larry Levine, a Los Angeles-based political consultant who said he has been a horse racing fan since visiting Agua Caliente racetrack in Tijuana with his father at age 14, said he would be surprised if legislators put a racing-ban measure on the ballot, a move that could mean lost state revenue and attracting the ire of racing supporters. So any such move, he said, would be up to activists.

“In California, it comes down to ‘Do you have enough money to pay the signature-gatherers the $2 or $4 or $6 or $10 they want (per signature)?,” Levine said.

“Then it comes down to the political moxie of the industry to fight back,” he added. “Nobody can show me (the racing industry) has shown a lot of political moxie in recent years.”

But the racing industry nationwide, and related industries and labor groups in California, would spend money to protect their interests in a major racing state. Levine said such pro-racing spending would make any racing ban proposition “a very expensive campaign.”

The problem for those arguing for keeping racing, Levine said, is “How do you overcome the emotions (about) a dead horse?”

The debate

The 23rd and most recent fatal breakdown during the current Santa Anita season, which started on Wednesday, Dec. 26, occurred in the San Simeon Stakes on the hillside turf course Sunday, March 31, when the 5-year-old gelding Arms Running fractured his right foreleg as the horses crossed the main track near the top of the stretch. Arms Runner and jockey Martin Pedroza fell, taking La Sardane and rider Ruben Fuentes down with them. Arms Runner had to be enthanized.

That was the 44th day of racing at Santa Anita. Thirteen other race days had already been canceled this season as track management worked to figure out why so many horses have been injured, and worked to implement changes in medication and whipping rules. Most of the deaths occurred during the unusually rainy and cold winter, when prolonged wet conditions could have damaged the main track and turf course.

But the death count at Santa Anita is unusual only in its number. Thoroughbreds are strong but delicate athletes, and horses routinely suffer injuries that result in the animal being slaughtered at every race track, every season.  Based on the CHRB’s 2017-18 data on fatal injuries in racing and training, an average stretch of 44 racing days at a California track typically would produce about eight deaths.

If the sport were put up for a vote in California, racing interests would have to convince the public that such a “normal” death rate is acceptable.

And, if confronted with an abolition campaign, those same interests also could argue that people in their sport care deeply about their horses, and that they’ve been succeeding in making racing safer for animals and riders alike.

Alex Waldrop, president and CEO of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, which leads efforts to popularize American horse racing, said the past decade has seen a 16 percent drop in the rate of fatalities per start.

“That is just one of many examples I could provide of the progress that has been made recently to promote safety and welfare,” Waldrop said, adding that “more work” must be done.

“California racing will emerge from this crisis stronger,” Waldrop added.

But Waldrop acknowledged California racetracks could face the kind of customer backlash that hit SeaWorld in San Diego after the 2013 documentary “Blackfish” drew attention to marine parks’ treatment of killer whales.

Something else racing interests would tell voters: Eliminating racing could damage California’s economy. The American Horse Council says beyond the $16.4 million the sport generates in tax revenue for the state, California horse racing also supports 17,798 jobs and adds an estimated $1.56 billion, overall, to the state economy.

That’s the kind of argument being made in Georgia, where an effort is afoot to introduce horse racing to the state. The bill to do that is called the Rural Georgia Jobs and Growth Act.

California, which legalized horse racing through a 1933 ballot measure, is one of 38 U.S. states with racetracks.

Neither side could cite any surveys showing if the general public would vote for or against an effort to undo that.

You might have more luck picking the winner of the Santa Anita Handicap.

Meanwhile, animal-welfare activists say the mere threat of an abolition effort spurs the racing industry to listen to their proposed reforms, including bans on medications, stiffer penalties for rule-breaking trainers, installation of safer running surfaces, and better equipment to diagnose injuries.

“I think (a ban) probably will happen if they don’t make some serious changes very quickly,” Guillermo said.