The value of The Jockey Club Equine Injury Database has been demonstrated repeatedly over the past 16 years with the development of numerous industry safety initiatives including the revision of race-day medication rules and regulatory changes such as void-claim rules and prerace veterinarian inspections.
Those changes have helped North American racing reduce the rate of catastrophic injuries.
Many of the initiatives that have followed are reliant on complex epidemiological analyses of the EID, and the latest iteration of such modeling recently was published in the Equine Veterinary Journal. Such work ensures that initiatives are evidence-based and therefore more likely to have the desired benefit.
This work, conducted by the authors (Dr. Euan Bennet and Dr. Tim Parkin, who has been the epidemiological consultant to the EID since its inception), identifies key factors associated with an increased risk of fatal injury during racing, helping to focus future interventions or regulatory changes.
In the recent report several repeat, well-known risk factors were identified including racing on dirt; shorter races; making a first start as an older horse; and age at the current start. However, because new variables have become available and many more years of data are now being analyzed, a number of variables of importance have been newly identified.
The first of these helps to clarify the relationship between risk of fatal injury and changes in trainer. Horses that have changed trainers are generally at greater risk when racing for that new trainer. However, what is now also apparent is that the elevated risk is not permanent. For the first four races after a change the risk of fatal injury is 16%-18% higher compared with horses that have not changed trainers, but after that there is no long-lasting impact.
This clearly indicates, as one would expect, that it takes time for trainers to get to know their new horses and much of this likely relates to peculiarities of different training schedules and an understanding of previous veterinary histories and perhaps treatment "needs." A requirement to hand over full medical (and training) records on change of trainer may well help mitigate some of this impact by helping trainers better understand their new horses sooner.
The second area of interest identified in the new analysis relates to previous injury occurrence. Those factors—in terms of days since the horse was last removed from the vet's list (if the horse has ever been on the vet's list) and if the horse has ever had an injury noted postrace (been triaged at the track)—were associated with increased risk of fatal injury.
Compared with horses that had never been on the vet's list, horses that were recently removed (in the last 30 days) were at highest risk of fatal injury, with risk being slightly lower for those who were removed at some point in the previous six months, and then less elevated for all others who had been on the vet's list more than six months before the current race. Importantly the risk never returned to baseline, suggesting a "permanent" risk impact of the veterinary issues that warranted being added to the vet's list in the first place.
Alongside this, horses that had ever been identified with an issue that resulted in being triaged at the racetrack were more than 50% more likely to sustain a fatal injury in a future race. This effect never went away.
If we also consider that in the same model horses with the longest period of time without a recorded workout prior to the current race were at greatest risk of fatal injury, there is clear evidence of the importance and size of impact of previous injury on future serious injury (potentially fatal) risk.
Importance of Medical Records and Void-Claim Rules
The next big step in injury risk reduction will come when it is mandatory for trainers to record and make available to defined stakeholders full medical and treatment records for all horses. This will not only ensure the "risk profile" of individual horses at every start can be better assessed but will also make available to future statistical modeling a whole raft of detailed veterinary-related risk factors that one can be reasonably confident will play an important role in risk prediction and therefore prevention. (The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority has such requirements in place for claimed horses.)
The final area of interest in the new model is a clear confirmation of the efficacy of void-claim rules and also that the more strict the void-claim rule is, the better it protects the horse. Of the range of different void-claim rules in use over the duration of the EID, the most recently introduced HISA rule on this issue, which permits voids for horses that are fatally injured, added to the vet's list, have evidence of blood at the nostril, or who have been removed from the track in a horse ambulance, is most effective at reducing fatal injury risk. Horses racing at tracks where the HISA void-claim rule is in place are at approximately 32% lower risk of fatal injury compared with horses racing where no void-claim rule is in place.
The ability for modeling work to help "close the loop" in this way should not be underestimated: Initial models suggest a protective effect of void-claim rules; those void-claim rules were developed and introduced at multiple tracks; and the new model clearly demonstrates the value of doing so.
EID History and Future Applications
Using data from the EID to help identify new targets for intervention or regulation as well as confirming the impact of previous regulation should reassure all in the industry that the EID is a fundamental force for good and the evidence bedrock on which most current and future welfare initiatives will be built. The foresight of those involved in initial discussions at the 2006 Grayson-Jockey Club Research Foundation Welfare and Safety of the Racehorse Summit should be recognized and commended. It would be difficult to argue that there has been a more important initiative in North American racing than the EID over that period.
It has been more than 15 years since the EID was established in North America. The latest statistics have shown quite how impactful the EID and what has followed have been with a historic low of 1.11 fatal injuries per 1,000 starts recorded in 2024—down 45% from the high of 2.0 in 2009. (Horses racing at HISA tracks have enjoyed an even lower rate of 0.90 in 2024.)
The EID and resulting evidence-based policy interventions continue to deliver welfare and safety gains for racehorses, while also protecting racing's social license to operate.
Without reliable and comprehensive data on injuries sustained by Thoroughbreds during racing, the development of evidence-based initiatives aimed at reducing the prevalence of fatalities or injuries in racing is practically impossible. Following some high-profile racing incidents and greater public scrutiny, The Jockey Club took the critical step to invest in the EID to better understand and reduce equine injuries and fatalities.
Early beginnings included a pilot version involving paper reporting from participants, led by Dr. Mary Scollay. The results of that initial work were presented to the 2008 Welfare and Safety of the Racehorse Summit and the EID as we know it today was born. The data collection process was streamlined, and an automated EID system was established, enabling veterinarians working at participating racetracks to submit injury reports electronically.
Quoting Dr. Scollay, the fundamental goals of the EID remain: "To identify the frequency, type, and outcome of racing injuries; to develop a centralized epidemiologic database that could be used to identify markers for horses at increased risk of injury; and to serve as a data source for research directed at improving safety and preventing injuries."
