Regarding death of Eight Belles (Kentucky Derby) - question:?

Question

I am NOT disputing for a moment whether or not the humane thing was done, because considering the extent of her injuries, I understand why Eight Belles was euthanized. And even though, I think one of the major faults of the horse racing industry is racing these horses before their bones have fully developed, that is NOT my question. My specific question is: Why was Eight Belles put down by the TRACK VET, before her owner and/or trainer even knew what exactly was going on? I would think that her owner, and/or at least her trainer, would have to give the APPROVAL for this. Does anyone know?

I do know that there isn't much that will stop a race - "an act of God" - lightning is one example. I have seen races where a horse/rider were still down on the track, and the race would continue on around them.

But that isn't my exact question.

My exact question is: Does a TRACK VET have the authority to euthanize an animal without the owner's, and even the trainer's, consent?

Answer 1

Yes he or she does. They did not want the filly to have to suffer any more than she had to.

Answer 2

The track vet (as one poster put it well, like an attending physician) has the authority and the call in situations like this.

If there are ever any questions about the outcome, the track vet will wait to speak to the owner and/or trainer before making a decision. Usually the trainer, who typically has authority to act as the owner's agent for the horse, sees the horse go down and is hurrying to the scene. However, the vet will not wait indefinitely with an injured horse on the track and will do what he thinks is in the best interests of the injured horse.

In this case, due to the huge Derby crowds and the fact that the filly finished the race and was galloping out, she went down a quarter mile beyond the finish, out of sight of the connections who didn't see her collapse. They were unaware she'd broken down - the last glimpse Jones and Porter had of the filly everything was fine.

8B's injuries were overwhelmingly severe and obviously causing her pain and distress so the vet euthanized her quickly lest she suffer more. This was a very unusual breakdown, something rarely seen. I'm sure the vet knew that Jones was on his way, but I'm also sure he realized that with all the Derby hubbub he might have been delayed. There was absolutely no other outcome.

Once a race is started, it is very difficult to stop it, and it's usually dangerous to the other racers to do so. However, there are outriders on the track and one of their duties is as "traffic cops" should a horse be down while the race is still going on.

Answer 3

Yes, under the circumstances the Vet assumes the authority of an expert.  His expert opinion is to do what is absolutely necessary under the circumstances.  Delaying a decision to confer with the owner and trainer would simply allow the horse to suffer longer and the outcome would still be the same as a horse with three good legs has a slim chance of survival, while a horse with LESS than three good legs has absolutely NO chance of survival. The vet in this case was acting in the best interest of the horse and by not delaying the inevitable he was thereby not in anyway negligent in his duty or in violation of the law as his expert opinion would trump any challenge to the contrary.

Answer 4

im not posotive but im sure they do sense thats what they did

and sense you said the young age part even though its not your question you cant post something and not expect people to not comment but the age isnt the problem the medication is, they are giving then pain meds b4 the race and people do not realise that pain is a good thing and it makes you feel an injury and if you are pain free you dont know your hurting your self which is most likely the case in this horses situation.

Answer 5

Yes -- the "attending physician," so to speak, has the legal authority to make that decision.  If there is any substantial question later, he could theoretically be sued civilly for damages, so this always would enter into a vet's decision.

However, in this case there was absolutely no question what the proper moral decision was, and any delay would have been pointless, and extremely cruel to the horse.

The owner and trainer obviously agreed.