When it comes to horse races, the Belmont Stakes is one of the most prestigious. It is often considered the final step in a horse’s quest to become a Triple Crown champion. Last year’s race was no exception, and fans were excited to see whether War Emblem would pull off the impossible and win the Triple Crown. But the horse Sarava pulled off a major upset by winning the race at odds of 70-1. This was the largest long shot winner of a Triple Crown race in history, and it shows how unpredictable horse racing can be.

The Belmont is a high-profile event with plenty of prestige, and it’s no surprise that the top three positions on the World’s Best Race List are all held by horse races in the US. But the question remains, does ratings alone make a race the best? Ratings are based on a number of factors, including the performance of horses over different distances and the number of bets placed. But there’s also a subjective element to ratings, and it’s difficult for outsiders to have full impartiality when rating races.

While spectators show off their fancy hats and sip mint juleps at horse races, there’s a dark reality behind the curtain. The sport is rife with drugs, injuries and gruesome breakdowns. The animals are forced to sprint so fast that they sustain injuries and sometimes bleed from their lungs, a condition known as exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage. The animals are kept alive with cocktails of legal and illegal drugs that are meant to mask the injury and enhance performance.

Despite these problems, the industry is flush with cash. New York’s Yonkers Raceway, for instance, has purses that are among the highest in the world. Spectators spend billions betting on these events. The profits from gambling are funneled into the industry, which is then subsidized by state taxpayers.

This business model may not be sustainable in the long run, especially as the public grows increasingly concerned about animal welfare and the treatment of animals used for entertainment. In fact, multiple insiders told me that horse racing is at a critical moment. If the industry doesn’t make a few changes, it could lose the public’s will to subsidize it, which would lead to its demise.

Some board members and governance observers are uncomfortable with the horse race approach to succession, which pits two or more candidates for a company’s CEO against each other in a battle of performances. But the companies that are most successful with this strategy cultivate a culture that encourages competition for the top job and believe that the best leader will emerge from the contest. Those who oppose this approach fear that it will derail the momentum of their companies, but research shows that this is not necessarily the case. In fact, a horse race can produce excellent leaders when it is well-managed. The key is for boards to establish clear criteria for evaluating candidates and establishing appropriate time frames.