It would be interesting to see if there was at least a disproportionate amount of euthanized horses (for any reason) that were stabled at Belmont during the same time frame.

For the sake of argument, you might only "see" cancer in "good horses" because people are more likely to go the extra mile with their stakes horses as far as diagnosing specifically any illness that befalls them. Less valuable horses who's health spiral out of control are often put down without determining the exact cause all the time. Even Danny Vella thought his filly just had a run-of-the-mill virus until it she didn't get better. Then they pulled out all the stops.

I wonder if NYRA shells out to do necropsies all the horses that are put down in the barn area, like they do in CA.

Along the Sea?

Does the thought that some of the greatest horses on this list may have raced on performance enhancing drugs tarish their reputations? We've seen it in baseball, how does one compare Roger Clemons to Bob Gibson, or for that matter Ghostzapper to Secretariat?

Speaking of which... just got done watching that movie. :cool:

I think there is a greater chance that horses in the 70's were using something far more performance enhancing than horses in our era. While I wasnt around to see 1st hand in the 70's I have some pretty good sources.

That is the problem of comparing horses from different eras, we will never know for certain if horse A could beat horse B. I'm not sure whether a horse runs faster today or not means anything, all we know for certain is that they can only beat whomever they line up against. The rest is speculation. I raised the question when I think of horses trained by alleged substance users as in Frankel or Pletcher. Without that advantage would their horses run as fast? Not likely from this standpoint and just as in the case of Clemons the mere thought has tarnished his legacy forever.

I really liked Knight's Templar. I knew that she had died, but I assumed that she had broken down in a race or of some other kind of injury.

I find this very hard to believe as a coincidence because of the rarity of cancer in horses, but there are carcinogenic substances in almost everything....the food you eat even...it depends on your genetic susceptibility to whether you develop cancer or not most of the time unless you are exposed to something incredibly bad.

There was most likely something at Belmont around those two stalls that caused the cancer, but I seriously doubt that management had much to do with it.

Oh well, we'll never really know....

Well, that puts this argument to rest.

The scary thing is for once she's making sense. I'd better stop drinking.

I guess I better start.

:D Never a bad idea.

Da Hoss

I think the surface was just being scratched with LITF. I think he would have been an all time great. Just did everything way too easy before getting ill.

it's that whole blind squirrel/acorn thing.

Dave Johnson had a nice line in there...

"Holy Bull is a champion.. there he is.. and you'll never forget him"

Squirrels can't even remember where they put the acorns. The only reason they find where they put them in the first place is because of their incredible sense of smell, not sight...

They don't have to be blind to make your point.

where's dahoss when you need him?

The problem that I have is that the testing is so much better now that almost no positive now would be caught under the same test of earlier eras. There is a perception that all our horses now are under the influence of medications of some kind but the truth is that there were far more powerful substances being used in the 70's in particular than there are now. That is not to say that every trainer was using something but drugs like sublimaze and etorphine were used and they are far greater performance enhancers than any steroids or minute clembuterol traces found. Also there were many horses being treated with Lasix except for a long time it was not even published. The thought that horse racing is a dirtier game now simply ignores the reality of earlier eras.