I think the breed itself is the main problem. The breeding for speed has resulted in fast horses that are more fragile, and struggle to get the 12f distance necessary to win the Triple Crown. His attitude (Big Brown is already brilliant) shows the lack of respect for true endurance that is so prevalent with speed addicts. Medication allows people to disconnect the warning lights, but the problem is in the breeding. If we could run the Belmont before the other 2 legs, then the breed would be much better off.

In no way do I disagree with your statement that the breed would be better off with people valuing stamina, but the CD track on Derby Day was definitely not favoring speed.

I don't understand those that say we should breed more horses that are going to appreciate 12f when there are no dirt races outside of the Belmont for them to run in. Well, they added some this year but for years, after they cut the JCGC down to 10f, where was there any incentive for breeders to try to breed 12f horses? There has been none. The vast majority of races in this country, whether on real dirt, grass or synthetic, are run under 8f. With that in mind, why would anyone breed a horse for a distance that they are only eligible for one time in their career unless they run on the grass?

Lets see. On one side you have a disjointed group of owners, trainers, and state run race tracks. On the other you have pharmacitical giants ready and willing to invest what ever it takes to get into markets, lobby government and influential people, and buy their way in to any market they want.

I think it's hopeless.

Spyder
Advil Sinus Junkee

I guess when they get tired enough of seeing horses(bred for speed) being put in horse ambulances. They aren't tired of it yet( "just part of the game..nobody is to blame.") Well,also if they want a triple crown winner, then they need to start breeding for all 3 legs (instead of just the 1st two.)

I disagree, and I think the fairest track (of the three) is usually Belmont. I think Churchill wants no more Giacomos. Their "tight" tracks on big days means it's very difficult to get the same winner of both the Kentucky Derby, and the Belmont. If you look at these races run at Belmont(lately,) you're going to see horses earning their wins in the stretch. They must be able to finish up. I think it's the best dirt track in the country,and I would play it if they didn't have the New York breds in the 6th / 9th races. That's like putting orange juice in beer.

Scuds, your use of punctuation and the space bar is much appreciated

or are you dictating posts to someone?

I can write o.k., but I don't type well. I am gestalt ( if that can be an adjective.)

I find it amazing that virtually no one has any clue what they are talking about (including Beyer) yet everyone agrees with them. As I said on Steves show yesterday, It is like saying the best way to make the country better is to fix the economy. Hello, no kidding what exactly is the plan? What about details? Should we get rid of medications like gastrogard that treat uclers? Because ulcers can surely have an effect on performance. What about medications that are used on horses joints like Adequan, Legend or Lubrysn? They help a horse with joint issues? The thought that "medicating" horses makes them weaker breeding stock is laughable. No amount of any medication changes a horses genetic makeup. They will produce or not produce dependant on genetic factors that we dont really understand. There is no genetic dependancy on Lasix. If Rampillion never makes it to the races because she hurts herself the odds of her being a good or bad producer are the same. If she makes it to the races and turns out to bleed and is given Lasix, there is no more chance that she will produce bleeders if she is given lasix or not. She will be bred though when maybe in times before the bloodstock boom she may not have been. That is the issue. If you are saying that horses that need heavy doses of medications to run will be kept from the breeding pool you may have a point. But just because well bred mares are prevented from running at high levels because they wont be given medications doesnt mean they wont be bred or wont become top class producers. The same argument could be used that a horse like Personal Ensign was bad for the breed because she was allowed to race after major surgery that surely wasnt available in the 50's. You could say that she was inheirently weak because her back leg broke yet modern medicine allowed her to recover and become a legend and a hugely successful producer. The fact is that she would have been a great producer if she had bowed a tendon and never ran.

That's a simple one. Replace Bush with just about anybody and that problem is solved.

The day Giacomo won at CD the track was REALLY tight. I don't have the times handy to prove that out but it was definitely fast and fair to all running styles. Don't forget how fast they went up front in that race, with some very questionable 10F pedigrees. Nobody ever called Street Sense a fainthearted frontrunner, and I don't think he would have won the Belmont last year, either.

I agree that Belmont Park is a tremendously fair track on 95% of days, however.

If I have some time later tonight I'll get a chart together of the average winners' lengths beaten at the 1/2 mile pole at each distance at each track, I'm guessing they won't be much different between CD and Bel.

I agree with that statement generally. The problem is that on most of the recent Belmont Stakes Days, the Belmont racing surface has been just as souped up as we frequently see at Churchill on Derby Day. In 2004, it was particularly pronounced, with Bear Fan running 1:14.2 in the Vagrancy, Speightstown running 1:08.0 in the True North, and Fire Slam going 1:20.4 in the Riva Ridge (now Woody Stephens). Similarly fast tracks in 2005, when Limehouse went 9F in Brooklyn in 1:46.3 and Woke Up Dreamin' got 6F in 1:08.1, and in 2006, when Jazil covered the 12F in 2:27.4, and a horse like Anew won the True North in 1:08.

Not to be repetitive but the Spa was souped last year and for years has favored speed.

Yes, there were a few days where the track played fast (and 2YOs set records), but the past few years, the Spa main track has been viewed as "demanding" and played "fairer" to more running styles than anytime that I can recall. It's certainly nothing like the speed-favoring oval that I grew up on in the 70s and 80s.

Not to let facts get in the way of your agenda but Saratoga played about as fair as a track can play last year other than at the 5.5F distance where you would expect speed to be heavily favored.

The only thing repetive for you in this post is that the information given is incorrect.

Chuck, I think you're taking one sentence in the article and treating it as though it were the entire article. I don't think Beyer was focused on breeding so much as on saying that the difference between American racing and racing everywhere else in the world is its dependence on drugs- and I didn't read references to ulcer medications; he referred to steroids, which, I would argue, do produce a result in a horse (or person, for that matter) that is not dictated by their genes, and increases a likelihood of injury (too much muscle for the bone). He was also talking about sore horses being medicated so they run harder than they would if they were able to feel that they were sore, thereby increasing the likelihood of injury. His argument, as I understood it, was that the 1970's drive to legalize medication in the US has not brought any of the benefits it promised (larger horse fields, more races) and in fact has been a failure as far as racing is concerned (smaller fields, fewer starts and possibly more breakdowns).

On top of that, he wasn't saying medication "makes" horses weaker; he was saying that medication enables weaker horses to race sucessfully, and thus have a chance to succeed enough to be given a chance at stud, thus passing along their genetic weaknesses. And in fact, I don't think he mentioned broodmares at all, who frankly, don't have the large scale effect on a breed the way a stallion can. I don't think I've read any articles discussing Eight Belle's dam; it's all been Unbridled's Song and his soundness issues. Yes, a filly with good bloodlines can have a breeding career, even with no races, but a colt with no races or good wins is not nearly as likely to do so.

Also, what does a filly returning to races after healing from an injury have to do with horses running on medication? The PE analogy makes no sense- though I could see one possible argument against even that point- saying that if she never raced she might not have produced quite as well as she did because she would have had less access to the best stallions for her, but I honestly have to say I don't know enough about breeding to know if that would have been the case.

I think the point of the Beyer article is that the American permissiveness on medication hasn't resulted in any positive things for the racing industry, not that giving horses drugs changes their genetic makeup.

Beyer has yet another column out today on IEAH.