Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The horse never raced past June of his 3 year old year and this is good? I find it hilarious that Afleet Alex is the best example of a sucessful "tough" training program. The horse broke down. He did not have a long career. What exactly am I missing here? We arent talking about his sucess we are talking about the durability of the modern day horse and horses that make 5 or 6 starts at 3 and break down are poor examples, arent they?

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I also have never understood the great amount of praise that was heaped on Ritchey for his methods when they didn't produce anything different than what we see from plenty of others and that's a 3yo champion that doesn't complete his season. Whether the injury was a result of his training or whether it was totally a fluke thing is irrelevant at this point. The horse still only raced 12 times and was done by June. People always talk about guys like Lukas, Baffert, and Zito but their horses usually last longer than that.

In my opinion, these horses today are different. They can't be trained the same way that horses of yesteryear were. They can't be raced the same way either. But at the same time, they probably don't need to be babied to the extent that they are. I think that's the challenge; finding that middle ground. Knowing when to push the throttle and when to back off. I think that if more horses had their throttles pushed earlier and more often as 2yo's, they would be better off for it as 3yo's and 4yo's. But I think it's silly to make obvious changes to the breed and still ask them to do the same things that the past horses did. Would it make sense to start breeding 5'7" guys for the NBA and still expect them to dunk like Michael Jordan and Vince Carter on a 10' basket?

Originally Posted by Sightseek

LOL, if Lukas had a horse win the Sanford that impressively he wouldn't have stuck around long enough to win the Belmont.

Originally Posted by freddymo

Chuck my thoughts are pretty simple. Concolour has produced a few gals which have been or will be bred. I just want to know what breed are these going to be the old TB's or the new TB's? Moreover should we or should the future trainer/s expect to get fragile offspring to train or hardy stock that you can expect to run often and stay relatively sound? Looking forward to this answer..lol

Originally Posted by Sightseek

So you don't buy into the theory that it was the stumble in the Preakness that started the injury?

Originally Posted by freddymo

Your missing 25 million dollars other then that you are spot on. The horse was retired because to stop with him for 6 months was fiscally impossible. The horse could have made it back to the races and most likely would have been ok. You never know if they come 100% back but it was certainly possible. BUT 150 mares where in line on the farm. AND the trainer must be applauded and rewarded for his outstanding efforts. You win 6 graded stakes and get a horse syndicated for huge money and I wonder if you will be happy and feel good about the job. i know one person who will be thrilled...Your Bank Manager

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Yeah cause Lukas certainly sucks at winning 2yo races and classic races. My mistake.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

All that is fine but we are talking about durability and training methods and AA is not a good example because we have no idea what he would have become afterwards. he may have become the next Funny Cide...

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

All that is fine but we are talking about durability and training methods and AA is not a good example because we have no idea what he would have become afterwards. he may have become the next Funny Cide...

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Dont you think that of the thousands of "modern" trainers that one of them would have tested your theory? I always find it amusing what we "modern trainers" are doing wrong. My barn is open to anyone who wants to actually see what it is to train horses as opposed to those who just theorize what we should do.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

All that is fine but we are talking about durability and training methods and AA is not a good example because we have no idea what he would have become afterwards. he may have become the next Funny Cide...

Originally Posted by freddymo

As far as Concolours grand foals I would assume they have to be the old TB stock as surely the old TB stock doesn't give way in one generation.

Originally Posted by zippyneedsawin

How do you look up the workouts for a horse that ran in 1946?!? :zz:

Originally Posted by Sightseek

So you don't buy into the theory that it was the stumble in the Preakness that started the injury?

Originally Posted by freddymo

Up until the colt got injured the regiment was succeeding. I guess you could argue that the training method could have been the reason he got injured. I would suggest that would be impossible to prove either way. The horse made 12 starts before halfway thru his 3 year old year. 6 graded wins and the TC campaign. By today's standard he was a war horse.
Now throw in the untimely injury and the likilihood that he would not have made mor then 3 more starts and I think he was fairly durable.

As far as Concolours grand foals I would assume they have to be the old TB stock as surely the old TB stock doesn't give way in one generation.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Up until they get injured every type of training works depending on the horse. I thought we were talking about the theory that harder training prevented injuries like this? Of course that theory is wrong but at least it gives us fodder to talk about other than mud at Saratoga tomorrow.