"He beat nothing"
 

"Well, but he beat nothing".

That's all I've heard from many handicappers over the past five years, and I've already heard it plenty in regard to the emerging two-year-olds of this season. Mostly from handicappers that are not old enough to have seen horses from the 1960's - 70's - 80's etc. Handicappers who yawned about Barbaro, who yawned and sighed through the horses of the Street Sense Derby year.

So what does it take, nowadays, to be "something"?

um er..3 100 plus beyers these days..thats it.lol

I think it's a matter of perspective. If you compare them to what we were used to seeing over the past two decades, it's very hard for today's horses to be something. Very few come up to the levels of some of the best we got a chance to see over the years. And the few times we do get one, it's extremely rare to get more than one in a given division so it's hard for anyone to beat anything else we'd call "something".

A win in the Delta Jackpot!

Important enough for Tom Durkin to announce it over the PA system?

I understand what you are saying, however if they would run them more often, against each other and into their 4-5 yr old years
then everyone would have a better idea to judge so-called top 3 yrs. after the triple crown and 6-7 races alot of these horses are retire to stud or hurt.
however i was impress with this years 3 yrs old that ran this past week-end.
court vision tale of ekati, harlem rocker,etc.. they look like they could become some top notch older horses if they would run them like. spec-bid affirmed seattle slew and so forth.

It's tough to gauge the babies but with older more established horses it makes sense to say "he beat nothing" when you watched the final strides of this year's Woodward.

I laughed :tro:

Twun-Tee Three annn Four !!! Scorching Fractions!!

At least, with YouTube, people can go watch all the baby races, career races, for great horses of the past.

Aren't we breeding a different horse today? I think that makes it tough to compare today's horses with the greats of yesteryear.

Breeding a different horse ... I think the bloodlines are perhaps quite narrowed and concentrated compared to 50 years ago.

As a cause I think we have to remember how horses were bred then: a farm would stand it's own stallions, and breed them to their own and client mares on the farm, with a few trade-outs here and there to friends, with 150 covers resulting in a much smaller foal crop of 40 or so (each mare would be covered 2-3 even 4 times until she got pregnant). And the mares bred were strong producers. Nobody wanted to mess with the 2-3 months it took to get junk pregnant.

Quality over volume made money and kept a farm alive, and quality meant a farm produced horses that could run and make money for buyers.

In the early part of the last century alot of horses were being brought over from Europe for infusion into American stock (Nasrullah was brought over from Ireland specifically because he was an outcross that was a proven runner producer). That trend then reversed in the latter part, with American stock being prized and snapped up by non-Americans, thus we lost alot of our best bloodlines, created during the 1940-50-60's, to Europe.

Now there are big stallion stations, we have ultrasound to pinpoint ovulation, we put mares under lights Dec. 15, thus that 150 covers puts 120-130 foals on the ground; then the stallion goes to the opposite hemisphere and does it again (as travel is extremely easy nowadays).

There is a "world pool" of genetics, rather than American, English, French, Irish, etc., and it's fairly diluted.

It's easy now with vet management to get any mare pregnant on one cover, even the more difficult ones, and it seems breeders do indeed now breed any mare standing still - even junk mares, poor race record mares.

Because for the past 20 years, you could sell just about anything.

Too many foals out there by the same stallions and their brothers and their sons (even the good ones), so too hard to make money as there isn't a limited supply of a particular genetic line, we're swimming in it. And it's breed to any mare around.

Now volume makes money, quality can only be purchased by the upper % of buyers with enough money to pay excessive price points (it is an open market where the buyers set the prices). So fewer dedicated breeders have access to a variety of genetics, and a variety of good genetics. It's been years since breeders could dependably go to an auction and know they'd be able to buy what they needed for their farms, genetically and conformationally. They were priced out many times.

Compare the Coolmoore worldwide operation with Claiborn, for example. That business model was outstanding for Coolmore, but it killed the Claiborns.

So where are the exceptional horses? Alot of times they were the result of hybrid vigor, a "nick", and that's pretty homogenized nowadays. Maybe breeders have different opinions than this outside watcher, I don't know.

That Zenyata is "something." That's about the only thing myself and the Arlington guy have ever agreed on(about 10 minutes after her 1st race.) Still just toying with girls.

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18328

A lot of them are coming out of the regional state-bred programs and don't have 'gilt-edged' pedigrees. They aren't as 'valuable' so they aren't hot-house raised and so won't break a bone in their first 5 starts. Horses like Peace Rules and Lava Man.

You are correct about today's 'elite level' horses not being able to race more often, but bloodlines are not the answer, IMHO. The problem is how they are raised. In the olden days, weanlings who became yearlings were put in a field with the others of the same sex and allowed to run, play, and build up bone density. They came to the sales skinny and with awkward angles, ie they looked like yearlings, not 2yos; in the fall, they were taught how to be ridden, and before they went into race training at 2, they had had plenty of conditioning.

Nowadays, the 'better-bred' youngsters have too much invested in them to let them loose in a field with others, for fear they might get hurt; even a non-performance-effecting scar can cut thousands off the sale price. As trainers have started getting these hot-house flowers, they have modified their training methods so that the colts can win a big race before they break down, so that even properly raised animals aren't raced as much as they could.

I agree. We know horses raced at two are sounder, last longer, and break down significantly less often than those who had light or no race work at two (adaptive remodeling); we also know there are clear limits to the type of work that is optimal for future soundness regarding speed and distance.

Hard to quantitate specifically how the practices that come before "full track life" influence, but would be great to do (bringing weanlings up for sale vs field weanlings, putting 60 days of exercise on a yearling vs a 21-day quick pretty-up, sending the long yearling right on to training then being given a break vs not, keeping the long yearling at a training center vs track training them, etc)

I have observed that horses who are at the top of their game at two (War Pass) are done by three. I know there are exceptions (Street Sense)
But Curlin didn't make his first start until he was 3 and went on to have a nice career. I don't recall hearing too much about soundness being a problem for him.

Obviously, not all horses unraced at two break down. But the breakdown rate has been quantitated, and is significantly greater in horses that don't race at two, than those that do.

In other words, horses that cannot get appropriate training and racing at two, when their bones are still remodeling, are measurably less likely to make safe, dense bone that holds together over a career.

I also said, "We also know there are clear limits to the type of work that is optimal for future soundness regarding speed and distance." Meaning one can not only underdo it, but overdo it, too. There are measurable speeds and distances that can be used in the training and racing of young horses that have been found optimal for being consistent with less breakdowns over a career.

If a horse was sound throughout its 2yo season it would have raced as a 2yo. no one keeps perfectly sound horses on the sidelines until 3.

umm..no..that's not correct at all

Many 2 year olds are 100% sound but haven't figured it out yet..Nothing to do with soundness

Of course (regarding the racing of sound 2 year olds). It becomes pertinent when people (outside the industry, the AR whackos come to mind) say, "We need laws to stop racing two-year-olds, their bones are soft, you are breaking them down".

Nope. Actually that builds strong bones that can stand up to racing.

Bob - there would be a concern, I'd think, in a situation like you point out, if you have a big gangly colt, growthy pains, a little clumsy or mentally silly yet, repetitive shins, etc - trying to get enough work into them before their bones stop growing.

how are they going to figure it out by not racing? i dont see what is complicated about running. even for a horse.

[quote=Riot]Of course. It becomes pertinent when people (outside the industry, the AR whackos come to mind) say, "We need laws to stop racing two-year-olds, their bones are soft, you are breaking them down".

Nope. Actually that builds strong bones that can stand up to racing.[/QUOTE]

So you think it makes sense to run an immature 2 yr old who can't break out of a gate straight just to build strong bones?

They figure out the basics in training..some are quicker than others. I agree that they 'learn" a lot from running, but the blanket statement you made about 2 year olds isn't right. They all don't progress at the same rate and you can do more harm running at two if they aren't ready then waiting until they are. The key is a strong foundation...if you can get that as a two year old by running..great..but if that horse is heavy, jumpy, stupid, immature, etc..then constant galloping, works etc will do the same thing.

Heck no. But, if he can handle training, work in training, do it to the extent he safely can. The point is that young growing bones are malleable to stress and strain. It's the perfect time to build strong racehorse bone. Young growing horses that don't undergo any challenge to build strong bones don't. And later on in their careers, they break down more often than those that were worked.

Is this conversation about worked or running? I thought you and Watson were saying the only effective 2 yr old was a racing 2 yr old?

I just didn't think anyone would keep an always sound 2yo on the bench its entire 2yo season. which is why a study would show that horses who race at age two tend to be sounder.

We don't have time for confounding factors here. So let's just ignore them.

Else it cuts down on the number of times we can mention "bone density".

You need to adaptively remodel your way of thinking. Got milk?

Point # 2 only makes sense if you believe Point #1 to be true..and I don't.

At this point I'll agree to disagree...I have several two year olds who are perfectly sound, but aren't ready mentally/physically (too heavy) to run yet. They work consistantly and are building a solid foundation.

Uh ... no.

I can only try and explain myself. Which isn't always easy :p It refers to speed (mph), distance, repetitivity of activity.

Steve talked about this (racing 2-year-olds and breakdowns) with Dr. Allday once on ATR, I think post-Derby last year - if he can remember which show, maybe he could reference that replay, as Dr. Allday covered why it is important to race (or work as if racing) 2-year-olds.

Those interested can go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

(Pub Med) and enter the search terms racehorse bone and come up with tons of interesting articles about racehorse exercise physiology.

Interesting discussion.....

Regarding the study/conclusion that horses that race at two tend to break down less than horses that don't races until three....

just wondering here...
if we take 4 categories of racehorses:
A) Sound 2yo's that race at two
B) Sound 2yo's that don't race at two
C) Un-sound 2yo's that race at two
D) Un-sound 2yo's that don't race at two


First... is there a value in defining "racing career"....is it number of starts or is it age at retirement from racing.

Irregardless...I'm guessing that the first two categories are more likely to result in longer racing careers ....(in general it would seem that starting off sound is better than starting off unsound)

?? In general would Category C & D horses be statistically more likely to breakdown than Category A & B

?? In general are there more Category A horses than Category B horses....

Statistically if starting off sound is better than starting off unsound... and if there are more sound 2yo racers than sound 2yo non-racers....then it seems likely that the category that shows the greatest number of horses with longer racing careers will come from Category A

just wondering is it really the racing at two that promotes the longer careers or is it the way the numbers are sliced and diced???

btw I'm an advocate of 2yo racing...2yo mdns are my bread and butter

hmmmm ... :zz: :zz: .....

don't confuse ability or precocity with durability. for every war pass, i'd imagine you'd find a macho uno. also, since war pass wasn't allowed to attempt a comeback, there's no way of knowing what else he could have done at three.

I wonder how much of these kinds are just owners getting bs'ed. if a 2yo is healthy and can compete at an acceptable level right away I find it hard to believe they would not try to race it all year. if a horse is so nutty that it cant figure out how to run in a straight line, how to run a turn without bolting, or how to come out of a starting gate, its prob not sound or just a complete mental case. Jim Mckay said Whirlaway did all those things, bolted to the outside fence and did a bunch of crazy stuff. they raced him a bunch at 2 and he won the triple crown.

The 2 year olds that I remember weren't put into a maiden race of 1, 1 1/16, or 1 1/8 of a mile. They were raced at shorter distances and ended up that season at a mile or 1 1/16. Then they were turned out for the winter before starting up at shorter distances as they prepared for the Derby.

[quote=Payson Dave]just wondering is it really the racing at two that promotes the longer careers or is it the way the numbers are sliced and diced??? QUOTE]

Yes, it's racing at two, but remember it's specfic reference is to bone, and to fractures causing breakdown subsequently over a horses career. I'll dig it up and send it to you privately.

It's a peer-reviewed published scientific retrospective study (I think it's at least 10 years old), and it's methodology has never been found wanting.

During all the public and industry attention and discussion surrounding Barbaro and Eight Belles, I know Dr. Steve Allday has said yes, we need to continue to race 2-year-olds, on Steve's show; I know Dr. Larry Bramlage has said the same in interviews post- Eight Belles (maybe in BloodHorse interview or article?) and it's one of the reasons why the American Association of Equine Practioners supports and encourages 2-year-old horse racing as necessary for the health and welfare of racing horses, versus implementing laws that prevent the racing of young horses, like the AR types would like.

This study, and others like it, have contributed to knowing confidently that the industry is doing the horses justice to race them as two-year-olds - we are not evil!

There is tons of information out there regarding racehorse safety. Obviously continued research is ongoing and important. Toe rims of a certain height were recently banned, and that wasn't an arbitrary thing. It's because it was found that short ones are safe, wearing long ones definitely predispose to injury.

im so glad to know. i might have to bump your preseason ranking up a slot or three!! :$: :$: :tro:

:D

I'm thinking they knew
that is why he didn't come back


he won the Juvenile and all he was going to do after that was lower the stud fee

Racing at 2 is not a bad thing as the animal right nuts want you to believe but not racing at 2 is also not a huge negative either depending on the reason for not running. While buliding bone through training is important I have a hard time believing that 1:11 of really fast exercise (a race) over a 365 day period can make a big difference on a horses bone structure overall versus the 26 or so days of daily training per month. Many horses who run at 2 are unsound but it may be the only chance that they will have at racing because they are just too crooked and as they grow older and heavier their legs simply wont hold up. Many horses that dont race at two are simply too immature to gain anything by racing at two. The experience that a horse gains while racing at a young age is as important as anything. Other outside influences that have nothing to do with soundness and come into play are the economic situation of the owner, the trainers concern over their win percentage, the need for larger stables to weed out horses to make way for the new ones coming in, date of birth of the individual horse and its maturity level, opportunities at the track where you are stabled, etc.