Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Danzig
the only way to really nip this argument in the bud is for someone to go thru and make a list of every horse than ran in the classics, and then look at what every one of them did after. producing a short list of horses, presumably the ones who did the best in the races, and then using their prematurely ending careers in no way proves anything-except that most of them, due to wins in the classics, were far more in demand for breeding. when outrageous sums of money are about to change hands, i would not in the least be surprised at any early, and lucrative retirement.
i think some are confusing success in the classics with suffering injuries in the classics. there's a huge difference between risking a horse in a race, and a horse being unable to race.
|
I would agree with you that horses who retired sound due to stud deals should obviously not be mentioned on lists of horses that the Triple Crown ruined. But there are plenty of horses that the TC knocked out that were never the same again. There is no doubt that the Triple Crown is grueling. There isn't a single trainer that would dispute that. The only question is whether the TC is so grueling that it causes irreperable damage. I would say that in some cases it does and in some cases it doesn't. It depends on the horse.