Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
Phalaris has no understading of horses at all. You should read some her past posts. She thinks that if you have a good 2 year old with a lot of potential, that you should run the horse 15 times as a 2 year old and this would increase the horse's chances of lasting and winning some big races as a 3 year and 4 year old. She thinks that you would have a better chance to win the Ky Derby if you ran your 2 year old 12 times as oppose to 4 times.
If you talk to any good trainer out there, they will tell you that this is the most absurd thing they have ever heard.
So there are two possibilities here. The first possibility is that Phalaris has no idea what she is talking about.
The second possibility is that Phalaris is a genius and guys like Pletcher, Mandella, Frankel, Zito, etc. are all idiots.
Which is it? Is Phalaris a genius and the all the great trainers are morons? I think it's slightly more probable that Phalaris has no clue what she's talking about.
|
Well... for some reason, what they are doing isn't stopping the amount of breakdowns, is it? The real problem lies in that the thoroughbred breed isn't as hardy as it once was. I for one am one that believes that thoroughbreds should NOT be run as two year olds at all. I don't believe that the stress on their legs is good for them when their bones aren't even closed up. Shoot... I wouldn't even sit on a horse's back until they were 3 years old, but that's just me. Perhaps there is some merit in running them more frequently as two year olds though. If facts are presented that say that bone density is IMPROVED off of more starts as a youngin, then I can't argue with that.