|
Originally Posted by Dunbar
For good reason! This has been a very good thread, IMO. We have knowledgeable people on both sides of the argument, and for the most part, the exchange has been civil, notwithstanding an egregious "idiot" or two thrown in.
We have 2 facts that are difficult to reconcile.
Fact 1. Top horses 20 years ago ran more races/year and ran with less time between races than horses today.
Fact 2. Virtually all top trainers today prefer to run with more time between races.
Several explanations have been offered, but IMO no single explanation can explain the difference.
I suspect (but am by no means certain) that Rupert is correct that the top horses today do need more time between races than the top horses even 20 years ago. But even if Rupert is correct, the question remains, why?
Can the breed have changed so much in 20 years? I don't think so. Rupert points out that you COULD have a new generation every 5 years. But you also have stallions producing offspring well into their teens and even longer. I'd estimate the average generation at 8-10 years. And I don't think you can make a big enough change in the genetic make-up of a species in 2-3 generations to account for the kind of shift we have seen in performance expectation. Still, natural selection (for faster, more fragile horses) and in-breeding could explain some part of the shift in racing frequency.
Phalaris suggests that much of the reason that horses today are more fragile is that they are handled incorrectly as 2-yr-olds. I suspect (but am by no means certain!) that Phalaris, too, is correct. Phalaris has compelling data to back up his/her arguments. Rupert, either here or in another thread, has astutely pointed out that part of the reason that well-run 2-yr-olds last longer and run more races than lightly run 2-yr-olds could be due to an inherent statistical bias; namely, some horses run more as 2-yr-olds simply BECAUSE they are sounder in the first place. Therefore, it would make sense that these horses would also run more often as 3- and 4-yr-olds. Still, the idea of building a good foundation at an early developing age makes sense to me. And at a minimum, Phalaris’ data suggests that running horses frequently for relatively short distances as 2-yr-olds does not hurt their later prospects.
Cannon Shell and BTW have suggested that the ever-greater use of drugs has an effect on the ability of top horses to recover after a race. That, too, makes good sense to me.
I don’t buy the “blame it on the Breeder’s Cup”, “blame it on racing surfaces”, or “blame it on syndication deals”, arguments. These may have some significant influence on a few horses or a minute influence on many horses, but those factors don’t appear to explain what’s happened to the whole top echelon of racing in N. America.
While I accept (reluctantly) Rupert’s contention that contemporary horses need more time than horses racing just 20 years ago, I don’t think it necessarily follows that the scheduling now in favor is the optimal one. It may no longer be optimal to bring horses back on 2-3 weeks rest, but it may be as good or better to bring them back on 4 weeks rest than to let them sit out for 5-8 weeks. I expect that the spacing will continue to be adjusted in the future, just as it has been adjusted over the last half-century.
My own conclusion from what’s been written thus far in this thread is that the change in racing frequency is primarily due to a mix of 3 factors: genetic selection of more fragile horses, poorer conditioning of young horses, and increased use of medications. I don’t have much feel for how those 3 factors are weighted, but I think all 3 are significant.
Other reasonable people could certainly draw different conclusions. But given that the popularity of racing is at lease somewhat correlated to how much and for how long its stars race, it seems important to try to figure out if anything can be done to get them to safely run more often.
--Dunbar
|