Beyer article/my new philosophy(long)

[largo1]

Andy Beyer had an article in the Washington Post the Monday after the Derby. If its already been discussed here, I apologize for bringing it up again, but I didn't see any thread about it. I don't consider myself a big Beyer fan and thought his article was kinda half-@$$ed, but he made a point that really hit home to me, in light of the Eight Belles tragedy. That point is that, once upon a time, breeders used to breed thoroughbreds so they could race them. Not so they could sell them. So the breeders actually *cared* about the quality of the horses they bred. They cared about their speed, yes, but also about their soundness. They bred for the whole package; speed, soundness, stamina, conformation, temperment. They wouldn't want to breed an unsound horse, because it wasn't in their best interest. When the unthrifty horse broke down, they would still own it, and it would be their problem and their setback. Nowadays, most breeders breed for the auctions. So they breed what will pull in the big $$$. When the horse breaks down, its not their problem. They already made their $$$, so who cares? These people don't care about the Thoroughbred breed, or improving or preserving it. I'm not a breeder, but I do care about the future of the breed. I'm tired of dealing with OTTB having no bone and horrible hoof quality. And as an example,, I present Big Brown. Fast horse, no doubt. But he has crappy feet and they have to be babied and coddled so he can even race 4 times. We all know he won't race more than another time or two. Bu when he retires, the "breeders" will be making a beeline to breed their fine mares to him in hopes of passing on his speed, without a care about the crummy feet. And so it goes. I'm SICK of it.I'm finally *OVER IT* I've decided the best way for me to deal with this is to only root for horses that are breeder-owned. This way I can be sure that these horses are owned by people who actually give a damn about the betterment of the breed, not just the betterment of their bottom line. I like Big Brown, but I will not be cheering for him again. I can't, in all conscience, root for a product owned by a conglomerate of business people. I'm not saying they(IAEH) are doing anything wrong. I'm just saying I can no longer support the things that are destroying the breed and the sport that I love.
Suzanne(that's my story, and I'm sticking to it!)

[TheSpyder]

I'm no expert either but when you peel away all the issues surrounding what happened, the big picture is breeding. It may not be the cause of 8 Belles but, in general, you are spot on.

Steve's been on this for a long time and has brought this up repeatedly. For those of us that have been around this sport for 30 years it's juts amazin to see what has happened to the breed over our life time.

As with anything, the real question is the future. With no one leadership for the industry nothing will be done and it will get worse. With all the good horses leaving the sport at 3 or 4 what will their offspring leave us with? Hopefully a few lines with better overall conditions will emerge. If not, the next generation is in for a really bad time.

[Danzig]

wonder how big ghostzappers book was this year. of course i've brought him up in the past due to my feeling he is the poster child of all that is wrong with this breed, only to have others say 'well, you find a mare who can offset his bad points and then you should have a sound youngster'. so much of the talk about breeders is just that, talk. because when it comes to a particular horse, who may be made of the most brittle and fragile glass-if he's fast, no one cares what he's made of.

[paisjpq]

article along these lines in todays Lexington paper.

http://www.kentucky.com/232/story/400858.html

[Danzig]

what makes all this so ironic- they've sacrificed soundness for speed--and if this years' crop is an indication of how that's all working out...well, a lot of breeders are in the wrong game, as this crop hasn't even got the speed!

I dont think the Breeders should take so much
grief. I think they could easily produce slower sound
horses. But the game is all about animals that show
speed way too young. And this is ownership and the
public that drives this.

I wonder how many owners ask for animals that
will run till they are nine and dont worry about
whether they are fast. Slow horses have their place.
Against other slow horses. For small purses. Without
any upside in the shed.

[Cannon Shell]

The use of stats are often deceptive, especially so in horseracing. The number of starts per year has been decreasing since 1950, with horses going from 11 starts to 6 per year. Of course they forget to mention that field size has decreased from 9.06 horses per race to 8.17 last year. So the average race in 1950 had 9 horses and the average race in 2007 had 8. Seems to me that is a signifigant stat that never seems to be brought up. They way it is portrayed, in the 50's every field was 12 horses and they ran every week. The reality is that they raced less than once a month and the fields were roughly the same size as now. This of course is the reality of facts which are not to be confused with hysterical opinions that are being presented.

I especially liked where they used Unbridled Song as an example. They pointed out that his runners average 11 lifetime starts which is less than the avg stallions 16, which is not a big shock. But then they point out that of his top 20 runners (presumably in earnings) 7 had made over 20 stars and 15 had raced past 3. So were they surprised by the fact that the runners that made more money, ran longer?

I think it is amusing that no one (except me, naturally) points out that the campaigning of 2 year olds has dramatically changed which can also point to horses making less starts as a whole. In the 60's it was not uncommon for a 2 year old to have as many as 7 or 8 starts, not that different than the other age groups. Now it is rare for a 2 year old to make more than 2 or 3 starts. That alone probably shaves at least a start off, maybe more. But that would take a basic understanding of the sport and its evolution, which seems to be in short supply.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The use of stats are often deceptive, especially so in horseracing. The number of starts per year has been decreasing since 1950, with horses going from 11 starts to 6 per year. Of course they forget to mention that field size has decreased from 9.06 horses per race to 8.17 last year. So the average race in 1950 had 9 horses and the average race in 2007 had 8. Seems to me that is a signifigant stat that never seems to be brought up. They way it is portrayed, in the 50's every field was 12 horses and they ran every week. The reality is that they raced less than once a month and the fields were roughly the same size as now. This of course is the reality of facts which are not to be confused with hysterical opinions that are being presented. But that would take a basic understanding of the sport and its evolution, which seems to be in short supply.

Wasn't winter racing in the '50s somewhat sparse? If most horses back then got the winter off, the racing season was really around 9 months, so an 11 start average meant horses were running more frequently than once a month.

Also, wasn't the foal crop size dramatically different back then, with less horses being foaled? There were less available horses to fill races, yet there were still more horses per race on average than now. I don't have the figures, but I suppose this comparison would be offset quite a bit if there are more races being run nowadays then there were back then.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The use of stats are often deceptive, especially so in horseracing. The number of starts per year has been decreasing since 1950, with horses going from 11 starts to 6 per year. Of course they forget to mention that field size has decreased from 9.06 horses per race to 8.17 last year. So the average race in 1950 had 9 horses and the average race in 2007 had 8. Seems to me that is a signifigant stat that never seems to be brought up. They way it is portrayed, in the 50's every field was 12 horses and they ran every week. The reality is that they raced less than once a month and the fields were roughly the same size as now. This of course is the reality of facts which are not to be confused with hysterical opinions that are being presented.

I especially liked where they used Unbridled Song as an example. They pointed out that his runners average 11 lifetime starts which is less than the avg stallions 16, which is not a big shock. But then they point out that of his top 20 runners (presumably in earnings) 7 had made over 20 stars and 15 had raced past 3. So were they surprised by the fact that the runners that made more money, ran longer?

I think it is amusing that no one (except me, naturally) points out that the campaigning of 2 year olds has dramatically changed which can also point to horses making less starts as a whole. In the 60's it was not uncommon for a 2 year old to have as many as 7 or 8 starts, not that different than the other age groups. Now it is rare for a 2 year old to make more than 2 or 3 starts. That alone probably shaves at least a start off, maybe more. But that would take a basic understanding of the sport and its evolution, which seems to be in short supply.

So your basic point breeding is not the problem.
Horses should be run earlier thereby leading
to fewer breakdowns? Horses should be run
more often and earlier for fewer breakdowns?

[Storm Cadet]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I think it is amusing that no one (except me, naturally) points out that the campaigning of 2 year olds has dramatically changed which can also point to horses making less starts as a whole. In the 60's it was not uncommon for a 2 year old to have as many as 7 or 8 starts, not that different than the other age groups. Now it is rare for a 2 year old to make more than 2 or 3 starts.

My reply agreeing with you last week Chuck, your not alone!
"Physiology is physiology, equine and human...when did the equine set start thinking that less is better? Why don't we breeze younger horses for longer distances to work up to the classic distances? Secretariat raced 8 times as a 2yo and many of those races were at 8.5f. Affirmed raced NINE times as a 2yo and ran the San Anita Derby at 9F and the Holleywood Derby at 10F in California prior to Churchill Downs. So in years past, a foundation was layed down."

Originally Posted by Storm Cadet

My reply agreeing with you last week Chuck, your not alone!
"Physiology is physiology, equine and human...when did the equine set start thinking that less is better? Why don't we breeze younger horses for longer distances to work up to the classic distances? Secretariat raced 8 times as a 2yo and many of those races were at 8.5f. Affirmed raced NINE times as a 2yo and ran the San Anita Derby at 9F and the Holleywood Derby at 10F in California prior to Churchill Downs. So in years past, a foundation was layed down."

Sorry, but running humans hard on a track too early and often (before bone and muscle is fully developed is a recipe for disaster). Ive seen this happen way too many times with kids in AAU with parents that want track stars.

[Storm Cadet]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Sorry, but running humans hard on a track too early and often (before bone and muscle is fully developed is a recipe for disaster). Ive seen this happen way too many times with kids in AAU with parents that want track stars.

I agree, I only reposted the part of my reply last week to Chuck regarding equine. I did go into detail about human sports physiology also! I didn't want to repost that here!

BTW, I'm on several national sports medicine boards (USA Gymnastics, USA Swimming, NCAA, Big East Conference ect) that does research and makes recommendations for sports safety of our youth and young adults. Interesting stuff.

[Danzig]

i don't think breeding is the only problem, but i think it's partly responsible.

as for two year olds, they are doing a horse no favor to baby him, and then expect him to be ready for the rigors of racing a few months later. used to be that these horses spent most of their time outdoors, running free in the pasture, until it was time for school to start. but no more of that. horses don't look to good in the auction ring if they're not treated like hot house flowers, kept inside, impeccably groomed. and then they start working for a living and the wheels fall off.
it's a combination of factors. sellers are trying to produce what they feel buyers want. but they forget this isn't a show ring, it's racing they're buying and selling for.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Wasn't winter racing in the '50s somewhat sparse? If most horses back then got the winter off, the racing season was really around 9 months, so an 11 start average meant horses were running more frequently than once a month.

Also, wasn't the foal crop size dramatically different back then, with less horses being foaled? There were less available horses to fill races, yet there were still more horses per race on average than now. I don't have the figures, but I suppose this comparison would be offset quite a bit if there are more races being run nowadays then there were back then.

Northern winter racing was but most of the outfits went south where there was racing and California was still year round. But facts are facts, the average field in 1950 is roughly the same size as it is today. I guess my point is that compaing 1950 horses to 2008 horses is apples to oranges because of the vast differences in the sport today versus then.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Storm Cadet

My reply agreeing with you last week Chuck, your not alone!
"Physiology is physiology, equine and human...when did the equine set start thinking that less is better? Why don't we breeze younger horses for longer distances to work up to the classic distances? Secretariat raced 8 times as a 2yo and many of those races were at 8.5f. Affirmed raced NINE times as a 2yo and ran the San Anita Derby at 9F and the Holleywood Derby at 10F in California prior to Churchill Downs. So in years past, a foundation was layed down."

Yes you did!