Crazy Ideas

[Riot]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Are there ever attempts to weigh the money against what is over the line cruel to the animal? Seems to me there has been a long history of this conflict. With the two year olds...

The "2-year-old" conflict, specifically, however, seems to stem from those that do have experience training 2-year-old horses (in any sport - cutting, reining, racing, jumping, etc); and those that do not.

There are many published studies regarding development of the immature athlete (try google) - it's not rocket science, nor all that new. Bone remodels appropriately to needed stress/strain in a positive way; cardiovascular and pulmonary changes must occur; metabolically enzyme systems adapt to streamline physiology based upon requirements ...

The most dangerous thing you could do, for a potential racehorse that you wanted to run at 3-4-5 years of age, would be NOT to run it at 2-3 years of age. Those are the horses that never develop the physical characteristics that make them athletes, as their bodies are never asked to develop what it takes.

"Good" horsemen bring animals along at their own rate, in a positive way, as their physical and mental abilities mature into increased athleticism. Bad horsemen don't. Watch every year as the new 2-year-olds come out, see how they are trained, where they are placed, etc.

I can't see painting all 2-year-old racing with the broad brush of "bad". It hasn't proven out. In fact, it's been proven opposite - a good, appropriate athletic foundation is the best insurance for a longer, healthier career.

Originally Posted by Riot

The "2-year-old" conflict, specifically, however, seems to stem from those that do have experience training 2-year-old horses (in any sport - cutting, reining, racing, jumping, etc); and those that do not.

There are many published studies regarding development of the immature athlete (try google) - it's not rocket science, nor all that new. Bone remodels appropriately to needed stress/strain in a positive way; cardiovascular and pulmonary changes must occur; metabolically enzyme systems adapt to streamline physiology based upon requirements ...

The most dangerous thing you could do, for a potential racehorse that you wanted to run at 3-4-5 years of age, would be NOT to run it at 2-3 years of age. Those are the horses that never develop the physical characteristics that make them athletes, as their bodies are never asked to develop what it takes.

"Good" horsemen bring animals along at their own rate, in a positive way, as their physical and mental abilities mature into increased athleticism. Bad horsemen don't. Watch every year as the new 2-year-olds come out, see how they are trained, where they are placed, etc.

I can't see painting all 2-year-old racing with the broad brush of "bad". It hasn't proven out. In fact, it's been proven opposite - a good, appropriate athletic foundation is the best insurance for a longer, healthier career.

Never said dont run them. I said run them in a controlled manner. Where they could be pulled up. Like in training when they go wobbly. When an animal is exhausted and the legs go, you are required to drive them through in a race in which they have a chance to make themselves and people money.

And of course trainers of two year olds that run them are going to say go with it. Thats how they make money. Im talking about weighing this against the health of the animal. And BTW apparently thinks the discussion is completely absurd.

Pile on. Its easy to go with the majority. Anyone care to take my side? Or its just completey absurd to think running two year olds in competitive races might not benefit the animals as much as hurting them.

[Riot]

When an animal is exhausted and the legs go, you are required to drive them through in a race in which they have a chance to make themselves and people money.

I understand the concept that as racing (greyhounds, horses) is a public gambling sport, and thus the public must be protected from fraud, I think it absolutely not true that two-year-olds that are put on the track for their first races are always, "driven through" just because it's a race. Watch the maiden races. Plenty of horses in there just for "training", and to try and have positive racing experiences.

Pile on. Its easy to go with the majority. Anyone care to take my side? Or its just completey absurd to think running two year olds in competitive races might not benefit the animals as much as hurting them.

"To race or not to race" two-year-old TB horses is not a black and white, "take my side or not" concept, clearly it is grey, and that is supported by much scientific evidence quantitating both risk and necessary benefit.

Originally Posted by Riot

I understand the concept that as racing (greyhounds, horses) is a public gambling sport, and thus the public must be protected from fraud, I think it absolutely not true that two-year-olds that are put on the track for their first races are always, "driven through" just because it's a race. Watch the maiden races. Plenty of horses in there just for "training", and to try and have positive racing experiences.



"To race or not to race" two-year-old TB horses is not a black and white, "take my side or not" concept, clearly it is grey, and that is supported by much scientific evidence quantitating both risk and necessary benefit.

I agree with the maidens. But two year olds that show promise and have big money on them... I have seen them driven through. But thank you for a reasonable well thought out response instead of just totally dismissing everything I have said as reactionary.