Cigar was the best horse in the last 30 years

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Cardus

What a huge difference between then and now. For breed and racing quality, Then (racing without Lasix) beats Now (running with Lasix, Bute, and steroids) by a mile.

Hate to rain on your parade but Bute and steroids were around in 1987. If you knew what was done to horses then in lieu of Lasix, you would be a big fan of it.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Why were Thoroughbreds able to race more frequently than today's version -- especially at the Grade 1, 2, and 3 levels -- if the same, or similar drugs were in use two decades ago? What has changed?

Is the bottom line that American racing absolutely, positively, cannot be conducted without race-day Lasix, Bute, and steroids?

Drugs are an easy copout for the entire industry. Very easy for the breeders to blame as it takes the focus off of them. Easy for the fans to blame them because there is much more awareness of what is going on nowdays. But the fact is that things were not a whole lot different then and now in terms of medicating horses. What has changed is that the sales arena became the most powerful economic factor in the late 70's about the time we started breeding a whole lot more horses than we used to. The eventual bust of the market brought the numbers back to realistic numbers but the damage to the breed was done.

Drugs, legal or otherwise, have virtually nothing to do with the genetic makeup of horses. The fact that some horses may have competeted at a higher level because of them means squat in terms of producing horses. Some of the best horses of our generation like Alysheba and Coronado's Quest (neither who would be considered to be "juice" horses) got tremendous books of mares yet were absolute busts at stud.

What I do think has led to the "softness" of modern day horses is the proliferation of the blood of Mr. Prospector, Storm Cat, and Danzig. Danzig broke down after 3 starts, Storm Cat was not effective past 2 and Mr. Prospector was strictly a 6 furlong horse. Think about that for a minute and ask yourself why modern day horses who are filled with the blood of those 3 should be durable distance horses? Take a look at the upcoming Keeneland sale and see how many hips you can go without seeing one of those 3 in the pedigree? Consider that on the female side, virtually no filly's with any breeding at all, are not bred despite horrible conformation or other issues. We just correct the foals artificially with surgeries and pass them off as new.

Now days you have to take into consideration that graded stake horses are treated as assets instead of racehorses. The reason that this practice is allowed is because the power breeders don't insist on a deep race record as a requirement. As long as a horse has a good pedigree and he has knocked off a couple of big races, he is a prime stallion option. Being that the stud books are in the 100's, the farms that stand stallions don't have to be right nearly as much as the 1st few years of stud fees easily cover the price of the horse.

What it really comes down to in this day and age is like most other areas of our society. It is a numbers game and money is the greatest motivator, even over ego. I hate the way the game is played now but being I make a living at it I have to deal with it. It is hard to blame the trainers of the big horses as they are under a lot of pressure not to lose once a horse reaches a certain status. It is just too bad that a billionaire owner has yet to stand up and race and resist the urge to cash out. I guess Stronach bringing back Ghostzapper for one more year, is as close to that as we get (though he was hardly overraced)

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Drugs are an easy copout for the entire industry.

I know we've been at this before.

Whenever I've said that synthetic surfaces are a band-aid for the real problem - the overuse of medications and the chemically gifted move-up trainers who play the game on the edge - you've always disputed this.

Take a look at the 3-year-old filly who fatally broke down in the first race ever run over the highly-touted (from a safety standpoint) Tapeta surface.



After Scott Lake claimed this filly, laid her off and did God knows what with her, she comes back and runs six consecutive races with a figure 14-to-20 lengths faster each time.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I know we've been at this before.

Whenever I've said that synthetic surfaces are a band-aid for the real problem - the overuse of medications and the chemically gifted move-up trainers who play the game on the edge - you've always disputed this.

Take a look at the 3-year-old filly who fatally broke down in the first race ever run over the highly-touted (from a safety standpoint) Tapeta surface.



After Scott Lake claimed this filly, laid her off and did God knows what with her, she comes back and runs six consecutive races with a figure 14-to-20 lengths faster each time.

Anytime a guy claims a 2 year old off of a nice race and promptly gives in 7 months off there is obviously something amiss. Actually this is a horse who didn't have large gaps in her races sinc her layoff, often racing back on short rest and excelling.

However, I don't follow your logic on this. I never said that drugs weren't a issue in the game. But to blame legal medications like Lasix or bute for diluting the breed is not only silly it is without merit or evidence that is not completely circumstancial.

BTW- I'm sure that Lasix, bute or steroids were not the key to the improvement to this horse.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

BTW- I'm sure that Lasix, bute or steroids were not the key to the improvement to this horse.

I'm sure as well.

Something beyond hay, oats, water and good honest horsemanship was though.

[Holland Hacker]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Drugs are an easy copout for the entire industry. Very easy for the breeders to blame as it takes the focus off of them. Easy for the fans to blame them because there is much more awareness of what is going on nowdays. But the fact is that things were not a whole lot different then and now in terms of medicating horses. What has changed is that the sales arena became the most powerful economic factor in the late 70's about the time we started breeding a whole lot more horses than we used to. The eventual bust of the market brought the numbers back to realistic numbers but the damage to the breed was done.

Drugs, legal or otherwise, have virtually nothing to do with the genetic makeup of horses. The fact that some horses may have competeted at a higher level because of them means squat in terms of producing horses. Some of the best horses of our generation like Alysheba and Coronado's Quest (neither who would be considered to be "juice" horses) got tremendous books of mares yet were absolute busts at stud.

What I do think has led to the "softness" of modern day horses is the proliferation of the blood of Mr. Prospector, Storm Cat, and Danzig. Danzig broke down after 3 starts, Storm Cat was not effective past 2 and Mr. Prospector was strictly a 6 furlong horse. Think about that for a minute and ask yourself why modern day horses who are filled with the blood of those 3 should be durable distance horses? Take a look at the upcoming Keeneland sale and see how many hips you can go without seeing one of those 3 in the pedigree? Consider that on the female side, virtually no filly's with any breeding at all, are not bred despite horrible conformation or other issues. We just correct the foals artificially with surgeries and pass them off as new.

Now days you have to take into consideration that graded stake horses are treated as assets instead of racehorses. The reason that this practice is allowed is because the power breeders don't insist on a deep race record as a requirement. As long as a horse has a good pedigree and he has knocked off a couple of big races, he is a prime stallion option. Being that the stud books are in the 100's, the farms that stand stallions don't have to be right nearly as much as the 1st few years of stud fees easily cover the price of the horse.

What it really comes down to in this day and age is like most other areas of our society. It is a numbers game and money is the greatest motivator, even over ego. I hate the way the game is played now but being I make a living at it I have to deal with it. It is hard to blame the trainers of the big horses as they are under a lot of pressure not to lose once a horse reaches a certain status. It is just too bad that a billionaire owner has yet to stand up and race and resist the urge to cash out. I guess Stronach bringing back Ghostzapper for one more year, is as close to that as we get (though he was hardly overraced)

While I agree with you on Storm Cat, I think Mr. Prospector & Danzig were worthwhile sires of horse that were capable of getting the Classic distances.
Apparently I'm not the only one who agrees with you. You probably already saw this though. I thought it interesting that it mentioned the same Sires that you did.

As long as I'm here I do NOT think think that Cigar was the best horse, maybe top 25. There have been a lot of Great horses that weren't able to overcome adversities (bad rides, off tracks, etc) to keep an unbeaten streak alive.

I think Cigar just happened to come along in a period when the handicap division was rather weak.

http://opinions.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=40480

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Question for you: are trainers better than they were 20 years ago? Forty years ago?

Probably more knowledgable about some things that are a part of training like biases, speed figures, and we all know a lot more about horses from a medical standpoint. But I think that the average trainer back then probably had better instincts for horses and horsemanship then his modern counterpart.

As a sidebar, let me add that there is really only one trainer from the 60's-70's who is still training and doing well. Allen Jerkens. He is one of the few trainers from that era and before who was able to adapt to the modern game and still do well. Of course a lot of them are dead but there are some guys who are in the Hall of Fame who are still training or recently retired who the game just seemed to pass by. Of course I am biased but much of my information on the training of horses in the "good old days" comes from him including how he has changed his methods.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Leroy Jolley, Jack Van Berg, Wayne Lukas etc.

Yeah, that's a good start.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Yeah, that's a good start.

Thanks for helping me out there

You missed John Veitch

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Here's something you might not have known....

Bobby Frankel won a share of the Saratoga training title in 1970. "The Chief" didn't win his first of three until the next year.

I had to look it up - but I remember hearing about Frankel winning one of those long before I was ever born.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Here's something you might not have known....

Bobby Frankel won a share of the Saratoga training title in 1970. "The Chief" didn't win his first of three until the next year.

I had to look it up - but I remember hearing about Frankel winning one of those long before I was ever born.

Believe it or not there was a time when Saratoga was not that big of a deal

[Danzig]

can't help wondering tho, are todays horses really more fragile? or does the dollar dictate the sparse racing schedule, the early retirement? i think it is partly responsible for the barely double-digit starts for most horses. look back over the years, take man o war for instance. he raced the exact same number of races as secretariat, 50-some years later. both raced only at two and three. both were highly prized in the shed. both retired sound. count fleet, who ran in the forties, smack between the two big reds, raced 21 times as well, the same number as the other two. also retired at three, after the belmont (sound familiar?). dr fager, native dancer and seattle slew ran at four, with doc and native dancer running 22 times, and slew only 17.

the use of drugs is a bone of contention, keeping horses on the track that years ago would not have been, BUT by the same token, miracles of modern science have helped to heal horses that years ago would have been lost.

i think many horses are handled with kid gloves these days not so much due to fragility, but due to monetary value. it's no longer a sport, but a business. it's not a matter of who breeds the best horse and proves it on the track, but who can win a fancy race and beat the rush to the shed.