New Column from Beyer

somerfrost · #1 05-12-2008, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zippyneedsawin

Yes, the stallions would object.

LOL Zippy, although they might enjoy longer, more meaningful relationships rather than "wham, bam, thank you Mam"...LOL!

Better Than Honour · #2 05-13-2008, 08:16 AM

He is 100% correct. It would only be fitting if Dutrow were to win the Triple Crown in a tarnished error of horse racing. Just like Bonds being the HR leader.

Lesson: The trainers with the best veterinarian are the winners.

10 pnt move up · #3 05-13-2008, 09:52 AM

Articles like these are more frustrating than informative for just about everyone who bets and follows the sport...we all know what the problem is and it has nothing to do with running on rubber or dirt.

SCUDSBROTHER · #4 05-13-2008, 12:27 PM

"The drawback to this vision, of course, is that horse racing might not be much of a sport if speed became a liability. The thoroughbreds who make the game exciting are the brilliant ones such as Kentucky Derby winner Big Brown -- not the plodders who often win on Polytrack."

So, if he had the money to buy horses, then he probably would be buying the same speed-bred horses that are most vulnerable to breaking down. These "plodders" (he and other speed addicts hate) will keep kickin' the ass of the speed-bred Derby winners trying to get home in the Belmont. They can try to speed up the track all they want come Belmont day, but you can't make those turns tight. The beauty of the Triple Crown is it requires a horse to do very different things. Winning the Derby on concrete is much different than winning the Belmont. As long as people ( like Beyer) keep thinking the "brilliant ones" in the sport are just the ones with speed,then horses will continue to be bred for speed. As long as his pro-speed attitude exists, horses will be bred in a way that results in them being more and more fragile. His own addiction to speed is part of the reason these horses break down so easily. You can't say speed is brilliant, and then turn right around and complain that they breed for it. That would be hypocritical.

SCUDSBROTHER · #5 05-13-2008, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardus

I think that he is referring to horses like Secretariat, Seattle Slew, and Spectacular Bid. All had brilliant speed.

No, he referred to Big Brown (precisely.) We are gunna find out if his example of brilliance can get 12f. If he can get 12f, then he belongs with those you mentioned. Problem with his attitude is that he has given a horse the description of " brilliant " without it being fully tested for endurance. He has won all 3 of his races this year on speed-favoring dirt tracks. The breed would be much better off if people valued the ability to get 12f. I think it does require brilliance to get all 3 legs of the triple crown. The reason we haven't had one in 30 years has a lot to do with these speed addicts that call a 3 year old "brilliant" before being tested for true endurance. Having speed is fine if it can be taken 12f.

philcski · #6 05-13-2008, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

No, he referred to Big Brown (precisely.) We are gunna find out if his example of brilliance can get 12f. If he can get 12f, then he belongs with those you mentioned. Problem with his attitude is that he has given a horse the description of " brilliant " without it being fully tested for endurance. He has won all 3 of his races this year on speed-favoring dirt tracks. The breed would be much better off if people valued the ability to get 12f. I think it does require brilliance to get all 3 legs of the triple crown. The reason we haven't had one in 30 years has a lot to do with these speed addicts that call a 3 year old "brilliant" before being tested for true endurance. Having speed is fine if it can be taken 12f.

In no way do I disagree with your statement that the breed would be better off with people valuing stamina, but the CD track on Derby Day was definitely not favoring speed.

King Glorious · #7 05-13-2008, 02:14 PM

I don't understand those that say we should breed more horses that are going to appreciate 12f when there are no dirt races outside of the Belmont for them to run in. Well, they added some this year but for years, after they cut the JCGC down to 10f, where was there any incentive for breeders to try to breed 12f horses? There has been none. The vast majority of races in this country, whether on real dirt, grass or synthetic, are run under 8f. With that in mind, why would anyone breed a horse for a distance that they are only eligible for one time in their career unless they run on the grass?

SCUDSBROTHER · #8 05-13-2008, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philcski

In no way do I disagree with your statement that the breed would be better off with people valuing stamina, but the CD track on Derby Day was definitely not favoring speed.

I disagree, and I think the fairest track (of the three) is usually Belmont. I think Churchill wants no more Giacomos. Their "tight" tracks on big days means it's very difficult to get the same winner of both the Kentucky Derby, and the Belmont. If you look at these races run at Belmont(lately,) you're going to see horses earning their wins in the stretch. They must be able to finish up. I think it's the best dirt track in the country,and I would play it if they didn't have the New York breds in the 6th / 9th races. That's like putting orange juice in beer.

SCUDSBROTHER · #9 05-13-2008, 01:39 PM

I think the breed itself is the main problem. The breeding for speed has resulted in fast horses that are more fragile, and struggle to get the 12f distance necessary to win the Triple Crown. His attitude (Big Brown is already brilliant) shows the lack of respect for true endurance that is so prevalent with speed addicts. Medication allows people to disconnect the warning lights, but the problem is in the breeding. If we could run the Belmont before the other 2 legs, then the breed would be much better off.