New Column from Beyer

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Chuck, I think you're taking one sentence in the article and treating it as though it were the entire article. I don't think Beyer was focused on breeding so much as on saying that the difference between American racing and racing everywhere else in the world is its dependence on drugs- and I didn't read references to ulcer medications; he referred to steroids, which, I would argue, do produce a result in a horse (or person, for that matter) that is not dictated by their genes, and increases a likelihood of injury (too much muscle for the bone). He was also talking about sore horses being medicated so they run harder than they would if they were able to feel that they were sore, thereby increasing the likelihood of injury. His argument, as I understood it, was that the 1970's drive to legalize medication in the US has not brought any of the benefits it promised (larger horse fields, more races) and in fact has been a failure as far as racing is concerned (smaller fields, fewer starts and possibly more breakdowns).

On top of that, he wasn't saying medication "makes" horses weaker; he was saying that medication enables weaker horses to race sucessfully, and thus have a chance to succeed enough to be given a chance at stud, thus passing along their genetic weaknesses. And in fact, I don't think he mentioned broodmares at all, who frankly, don't have the large scale effect on a breed the way a stallion can. I don't think I've read any articles discussing Eight Belle's dam; it's all been Unbridled's Song and his soundness issues. Yes, a filly with good bloodlines can have a breeding career, even with no races, but a colt with no races or good wins is not nearly as likely to do so.

Also, what does a filly returning to races after healing from an injury have to do with horses running on medication? The PE analogy makes no sense- though I could see one possible argument against even that point- saying that if she never raced she might not have produced quite as well as she did because she would have had less access to the best stallions for her, but I honestly have to say I don't know enough about breeding to know if that would have been the case.

I think the point of the Beyer article is that the American permissiveness on medication hasn't resulted in any positive things for the racing industry, not that giving horses drugs changes their genetic makeup.

You are buying into a argument that makes no sense. First of all of course mares individually dont make as much difference as stallions do individually but lets face it, if there are 35000 foals there are at least 35000 mares needed to produce them. The fact that stallions covered 40 to 50 mares per year in the 60's seems to have escaped everyones attention. A stallion now covers three times that amount meaning a bad stallion is having three times the effect of a good stallion. But a stallion that has weaknesses is still going to have weaknesses regardless of medication. You want to say they wouldn't be breeding? Fine but most of the well bred horses are going to get a chance somewhere. I find it amazing that everyone simply talks about the stallions.

This argument of allowing weaker horses to pass off genetic weakness is bunk. You say he was talking about steroids but I want to know where to draw the line. Like I said about PE, if she never ran after she broke down originally would she have been the same success as a broodmare? Of course she would have. Her return to the races was due to modern technology and medicine, in the 50's she would never have raced again. So why is that technology that allowed an obviously "weaker" horse to return to the races and succeed not be the same as Lasix allowing a horse who bleeds to do the same? Is bleeding an inheirent trait? Is "brittleness" a real trait? Or rather the real cause of most soundness issues, confirmation issues to blame? The whole medication is weakening the breed crowd never brings in anyone from outside of racing to verify what they are saying. Why is that? Because they would rather spew opinion rather than truth. The trend of lesser starts began long before the medication door was opened. A fact that is ignored rather routinely. Everybody says that the tracks are getting harder but Jerry Brown has shown at least some documentation that that is not the case. But it fits the argument better if it the tracks are getting harder, something else to blame. People want to say that more horses are breaking down than ever yet there is no proof that is the case.

So if i treat my horse with hyperbaric oxygen to keep it from bleeding, shockwave and adequan to keep its joints sounder, gastrogard to keep its ulcers from cropping up, RVI and Bodybuilder for its muscles and the horse goes out and wins a bunch of races and becomes a stallion it is bad for the breed? Because in 1950 none of these things were available and the subtraction of one may have caused my horse not to perform and hence not been a stallion prospect. Or I could say that my horse needs Lasix or steroids to do the same and then we are howling because those help "enhance" his performance and will in turn "weaken" the breed. So are we saying that all modern techniques that help a "weaker" horse succeed should be eliminated? We should simply let the bleeders bleed? Or whenever a horse has any infirmity just turn them out? Because if "weaker" horses are being bred and creating "weaker" horses, where exactly do we draw the line? Who determines what constitutes weakness? The generalizations used by Beyer and others are simply an agenda that has been pushed strongly recently without much rational except that it sounds right. That and the other countries are doing it. And yet virtually all of Coolmores Irish stallion roster is made up of American Bred decendants of Northern Dancer. And the euros are putting in more american style tracks and buying up our bloodstock at record levels. All products of "medication weakened" breeding.