"He beat nothing"

[Dr. Watson]

If a horse was sound throughout its 2yo season it would have raced as a 2yo. no one keeps perfectly sound horses on the sidelines until 3.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Dr. Watson

If a horse was sound throughout its 2yo season it would have raced as a 2yo. no one keeps perfectly sound horses on the sidelines until 3.

umm..no..that's not correct at all

Many 2 year olds are 100% sound but haven't figured it out yet..Nothing to do with soundness

[Dr. Watson]

Originally Posted by GBBob

umm..no..that's not correct at all

Many 2 year olds are 100% sound but haven't figured it out yet..Nothing to do with soundness

how are they going to figure it out by not racing? i dont see what is complicated about running. even for a horse.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Dr. Watson

how are they going to figure it out by not racing? i dont see what is complicated about running. even for a horse.

They figure out the basics in training..some are quicker than others. I agree that they 'learn" a lot from running, but the blanket statement you made about 2 year olds isn't right. They all don't progress at the same rate and you can do more harm running at two if they aren't ready then waiting until they are. The key is a strong foundation...if you can get that as a two year old by running..great..but if that horse is heavy, jumpy, stupid, immature, etc..then constant galloping, works etc will do the same thing.

[Riot]

Of course (regarding the racing of sound 2 year olds). It becomes pertinent when people (outside the industry, the AR whackos come to mind) say, "We need laws to stop racing two-year-olds, their bones are soft, you are breaking them down".

Nope. Actually that builds strong bones that can stand up to racing.

Bob - there would be a concern, I'd think, in a situation like you point out, if you have a big gangly colt, growthy pains, a little clumsy or mentally silly yet, repetitive shins, etc - trying to get enough work into them before their bones stop growing.

[GBBob]

[quote=Riot]Of course. It becomes pertinent when people (outside the industry, the AR whackos come to mind) say, "We need laws to stop racing two-year-olds, their bones are soft, you are breaking them down".

Nope. Actually that builds strong bones that can stand up to racing.[/QUOTE]

So you think it makes sense to run an immature 2 yr old who can't break out of a gate straight just to build strong bones?

[Riot]

So you think it makes sense to run an immature 2 yr old who can't break out of a gate straight just to build strong bones?

Heck no. But, if he can handle training, work in training, do it to the extent he safely can. The point is that young growing bones are malleable to stress and strain. It's the perfect time to build strong racehorse bone. Young growing horses that don't undergo any challenge to build strong bones don't. And later on in their careers, they break down more often than those that were worked.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Riot

Heck no. But, if he can handle training, work in training, do it to the extent he safely can. The point is that young growing bones are malleable to stress and strain. It's the perfect time to build strong racehorse bone. Young growing horses that don't undergo any challenge to build strong bones don't. And later on in their careers, they break down more often than those that were worked.

Is this conversation about worked or running? I thought you and Watson were saying the only effective 2 yr old was a racing 2 yr old?

[Dr. Watson]

I just didn't think anyone would keep an always sound 2yo on the bench its entire 2yo season. which is why a study would show that horses who race at age two tend to be sounder.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Dr. Watson

I just didn't think anyone would keep an always sound 2yo on the bench its entire 2yo season. which is why a study would show that horses who race at age two tend to be sounder.

We don't have time for confounding factors here. So let's just ignore them.

Else it cuts down on the number of times we can mention "bone density".

You need to adaptively remodel your way of thinking. Got milk?

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Dr. Watson

I just didn't think anyone would keep an always sound 2yo on the bench his entire 2yo season. which is why a study would show that horses who race at age two tend to be sounder.

Point # 2 only makes sense if you believe Point #1 to be true..and I don't.

At this point I'll agree to disagree...I have several two year olds who are perfectly sound, but aren't ready mentally/physically (too heavy) to run yet. They work consistantly and are building a solid foundation.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Dr. Watson

I just didn't think anyone would keep an always sound 2yo on the bench its entire 2yo season. which is why a study would show that horses who race at age two tend to be sounder.

Uh ... no.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Is this conversation about worked or running? I thought you and Watson were saying the only effective 2 yr old was a racing 2 yr old?

I can only try and explain myself. Which isn't always easy It refers to speed (mph), distance, repetitivity of activity.

Steve talked about this (racing 2-year-olds and breakdowns) with Dr. Allday once on ATR, I think post-Derby last year - if he can remember which show, maybe he could reference that replay, as Dr. Allday covered why it is important to race (or work as if racing) 2-year-olds.

Those interested can go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

(Pub Med) and enter the search terms racehorse bone and come up with tons of interesting articles about racehorse exercise physiology.

[Payson Dave]

Interesting discussion.....

Regarding the study/conclusion that horses that race at two tend to break down less than horses that don't races until three....

just wondering here...
if we take 4 categories of racehorses:
A) Sound 2yo's that race at two
B) Sound 2yo's that don't race at two
C) Un-sound 2yo's that race at two
D) Un-sound 2yo's that don't race at two


First... is there a value in defining "racing career"....is it number of starts or is it age at retirement from racing.

Irregardless...I'm guessing that the first two categories are more likely to result in longer racing careers ....(in general it would seem that starting off sound is better than starting off unsound)

?? In general would Category C & D horses be statistically more likely to breakdown than Category A & B

?? In general are there more Category A horses than Category B horses....

Statistically if starting off sound is better than starting off unsound... and if there are more sound 2yo racers than sound 2yo non-racers....then it seems likely that the category that shows the greatest number of horses with longer racing careers will come from Category A

just wondering is it really the racing at two that promotes the longer careers or is it the way the numbers are sliced and diced???

btw I'm an advocate of 2yo racing...2yo mdns are my bread and butter

hmmmm ... .....