"Spaced" Races And "Fresh" Horses Are Killing The Sport

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

2YO-in-training sales probably have nothing to do with it, considering that back in the 1960s, when horses averaged more than 10 starts a year in this country, it was perfectly normal for 2YOs to be running in real races in January and February. Decent horses on good going routinely covered 3fs in 33 and change and faster. I started a project of studying the future race records of these horses and ran out of time before I got very far, but found that a large number of the horses I'd checked up until then went on to have long careers.

I did research on this ... which I published on the "other" forum last year ...

... and it showed that 26 champions from the 1940s thorugh the 1960s started their 2YO careers in February, March or April ... and 25 of them ... all except Hail To Reason ... had full, essentially injury-free careers.

Now ... this may have been a Darwinian outcome ... the survivial of the fittest ... but I really don't think so.

I'm absolutely convinced that racing early and racing often is more beneficial to developing race horses into professional athletes ... than months and months of shedrow walks and three spaced races per year.

Someone please convince me otherwise ... with hard statistics.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I did research on this ... which I published on the "other" forum last year ...

... and it showed that 26 champions from the 1940s thorugh the 1960s started their 2YO careers in February, March or April ... and 25 of them ... all except Hail To Reason ... had full, essentially injury-free careers.

Now ... this may have been a Darwinian outcome ... the survivial of the fittest ... but I really don't think so.

I'm absolutely convinced that racing early and racing often is more beneficial to developing race horses into professional athletes ... than months and months of shedrow walks and three spaced races per year.

Someone please convince me otherwise ... with hard statistics.

I certainly can't, perhaps others have access to such data. There were studies done in Europe that appeared to demonstrate increased bone mass and tendon strength in horses racing early and often at two, but I understand there has been a problem with replication of results and one would think that shouldn't be the case with a "Historical" type study so...
It's just my personal feeling that pushing everything back a year would be beneficial...a moot point as long as money dictates such things (that reads as NEVER). My point remains that the problem is in the breeding...breed the best to the best and hope for the best has changed to breed the fastest developing to the most fragile and make a quick buck while the horse can still stand!

Originally Posted by somerfrost

My point remains that the problem is in the breeding...breed the best to the best and hope for the best has changed to breed the fastest developing to the most fragile and make a quick buck while the horse can still stand!

The new math.

[Phalaris1913]

I certainly can't, perhaps others have access to such data. There were studies done in Europe that appeared to demonstrate increased bone mass and tendon strength in horses racing early and often at two, but I understand there has been a problem with replication of results and one would think that shouldn't be the case with a "Historical" type study so...
It's just my personal feeling that pushing everything back a year would be beneficial...a moot point as long as money dictates such things (that reads as NEVER). My point remains that the problem is in the breeding...breed the best to the best and hope for the best has changed to breed the fastest developing to the most fragile and make a quick buck while the horse can still stand!

I recall that a recent British study showed a higher percentage of catastrophic breakdowns in horses which started at later ages. I know of a study which showed a higher rate of breakdowns on turf vs. dirt. There are definitely a variety of results from different studies that have been done.

There are a lot of interesting variables that I wish could be examined.

Training: When those 2YOs were racing in January - as early as the first and second week of January in some jurisdictions - they were necessarily having real workouts during their yearling year. We hear occasionally of the yearling trials that they used to have as well in the old days. Perhaps the actual racing was an unrelated factor and early training that inevitably accompanied it conferred protective benefit that translated to more starts over more seasons. If that training was a factor in longer careers, was it merely that it was early training, or was it different in some other way than other training methods perhaps correlate less well with more starts/more seasons?

Breed-to-race vs. breed-to-sell: Can it be demonstrated that a higher percentage of horses bred to succeed are the products of breeding programs intended to produce sale horses rather than horses raced by a breeder/owner? If so, I believe it can be shown that treatment of said yearlings is very different. There is experimental evidence suggesting that young animals which are stalled have structural systems less well prepared for work than those which spent critical periods of their development with room to play and run. What else is done to make attractive sales yearlings that might be counterproductive to making sound working animals?

Track surfaces: Are tracks indeed deeper and slower or harder and faster? Some people would like to blame shorter careers on harder, faster surfaces, while others write off the fact that raw times seem to be declining on deeper and slower surfaces. Both can't be true, at least not at the same time on the same track. And how about turf, which is a relatively recent phenomenon in US racing? Anecdotal evidence of older, imported turf horses bucking shins like youngsters if they work or race on dirt is common; is a history of training or racing on turf a risk factor for horses which will ever run or train on the dirt?

Feeds, etc: How have feeding practices changed? How might that affect career longevity? For example, excessively high protein food is blamed for causing soreness, too-fast of growth and probably structural problems in young dogs.

That's just a few ideas aside from the obvious things one could examine about the changing trends in how US thoroughbreds are raced. (ie, if one were to compare the race records of classic starters now vs. the 1960s, you will see fewer starts, debuts at later ages, more races at longer distances and more time between races)

[Rupert Pupkin]

It's not by choice that these horses don't run often. With the really good horses, it is often times by choice. With top horses like Bernardini, they are obviously going to give him plenty of time between races and pick their spots.

But if you see that a horse is bought at a 2 year olds in training sale for $70,000 and the horse doesn't run until he is 3 years old, it's not by choice. In 99% of these cases, the connections had the horse in training as a 2 year old and wanted to run the horse as a 2 year old, but the horse got hurt. That's why some of Phalaris' arguments are so silly. If she sees a horse that didn't run until he was a 3 year old and the horse doesn't last, she thinks that they should have run the horse as a 2 year old. she doesn't relize that they couldn't run the horse as a 2 year old. They tried to but the horse got hurt.

This isn't brain surgery. It's not that complicated. Phalaris' argument would be the same as arguing that people who take a lot of sick days from work are sick more often than people that don't take a lot of sick days. Therefore, taking sick days from work must be what is causing these people to get sick. If these people simply did not take sick days, then they wouldn't be sick. This is obviously an absurd argument. Taking sick days is not causing people to get sick. It's the opposite. People being sick is causing them to take sick days.

Some of you guys come up with these ludicrous theories, that you would know were absurd if you had any knowledgs about the business. There is practically nobody in the business who intentionally does not run their horses as 2 year olds. If Bill Mott has a big, long-striding Dynaformer colt who is a late foal and looks like a grass horse, a case like that may be the exception. With a horse like that, they may not try to run the horse as a 2 year old. But with the other 99.9% of horses, the trainers try to run them as 2 year olds. When you see a horse who doesn't make his first start until he is 3, it was not by choice.

Originally Posted by Rupert

This isn't brain surgery. It's not that complicated. Phalaris' argument would be the same as arguing that people who take a lot of sick days from work are sick more often than people that don't take a lot of sick days. Therefore, taking sick days from work must be what is causing these people to get sick. If these people simply did not take sick days, then they wouldn't be sick. This is obviously an absurd argument. Taking sick days is not causing people to get sick. It's the opposite. People being sick is causing them to take sick days.

Some of you guys come up with these ludicrous theories, that you would know were absurd if you had any knowledgs about the business. There is practically nobody in the business who intentionally does not run their horses as 2 year olds.

As to human sick days ... people wouldn't take as many of them if they weren't paid for them. Stop paying someone when they're out "sicK" ... and the number of sick days decreases dramatically.

As to horses ... you're mostly missing the point.

I don't have any large base of hard data to support it ... but I do suspect ... from years of observation .. that racing horses early and more often is more likely to result in their becoming more physically fit and able to endure the hardships of a career as a professional athlete.

Racing 3f in February ... learning to break alertly from the gate ... learning to maneuver in a pack ... learning how to dig down and give a little more ... is good preparation for the future.

Not every horse will be ready to do that .... and not every one who tries will succeed. But ... on the whole ... the methodology employed 40 years ago and more ... produced a higher percentage of professional athletes who could race 12, 15, 18 times per year without serious injury ... than today's "spacing" and "fresh horse" theories do.

Again without hard numbers ... it just seems that more G1-level horses break down and have shortened careers today ... than they did in the past ... and ...

... and this lack of frequent appearances by the best-quality horses is killing off interest in the sport.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It's not by choice that these horses don't run often. With the really good horses, it is often times by choice. With top horses like Bernardini, they are obviously going to give him plenty of time between races and pick their spots.

But if you see that a horse is bought at a 2 year olds in training sale for $70,000 and the horse doesn't run until he is 3 years old, it's not by choice. In 99% of these cases, the connections had the horse in training as a 2 year old and wanted to run the horse as a 2 year old, but the horse got hurt. That's why some of Phalaris' arguments are so silly. If she sees a horse that didn't run until he was a 3 year old and the horse doesn't last, she thinks that they should have run the horse as a 2 year old. she doesn't relize that they couldn't run the horse as a 2 year old. They tried to but the horse got hurt.

This isn't brain surgery. It's not that complicated. Phalaris' argument would be the same as arguing that people who take a lot of sick days from work are sick more often than people that don't take a lot of sick days. Therefore, taking sick days from work must be what is causing these people to get sick. If these people simply did not take sick days, then they wouldn't be sick. This is obviously an absurd argument. Taking sick days is not causing people to get sick. It's the opposite. People being sick is causing them to take sick days.

Some of you guys come up with these ludicrous theories, that you would know were absurd if you had any knowledgs about the business. There is practically nobody in the business who intentionally does not run their horses as 2 year olds. If Bill Mott has a big, long-striding Dynaformer colt who is a late foal and looks like a grass horse, a case like that may be the exception. With a horse like that, they may not try to run the horse as a 2 year old. But with the other 99.9% of horses, the trainers try to run them as 2 year olds. When you see a horse who doesn't make his first start until he is 3, it was not by choice.

Not sure where that came from? The post qualified the theory as pertaining to top horses which you seem to agree with. Certainly trainers want their horses to race...my point, and I'll stick to mine and let others address theirs, is that because of insane breeding practices, the thoroughbred of today is too fragile to withstand long campaigns and frequent work!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Not sure where that came from? The post qualified the theory as pertaining to top horses which you seem to agree with. Certainly trainers want their horses to race...my point, and I'll stick to mine and let others address theirs, is that because of insane breeding practices, the thoroughbred of today is too fragile to withstand long campaigns and frequent work!

Yes, I agree with you. I was mainly repsonding to Phalaris, especially some of her past posts.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, I agree with you. I was mainly repsonding to Phalaris, especially some of her past posts.

Not particularly pertinent to this topic ... but ...

... Phalaris both knows and understands as much about thoroughbred racing as anyone on this planet.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Not sure where that came from? The post qualified the theory as pertaining to top horses which you seem to agree with. Certainly trainers want their horses to race...my point, and I'll stick to mine and let others address theirs, is that because of insane breeding practices, the thoroughbred of today is too fragile to withstand long campaigns and frequent work!

Amen to that!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Not sure where that came from? The post qualified the theory as pertaining to top horses which you seem to agree with. Certainly trainers want their horses to race...my point, and I'll stick to mine and let others address theirs, is that because of insane breeding practices, the thoroughbred of today is too fragile to withstand long campaigns and frequent work!

By the way, I think that trainers are smart to run their top horses sparingly. It's really hard to keep horses sound and the top trainers know this. If you have a really good horse that looks like he has a good chance to win the Breeder's Cup and that race is your main goal, you would not plan the race to be your horse's 10th start of the year. You would want your horse to be at or near his peak on BC day. Therefore, you would not want the BC to be the horse's 10th race of a long, hard campaign. You would obviously want your horse to come into the race relatively fresh.

For all of you geniuses who think that horses can run 15 times a year, you should go and buy some horses and try it.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

By the way, I think that trainers are smart to run their top horses sparingly. It's really hard to keep horses sound and the top trainers know this. If you have a really good horse that looks like he has a good chance to win the Breeder's Cup and that race is your main goal, you would not plan the race to be your horse's 10th start of the year. You would want your horse to be at or near his peak on BC day. Therefore, you would not want the BC to be the horse's 10th race of a long, hard campaign. You would obviously want your horse to come into the race relatively fresh.

For all of you geniuses who think that horses can run 15 times a year, you should go and buy some horses and try it.

And the geniuses who think they can't ... should learn a lot more about thoroughbred racing history.

You've bought into the "fresh horse" theory ... and I completely disagree with it. Nothing will definitively resolve the difference .. but ...

... I do know that thirty years and more ago ... I watched all the best horses in every division race 12 or 15 or more times every year ... top horses facing each other five, six or more times within the campaign ... and today ... fans only get to see their favorites a handful of times at best.

Regardless of which training method works better ... the old way at least made the sport a lot more interesting.