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

[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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

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

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

Phalaris has no understading of horses at all. You should read some her past posts. She thinks that if you have a good 2 year old with a lot of potential, that you should run the horse 15 times as a 2 year old and this would increase the horse's chances of lasting and winning some big races as a 3 year and 4 year old. She thinks that you would have a better chance to win the Ky Derby if you ran your 2 year old 12 times as oppose to 4 times.

If you talk to any good trainer out there, they will tell you that this is the most absurd thing they have ever heard.

So there are two possibilities here. The first possibility is that Phalaris has no idea what she is talking about.

The second possibility is that Phalaris is a genius and guys like Pletcher, Mandella, Frankel, Zito, etc. are all idiots.

Which is it? Is Phalaris a genius and the all the great trainers are morons? I think it's slightly more probable that Phalaris has no clue what she's talking about.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Phalaris has no understading of horses at all. You should read some her past posts. She thinks that if you have a good 2 year old with a lot of potential, that you should run the horse 15 times as a 2 year old and this would increase the horse's chances of lasting and winning some big races as a 3 year and 4 year old. She thinks that you would have a better chance to win the Ky Derby if you ran your 2 year old 12 times as oppose to 4 times.

If you talk to any good trainer out there, they will tell you that this is the most absurd thing they have ever heard.

So there are two possibilities here. The first possibility is that Phalaris has no idea what she is talking about.

The second possibility is that Phalaris is a genius and guys like Pletcher, Mandella, Frankel, Zito, etc. are all idiots.

Which is it? Is Phalaris a genius and the all the great trainers are morons? I think it's slightly more probable that Phalaris has no clue what she's talking about.

Well... for some reason, what they are doing isn't stopping the amount of breakdowns, is it? The real problem lies in that the thoroughbred breed isn't as hardy as it once was. I for one am one that believes that thoroughbreds should NOT be run as two year olds at all. I don't believe that the stress on their legs is good for them when their bones aren't even closed up. Shoot... I wouldn't even sit on a horse's back until they were 3 years old, but that's just me. Perhaps there is some merit in running them more frequently as two year olds though. If facts are presented that say that bone density is IMPROVED off of more starts as a youngin, then I can't argue with that.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Phalaris has no understading of horses at all. You should read some her past posts. She thinks that if you have a good 2 year old with a lot of potential, that you should run the horse 15 times as a 2 year old and this would increase the horse's chances of lasting and winning some big races as a 3 year and 4 year old. She thinks that you would have a better chance to win the Ky Derby if you ran your 2 year old 12 times as oppose to 4 times.

If you talk to any good trainer out there, they will tell you that this is the most absurd thing they have ever heard.

So there are two possibilities here. The first possibility is that Phalaris has no idea what she is talking about.

The second possibility is that Phalaris is a genius and guys like Pletcher, Mandella, Frankel, Zito, etc. are all idiots.

Which is it? Is Phalaris a genius and the all the great trainers are morons? I think it's slightly more probable that Phalaris has no clue what she's talking about.

And you will also read those trainers say that times are changing....and who is changing the times? The breeding industry. Trainers answer this change by pleasing their clients with less starts against weeker horses = better stallion resume.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Phalaris has no understading of horses at all. You should read some her past posts. She thinks that if you have a good 2 year old with a lot of potential, that you should run the horse 15 times as a 2 year old and this would increase the horse's chances of lasting and winning some big races as a 3 year and 4 year old. She thinks that you would have a better chance to win the Ky Derby if you ran your 2 year old 12 times as oppose to 4 times.

If you talk to any good trainer out there, they will tell you that this is the most absurd thing they have ever heard.

I believe the same things ...

... and so did Ben Jones, Jimmy Jones, Hirsch Jacobs, Sunny Jim Fitzsimmons, Moody Jolley, Max Hirsch, Syl Veitch, Preston Burch, John Gaver ... and many many other Hall-Of-Fame trainers ... who develop0ed champion after champion after champion.

Your definition of a "good" trainer ... is very different from mine. A good trainer to me is one who brings out and sustains the talent of the horses in his care.

The ones I mentioned did that a heck of a lot better than any of the ones you cited.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I believe the same things ...

... and so did Ben Jones, Jimmy Jones, Hirsch Jacobs, Sunny Jim Fitzsimmons, Moody Jolley, Max Hirsch, Syl Veitch, Preston Burch, John Gaver ... and many many other Hall-Of-Fame trainers ... who develop0ed champion after champion after champion.

Your definition of a "good" trainer ... is very different from mine. A good trainer to me is one who brings out and sustains the talent of the horses in his care.

The ones I mentioned did that a heck of a lot better than any of the ones you cited.

I don't anything about what went on 40 years ago, but times have clearly changed. Nowadays if you try to run a good horse 15 times a year, you will not be successful.

By the way, do you think that there aren't any good trainers any more? You would have to be a fool to believe that. You understand as well as anyone how capitalism works. If there is a field or indusrty where there is a lot of money to be made, you will get some very talented people in that field. Horseracing is no exception. There are obviously a lot of great trainers out there right now. They will all tell you that you must run your horses sparingly. You can't possibly think that all these guys are incompetent. Times have obviously changed. I'm sure there are a number of factors including the breed, the track surfaces, the medications, and a number of other factors that have made things far different today.

[Assttodixie]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't anything about what went on 40 years ago, but times have clearly changed. Nowadays if you try to run a good horse 15 times a year, you will not be successful.

By the way, do you think that there aren't any good trainers any more? You would have to be a fool to believe that. You understand as well as anyone how capitalism works. If there is a field or indusrty where there is a lot of money to be made, you will get some very talented people in that field. Horseracing is no exception. There are obviously a lot of great trainers out there right now. They will all tell you that you must run your horses sparingly. You can't possibly think that all these guys are incompetent. Times have obviously changed. I'm sure there are a number of factors including the breed, the track surfaces, the medications, and a number of other factors that have made things far different today.

The boss wants to know when is the last time someone TRIED to run a good horse 15 times and furthermore prepped him/her for that type of campaign. Can you name one?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Assttodixie

The boss wants to know when is the last time someone TRIED to run a good horse 15 times and furthermore prepped him/her for that type of campaign. Can you name one?

There are plenty of shmucks out there that try to run their horse every 2-3 weeks. The horses last for a few races and that is it. They don't end up running 15 times because they get hurt too quickly. It's not from a lack of trying. Plenty of bad trainers try to run their horses all the time.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't anything about what went on 40 years ago, but times have clearly changed. Nowadays if you try to run a good horse 15 times a year, you will not be successful.

By the way, do you think that there aren't any good trainers any more? You would have to be a fool to believe that. You understand as well as anyone how capitalism works. If there is a field or indusrty where there is a lot of money to be made, you will get some very talented people in that field. Horseracing is no exception. There are obviously a lot of great trainers out there right now. They will all tell you that you must run your horses sparingly. You can't possibly think that all these guys are incompetent. Times have obviously changed. I'm sure there are a number of factors including the breed, the track surfaces, the medications, and a number of other factors that have made things far different today.

The purpose and objectives have changed ...

In the past ... horses were either owned by the very wealthy ... who hired hardboot trainers ... and who enjoyed watching their horses run ... or who just left the racing schedule up to the trainer ... OR ...

... they were owned by small investors who relied on purse winnings to make money or at least to make it less of a loss.

Today ... the goal ... for both the owners and the trainers ... is to get a big syndication deal ... and the fear is that losing more than a few races may queer the deal. Get that big G1 win ... then sit back and negotiate.

I think the horses ... more or less ... maybe a little less ... are just as capable of becoming professional athletes ... but they're just not asked to.

But this strategy is too clever by half ... because the scarcity of top-level racing is killing the business ... by failing to lure a new fan base into the game.

Thirty to seventy years ago .. if you asked a random adult to name a race horse ... at least half or more would have said War Admiral or Whirlaway or Citation or Native Dancer or Kelso or Secretariat.

Try that today ... and see the answer you get.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

The purpose and objectives have changed ...

In the past ... horses were either owned by the very wealthy ... who hired hardboot trainers ... and who enjoyed watching their horses run ... or who just left the racing schedule up to the trainer ... OR ...

... they were owned by small investors who relied on purse winnings to make money or at least to make it less of a loss.

Today ... the goal ... for both the owners and the trainers ... is to get a big syndication deal ... and the fear is that losing more than a few races may queer the deal. Get that big G1 win ... then sit back and negotiate.

I think the horses ... more or less ... maybe a little less ... are just as capable of becoming professional athletes ... but they're just not asked to.

But this strategy is too clever by half ... because the scarcity of top-level racing is killing the business ... by failing to lure a new fan base into the game.

Thirty to seventy years ago .. if you asked a random adult to name a race horse ... at least half or more would have said War Admiral or Whirlaway or Citation or Native Dancer or Kelso or Secretariat.

Try that today ... and see the answer you get.

There is definitely some truth to what you are saying. If a guy has a great horse that is really well bred, the most important thing is going to be the syndication deal. The goal will be to win the really big races. If it's a dirt horse, they're going to try to win the JCGC, the Breeder's Cup Classic, etc. They will run the horse extremely sparingly.

It's not going to do them much good to get a couple of extra wins in less prestigious races.

But every horse out there is not a well-bred horse that will be worth several million for breeding. There are plenty of grade III type of horses out there with ordinary breeding. These horses may not be worth a fortune for breeding. Horses like this may be able to make $500,000 a year or so racing if they pick the right spots. I'm talking about a horse with average breeding who is not good enough to win the Travers but who may be able to win the Indiana Derby. Even with a horse like this, where the big money is in racing rather than breeding, a good trainer is going to run the horse relatively sparingly. The horse may run 8-9 times a year or so.

[Linny]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Nowadays if you try to run a good horse 15 times a year, you will not be successful.

The definition of successful has changed. When a top handicap horse (when there were real handicaps) ran 12-15 times a season and lost 5 or 6 times, he still had a decent shot at a title. Now you can win all year, lose the Breeders' Cup by a neck and your a "phony."

In 1942 Whirlaway ran 22 times between April 9th and Dec 12. He won 11 (one was a walkover) and never finished off the board. He won races like the Clark H, the Brooklyn, and the JCGC and the Dixie H. He placed in the Suburban and the Arlington H among others. He raced from 6f to 2 miles. A season like that today would never happen because top horses are held out for all but 4 or 5 top engagements, all geared to having his A game for the Breeders' Cup.

Trainers can and will do what they want with their stock but my disgreement is with not running a fit healthy horse. They skip races with a fit horse then cry and moan when horsey gets hurt in training and has to miss the big dance.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Linny

The definition of successful has changed. When a top handicap horse (when there were real handicaps) ran 12-15 times a season and lost 5 or 6 times, he still had a decent shot at a title. Now you can win all year, lose the Breeders' Cup by a neck and your a "phony."

In 1942 Whirlaway ran 22 times between April 9th and Dec 12. He won 11 (one was a walkover) and never finished off the board. He won races like the Clark H, the Brooklyn, and the JCGC and the Dixie H. He placed in the Suburban and the Arlington H among others. He raced from 6f to 2 miles. A season like that today would never happen because top horses are held out for all but 4 or 5 top engagements, all geared to having his A game for the Breeders' Cup.

Trainers can and will do what they want with their stock but my disgreement is with not running a fit healthy horse. They skip races with a fit horse then cry and moan when horsey gets hurt in training and has to miss the big dance.

As I've said before, I don't know anything about what happened in 1942. I know a lot about racing from about 1982 to the present. I can tell you that one of the first things I noticed as a handicapper was that horses that ran every 2-3 weeks usually did not stay in form for very long. These horses would usually run a few good races and that would be the end of them. The good trainers know this and that is why they don't run their hores every 2-3 weeks. I'm not saying that horses can't run every 4 weeks. I think every 4 weeks is fine. If you have a relatively sound horse and run him all year every 4 weeks or so, you could probably get 10-11 races out of him. Races are not going to always come up when you want them to, so you probably couldn't run the horse 12 times. Not only that, if you're going to run the horse for a year straight, it's probably a good idea to send him out to the farm for a month at the end of the year. Then would end up costing you a few months because a horse loses his conditioning when he's out orf training for a month.

If I had a horse that I thought could win the Breeder's Cup, I wouldn't try to run him too many times that year. I'd probably give him a break and start up with him in March. I think it is a little too conservative to only run him 3 times before the Breeder's Cup. There's a lot of money out there and I'd feel pretty stupid if we skipped a ton of god races that we could have won and then ended up losing in the BC. So I would probably plan a campaign where the BC ends up being the horse's 6th race of the year or something like that. Competing at the highest level like that, I would probabl give the horse a little more time between racs than an average horse. I'd tried to run him every 4-6 weeks.

[Phalaris1913]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Phalaris has no understading of horses at all. You should read some her past posts. She thinks that if you have a good 2 year old with a lot of potential, that you should run the horse 15 times as a 2 year old and this would increase the horse's chances of lasting and winning some big races as a 3 year and 4 year old. She thinks that you would have a better chance to win the Ky Derby if you ran your 2 year old 12 times as oppose to 4 times.

If you talk to any good trainer out there, they will tell you that this is the most absurd thing they have ever heard.

So there are two possibilities here. The first possibility is that Phalaris has no idea what she is talking about.

The second possibility is that Phalaris is a genius and guys like Pletcher, Mandella, Frankel, Zito, etc. are all idiots.

Which is it? Is Phalaris a genius and the all the great trainers are morons? I think it's slightly more probable that Phalaris has no clue what she's talking about.

Ten years ago, I wrote a column that in part discussed the fate of the previous season's Derby starters. There was a very neat division: all of the horses with only four starts or less at 2 had sustained premature injury. All but one of the rest were still in training.

In 15 years, I have never seen compelling evidence that current trends of racing and training horses produce better horses; "better" defined as horses capable of proving their worth by winning more races, for more seasons, against the best divisional rivals. Transcendant greats of the sport are great because their greatness was a pattern, not an instance.

I realize that today's trainers have gotten the idea that asking horses to run as infrequently as possible is the only reasonable idea and I'm sure that they'll tell you so. Perhaps they've had to learn to deal with cripples who can't walk down the shedrow without chipping and that's the only way to get even a few starts out of them. (There was a time when horses whose conformation predisposed to chips were called "culls." Now people pay millions for them, so that they can produce more of their kind. So I suppose it behooves trainers to get a requisite win or two out of them to ensure their chance at triple-digit books.) Perhaps they're just sure this must be right, just like people were once sure that low heel/long toe increased stride length. I admit that I know more first-hand about training horses for other disciplines than racing, but you don't have to take my word for it that there may be other viable or even better ways of keeping racehorses on four feet. You could, for example, look to what Hall of Fame horsemen from other times did, and pretty much without exception, they accomplished more, with products of training and racing strategies that demanded more.

What trainers today are doing is not working, unless you live for two- or three-race wonders who get hurt early, or horses who don't run more than once every several months. The current situation with 2YOs - who once, with regularity, became major players at 3 and often beyond - is particularly dismal. One would be hard-pressed to find a time since they started racing 2YOs in the 1800s when you saw more loss to injury and more discontinuity of form from 2 to 3 and beyond. Sure, maybe it has nothing to do with the fact that 2YOs used to start earlier, race more often and at shorter distances. It could be global warming. It could be anything.

But rather than - as a blind, knee-jerk response - call someone an idiot for pointing out that professional, highly reputed horsemen used to use a strategy that yielded better results, why not at least consider why what they were doing may have been working better? If only a moron would run a 2YO more than three or four times, if it were invariably destructive, then why did so many legendary trainers do so, and get so many of those horses through the campaigns that BB has reminded us of? Why can't the Zitos, Mandellas and Pletchers present us an unending parade of high-class 2YOs that are major stakes winners at 3 and 4 with their infinitely superior strategy of barely racing them?

And yes, in response to a later post, I am aware of the popular idea that since horses are so much faster today than they used to be that they require more time between starts. I am not sure where this idea is coming from, in that I see little evidence of fast-track major stakes events producing faster times, except possibly at sprint distances. Maybe there's more cushion on those tracks, resulting in slower times - but if that's the case, I'd better not be hearing a single peep from anyone who believes this that the harder, faster tracks are responsible for horses getting hurt. It just doesn't go both ways.

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

Ten years ago, I wrote a column that in part discussed the fate of the previous season's Derby starters. There was a very neat division: all of the horses with only four starts or less at 2 had sustained premature injury. All but one of the rest were still in training.

In 15 years, I have never seen compelling evidence that current trends of racing and training horses produce better horses; "better" defined as horses capable of proving their worth by winning more races, for more seasons, against the best divisional rivals. Transcendant greats of the sport are great because their greatness was a pattern, not an instance.

I realize that today's trainers have gotten the idea that asking horses to run as infrequently as possible is the only reasonable idea and I'm sure that they'll tell you so. Perhaps they've had to learn to deal with cripples who can't walk down the shedrow without chipping and that's the only way to get even a few starts out of them. (There was a time when horses whose conformation predisposed to chips were called "culls." Now people pay millions for them, so that they can produce more of their kind. So I suppose it behooves trainers to get a requisite win or two out of them to ensure their chance at triple-digit books.) Perhaps they're just sure this must be right, just like people were once sure that low heel/long toe increased stride length. I admit that I know more first-hand about training horses for other disciplines than racing, but you don't have to take my word for it that there may be other viable or even better ways of keeping racehorses on four feet. You could, for example, look to what Hall of Fame horsemen from other times did, and pretty much without exception, they accomplished more, with products of training and racing strategies that demanded more.

What trainers today are doing is not working, unless you live for two- or three-race wonders who get hurt early, or horses who don't run more than once every several months. The current situation with 2YOs - who once, with regularity, became major players at 3 and often beyond - is particularly dismal. One would be hard-pressed to find a time since they started racing 2YOs in the 1800s when you saw more loss to injury and more discontinuity of form from 2 to 3 and beyond. Sure, maybe it has nothing to do with the fact that 2YOs used to start earlier, race more often and at shorter distances. It could be global warming. It could be anything.

But rather than - as a blind, knee-jerk response - call someone an idiot for pointing out that professional, highly reputed horsemen used to use a strategy that yielded better results, why not at least consider why what they were doing may have been working better? If only a moron would run a 2YO more than three or four times, if it were invariably destructive, then why did so many legendary trainers do so, and get so many of those horses through the campaigns that BB has reminded us of? Why can't the Zitos, Mandellas and Pletchers present us an unending parade of high-class 2YOs that are major stakes winners at 3 and 4 with their infinitely superior strategy of barely racing them?

And yes, in response to a later post, I am aware of the popular idea that since horses are so much faster today than they used to be that they require more time between starts. I am not sure where this idea is coming from, in that I see little evidence of fast-track major stakes events producing faster times, except possibly at sprint distances. Maybe there's more cushion on those tracks, resulting in slower times - but if that's the case, I'd better not be hearing a single peep from anyone who believes this that the harder, faster tracks are responsible for horses getting hurt. It just doesn't go both ways.

You tell 'em, sister.

It's not a crime to be young ... but it is foolish to spout off on the subject of racing frequency without having a significant understanding of racing's past.

I love it when people talk about the "great" trainers of today ... not a single one of whom has ever trained a horse to a 2YO championship and a 3YO championship. (Do I dare add ... and a 4YO championship?)

The greats of the past did it routinely.

Study history, folks ... it's a great teacher.

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

You tell 'em, sister.

It's not a crime to be young ... but it is foolish to spout off on the subject of racing frequency without having a significant understanding of racing's past.

I love it when people talk about the "great" trainers of today ... not a single one of whom has ever trained a horse to a 2YO championship and a 3YO championship. (Do I dare add ... and a 4YO championship?)

The greats of the past did it routinely.

Study history, folks ... it's a great teacher.

Look at kids today at the HS level, College, and Pro, they are bigger, faster and stronger than ever before, not to say the athletes of the past would not obtain this, but the times have changed, the training and nutrition are much better. I think the same applies to horses...

My belief is that horses are primed and peaked for the Major races, and this takes so much out of them, that they cannot stick around or race frequently. IF you want to win the big races, you have to train your horse like this or someone that is training this way will beat you. Does it make sense to wring your horse out all year or have them primed for the Major Races. I am not saying this is right, it's just my opinion...

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

Look at kids today at the HS level, College, and Pro, they are bigger, faster and stronger than ever before, not to say the athletes of the past would not obtain this, but the times have changed, the training and nutrition are much better. I think the same applies to horses...

My belief is that horses are primed and peaked for the Major races, and this takes so much out of them, that they cannot stick around or race frequently. IF you want to win the big races, you have to train your horse like this or someone that is training this way will beat you. Does it make sense to wring your horse out all year or have them primed for the Major Races. I am not saying this is right, it's just my opinion...

Also, I believe there will never another Triple Crown Winner. I believe the Barbaro types will be the norm, rather than the exception. They will all point to the Derby and have them fresh, but their horses will not have the foundation or ability to bounce back from a "freak" effort in only two weeks. The horses that have been battle hardened and ready for such a campaign, will not be able to beat the ones that are primed for "freak" efforts...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

You tell 'em, sister.

It's not a crime to be young ... but it is foolish to spout off on the subject of racing frequency without having a significant understanding of racing's past.

I love it when people talk about the "great" trainers of today ... not a single one of whom has ever trained a horse to a 2YO championship and a 3YO championship. (Do I dare add ... and a 4YO championship?)

The greats of the past did it routinely.

Study history, folks ... it's a great teacher.

So are you saying that there are no good trainers today? That's like saying there are no good golfers today, no good doctors today, or no good baseball players today. It's absurd. As I said before, if a business is lucrative you will have a lot of talented people in that field.

If you guys are right and all these trainers are doing it wrong, you guys should go into the business. You'd make a fortune. Think how easy it would be. You'd be the only good trainers in the business.

[Assttodixie]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

So are you saying that there are no good trainers today? That's like saying there are no good golfers today, no good doctors today, or no good baseball players today. It's absurd. As I said before, if a business is lucrative you will have a lot of talented people in that field.

If you guys are right and all these trainers are doing it wrong, you guys should go into the business. You'd make a fortune. Think how easy it would be. You'd be the only good trainers in the business.

Its not necessarily that the trainers of today are "wrong". Could it be perhaps that the money and the media of today are so extreme that they arent as willing to try different things? Ah, now theres a different thought.

Its safer to do what everyone else is doing lest you make a mistake and have everyone call you a donkey and say you ruined a potentially great horse. Beyond that, they really dont race to race anymore. They race to breed.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

Ten years ago, I wrote a column that in part discussed the fate of the previous season's Derby starters. There was a very neat division: all of the horses with only four starts or less at 2 had sustained premature injury. All but one of the rest were still in training.

In 15 years, I have never seen compelling evidence that current trends of racing and training horses produce better horses; "better" defined as horses capable of proving their worth by winning more races, for more seasons, against the best divisional rivals. Transcendant greats of the sport are great because their greatness was a pattern, not an instance.

I realize that today's trainers have gotten the idea that asking horses to run as infrequently as possible is the only reasonable idea and I'm sure that they'll tell you so. Perhaps they've had to learn to deal with cripples who can't walk down the shedrow without chipping and that's the only way to get even a few starts out of them. (There was a time when horses whose conformation predisposed to chips were called "culls." Now people pay millions for them, so that they can produce more of their kind. So I suppose it behooves trainers to get a requisite win or two out of them to ensure their chance at triple-digit books.) Perhaps they're just sure this must be right, just like people were once sure that low heel/long toe increased stride length. I admit that I know more first-hand about training horses for other disciplines than racing, but you don't have to take my word for it that there may be other viable or even better ways of keeping racehorses on four feet. You could, for example, look to what Hall of Fame horsemen from other times did, and pretty much without exception, they accomplished more, with products of training and racing strategies that demanded more.

What trainers today are doing is not working, unless you live for two- or three-race wonders who get hurt early, or horses who don't run more than once every several months. The current situation with 2YOs - who once, with regularity, became major players at 3 and often beyond - is particularly dismal. One would be hard-pressed to find a time since they started racing 2YOs in the 1800s when you saw more loss to injury and more discontinuity of form from 2 to 3 and beyond. Sure, maybe it has nothing to do with the fact that 2YOs used to start earlier, race more often and at shorter distances. It could be global warming. It could be anything.

But rather than - as a blind, knee-jerk response - call someone an idiot for pointing out that professional, highly reputed horsemen used to use a strategy that yielded better results, why not at least consider why what they were doing may have been working better? If only a moron would run a 2YO more than three or four times, if it were invariably destructive, then why did so many legendary trainers do so, and get so many of those horses through the campaigns that BB has reminded us of? Why can't the Zitos, Mandellas and Pletchers present us an unending parade of high-class 2YOs that are major stakes winners at 3 and 4 with their infinitely superior strategy of barely racing them?

And yes, in response to a later post, I am aware of the popular idea that since horses are so much faster today than they used to be that they require more time between starts. I am not sure where this idea is coming from, in that I see little evidence of fast-track major stakes events producing faster times, except possibly at sprint distances. Maybe there's more cushion on those tracks, resulting in slower times - but if that's the case, I'd better not be hearing a single peep from anyone who believes this that the harder, faster tracks are responsible for horses getting hurt. It just doesn't go both ways.

The good trainers of today don't just have this theory about what works. It's not like a theory about the Earth being flat. These guys have been training for 20 years or more. Everything they do today is based on their 25 years of experience. They see what works and what doesn't work. All the good trainers will tell you the same thing and their opinion is based on experience. You would have to be out of your mind to think that all of these trainers have totally misunderstood their experiences. Do you honestly think that the more often these guys run their horses, the better they run, but somehow all of these guys could not see this and actually though that the opposite was happening? You may think that I'm being condescending to you, but look how arrogant and condescending your position is. You bacially think that all of these great trainers don't know what they're doing and that you know more about training than they do.

Trainers are far from perfect. I'm not saying that they don't make mistakes. Trainers make mistakes all the time. But you would have to be crazy to think that all the great trainers of today are stupid and cannot see something as simple as seeing that their horses run better and last longer the more they run. It it was tue that horses last longer and perform better if they run 15 times a year, then guys like Frankel and Pletcher are completely incompetent morons. Obviously this is not the case. They are far from morons. The reason theya re excellent trainers is because they can see the effects of their training on their horses. That is what makes a great trainer. A great trainer trains each horse slightly differently. It just depends on the horse. A great trainer is not going to train a skinny filly as hard as a big, strong colt. You are crazy if you don't think these good trainers have a great talent at noticing what effects their training is having on their horses. That is one of the main reasons that these guys are so good. They know which horses need to be trained a little harder. They know which horses need a little more time between races.