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

[Phalaris1913]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

For all you youngsters in our audience ...

... the Derby Prep at Churchill Downs ... once used to be a real and important prep race for the Kentucky Derby.

It was an 8f race ... run on the Tuesday before the Derby ... that's right ... four days before the Derby ... top contenders would race 8f ... then come back on Saturday for the 10f classic.

Many of the top trainers ... and many Derby winners ... used this route.

Worth mentioning also is that no fewer than eight horses who won the Preakness between 1950 and 1962 had their final prep in a race scheduled between the Derby and Preakness. There actually used to be an event, the "Preakness Prep," run at Pimlico in the week before the race. There was the modern two-week interval between the races except in 1953-1955, and in those years, when there was a three-week gap, most Preakness starters had run in at least one race since the date of the Derby. Not only did these eight winners run in these races, seven of them had multiple workouts between the dates of the Derby and Preakness. (Many of them were significant workouts, too, like Hill Prince's 5f in 59 4/5 the day before the Withers on the Saturday between the Derby and Preakness or Native Dancer's 6f in 1:11 3/5 two days before the Preakness.)

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

There actually used to be an event, the "Preakness Prep," run at Pimlico in the week before the race.

Thanks ... I had forgotten about the Preakness Prep ...

... the sport has lost much of its professionalism.

[Five Star Derek]

This thread just makes me think about how the career of Afleet Alex would have turned out if he had not been injured in the Preakness (yes he was injured in the Preakness). Tim Ritchey was training him like an old time trainer and it seemed to be working. Improving bone density, tendons, muscles and the overall horses foundation was part of his theory. Everybody thought he was nuts but he didn't cave in to the pressure. It's not easy to do. I'm also wondering if anybody has read the late Tom Ivers book "The Fit Racehorse". It dealt with a lot of this. I can't say I bought into everything that Ivers said in the book but a lot of it seemed to make sense and it made you think.

[Left Bank]

This thread needs more fart jokes!! Ha Ha

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Five Star Derek

This thread just makes me think about how the career of Afleet Alex would have turned out if he had not been injured in the Preakness (yes he was injured in the Preakness). Tim Ritchey was training him like an old time trainer and it seemed to be working. Improving bone density, tendons, muscles and the overall horses foundation was part of his theory. Everybody thought he was nuts but he didn't cave in to the pressure. It's not easy to do. I'm also wondering if anybody has read the late Tom Ivers book "The Fit Racehorse". It dealt with a lot of this. I can't say I bought into everything that Ivers said in the book but a lot of it seemed to make sense and it made you think.

Yes, I agree with this...and I actually love the way Ritchey trained Alex. There definitely seems to be a postive correlation between the way Ritchey trained Alex, and Alex's bone density. I must read that book by Tom Ivers.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Yes, I agree with this...and I actually love the way Ritchey trained Alex. There definitely seems to be a postive correlation between the way Ritchey trained Alex, and Alex's bone density. I must read that book by Tom Ivers.

Uh didn't Afleet Alex break down during his three year old season? Maybe the training contributed to the injury as opposed to the oppisite view. I mean if his bone density was so strong , why did he break down in the first place? Please dont give me the Preakness arguement because he looked pretty good in the Belmont 3 weeks later.

[Five Star Derek]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Uh didn't Afleet Alex break down during his three year old season? Maybe the training contributed to the injury as opposed to the oppisite view. I mean if his bone density was so strong , why did he break down in the first place? Please dont give me the Preakness arguement because he looked pretty good in the Belmont 3 weeks later.

Afleet Alex injured himself during that near fall with Scrappy T in the Preakness. JJ Graci was the spokesman for team AA during his triple crown run. He'll tell you the same thing and he was as close to the connections as anybody. Sure they kept him together enough for the Belmont but the damage had already been done.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Five Star Derek

Afleet Alex injured himself during that near fall with Scrappy T in the Preakness. JJ Graci was the spokesman for team AA during his triple crown run. He'll tell you the same thing and he was as close to the connections as anybody. Sure they kept him together enough for the Belmont but the damage had already been done.

Lesson #1 - Dont believe what you read, especially if it is about horseracing.

Lesson #2 - Think for yourself. If they knew the horse had a stress fracture and ran him in the Belmont anyway, then they are dangerous. Just like the rest of us they speculate that it happened in the Preakness but he sure looked good running 1 1/2 miles 3 weeks later.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Uh didn't Afleet Alex break down during his three year old season? Maybe the training contributed to the injury as opposed to the oppisite view. I mean if his bone density was so strong , why did he break down in the first place? Please dont give me the Preakness arguement because he looked pretty good in the Belmont 3 weeks later.

That is exactly right. We don't know whether the injury came from the Preakness incident or not.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That is exactly right. We don't know whether the injury came from the Preakness incident or not.

Well Rupert, do you think his training regimen helped cause or bring on the injury, because I think that it helped him in terms of it made his bone stronger However, if you present a different POV, I will listen to you and consider what you say. Or were you just referring to the fact that we will never know for sure that his injury came from the Preakness, or from the Belmont, or from a workout? Now, I know this is true.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Uh didn't Afleet Alex break down during his three year old season? Maybe the training contributed to the injury as opposed to the oppisite view. I mean if his bone density was so strong , why did he break down in the first place? Please dont give me the Preakness arguement because he looked pretty good in the Belmont 3 weeks later.

No, he could have easily taken a mistep while training and the two best veterinarians said that he had some of the strongest bone that they had ever seen. It also could have been a stress fracture from continuing to work after he was exhausted from a grueling TC campaign. I don't know what happened to Alex. I do think that his training helped Alex get through the TC races though prior to his breakdown.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Uh didn't Afleet Alex break down during his three year old season? Maybe the training contributed to the injury as opposed to the oppisite view. I mean if his bone density was so strong , why did he break down in the first place? Please dont give me the Preakness arguement because he looked pretty good in the Belmont 3 weeks later.

This is the same question that I asked all of last year. People kept talking about how Ritchey was doing all of this unconventional stuff and that is why Alex thrived so much and did so well. They praised him for being so in tune with exactly what the horse wanted and needed...........and the horse didn't make it past July of his 3yo season. So what did he do that was so right? I'm not saying he did things wrong, although I did think it was stupid to be working that fast and that far off of a layoff. But what did he do that was so special? And if it worked so well, why did the horse still break down? And as Cannon Shell pointed out, IF they knew that the damage had been done in the Preakness and yet they still pushed him to the Belmont, then all that talk about them "doing what's best for the horse" was just BS. Which I thought it was all along anyway. Those were new owners and they were doing what was best for them, from pushing to the Belmont to announcing over and over again that they were planning on running later in the year and the next, even though I'm sure they had it already decided that he was done. Jeremy Rose pretty much admitted as much after one of those bullet workouts when he said that Alex felt stronger than before the injury and was ready to go but the insurance company said no. That was the whole thing that irritated me last year when people kept talking about how Cash is King was to be commended for doing the right thing. They did nothing but make a bad situation worse.