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

[Pedigree Ann]

This is my first post in this thread because I've been fighting a bug.

First thing I'd like to point out is that horses like Cigar (10 races at 4, 7 at 5) was racing only 10 years ago, not 20. It was not that long ago that we could count on seeing our champions run most of the year, coast to coast. Holy Bull (11 races at 3, last race in Sept). Silver Charm (7 at 3, 9 at 4, just 8 years ago). The trend has been downward for a couple of decades, but the "fresh horse" argument is quite a recent development. Winning a major stakes race without a prep race within 2-3 weeks was considered a training feat of no small merit, because your competition would be racing fit from such preps.

Secondly, the top horses of yore would run their more races in a much more concetrated period of time. After Saratoga, fall Belmont, and fall Aqueduct, the NY horses would get anywhere from 2 to 4 months off - 2, if they were running at Hialeah, 4 if they were coming back when Aqueuct (previously Jamaica) opened in March. Then they would run every couple of weeks (or more closely) until they got another break. Today, a horse may run as many races as a 3yo before the Derby as Secretariat did (3), but he did it in 6 weeks, not 3-4 months. There was no first-class racing in Southern California after Hollywood Park ended (Del Mar was a lesser meet then and the best stables went east for Saratoga and the big fall races) and Santa Anita started in December. The Australians still run this way, with their champions running every week or two thru Sept and October, then often taking a couple of months off (a 'spell') before returning after New Year's. IMHO, spacing races 6-8 weeks apart and doing it all year is harder on a horse than a campaign of races 2-3 weeks apart, with a rest period until the next campaign, so I am not surprised that such horses break down more.