Quote:
Originally Posted by HomerS
They were always there for sure. But dont think they were as mainstream as today. It takes a toll on these horses. Hiding their infirmities. Which they pass down to their breeding line. Causing less sturdier breed.
But overall trainers trained differently then now. Now everyone is aware of and over cautious about the bounce. Maintaining high win percentages. Babying horses.
|
I really dont feel like going into the entire discussion again but the supposed infirmities that are hidden then passed down theory is not only not valid but simply stupid. There is just no basis to the truth of it. There is no magic lameness gene. What did happen was the selection process in which the best horses were bred and the weakest culled stop being a factor because of the bloodstock boom. You went from having foal crops of 25000 foals in the early 70's to having close to 70000 foals in the mid 80's. You suddenly have more mares in production that would have been deemed unworthy just a decade before than mares that would have been worthy. Naturally there were inferior stallion prospects being utilized and the expansion of book sizes also began. The quantity over quality eventually took its toll by reducing the overall quality of throughbreds as a whole. If the NFL expanded to 90 teams do you not think the overall quality of players and hence play would decrease?
You are correct in saying that trainers train differently. Naturally some of that is due to the decreased quality of the horses but as you pointed out much of it is because of different pressures that they now face.