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

Originally Posted by Pointg5

I didn't disparage Phalaris, never mentioned his/her name...

All that I asked was for you to read that article...

Sorry ... it was Rupe who did it ...

... but you better not either !!!

Please provide a link to the article you mentioned.

[Assttodixie]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

It's fine to have that theory, but there's no evidence to validate it.

Many great horses of the past raced 40, 50, 60 times in their careers without any significant loss of form.

I asked the BOSS about this and he agrees with you once again Mr. Brooklynite.

The boss thinks the notion that horses perform better with Spaced races is pure HOGWASH. It is akin to other widely held wives tale beliefs like Earth being flat. There is nothing to prove this other than what some trainers of today claim.

I would love to see one of these bluebloods take a Lawyer Ron type of campaign. It would be quite interesting.

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Sorry ... it was Rupe who did it ...

... but you better not either !!!

Please provide a link to the article you mentioned.

I can't right now, that site is blocked at work and I am here until 9pm ET, I'll post it later...

[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.

Originally Posted by Pointg5

I can't right now, that site is blocked at work and I am here until 9pm ET, I'll post it later...

Thanks ... do it on this thread ... I'll look for it.

[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 Bold Brooklynite

That's a real "DUH!" example.

Why should a maiden winner be favored in his first race against horses who previously won at the same level ... and have had more experience since then?

It's very difficult for all but the most talented horses to move up to the next level and win right away. Do you think those horses would have had any better chance in the new, higher condition if they had waited another couple of weeks to try it?

Yes, absolutely. The extra time makes all the difference in the world. By the way, I'm not talking about your average first-time out maiden winner. I'm talking about when you see an obvious stakes horse that wins first-time out. You need to be able to recognize the difference. You have to have a good enough eye to tell a Discreet Cat apart from a Dr. Pleasure. When you see a great horse that wins first-time out, he's generally not going to have any problem winning that first-level allowance race as long as he's given enough time to recuperate. A lot of these horses are not worth betting even if they are given enough time because they often go off at 3-5.

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 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.

[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.

[Assttodixie]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

The Boss says that generally, those are usually just claimers and low level allowance horses that are run often. Again, he wants to know if you can name a GOOD horse that has been given a chance to try this campaign. Lawyer Ron? He didnt do too bad did he?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Assttodixie

The Boss says that generally, those are usually just claimers and low level allowance horses that are run often. Again, he wants to know if you can name a GOOD horse that has been given a chance to try this campaign. Lawyer Ron? He didnt do too bad did he?

There are plenty of them out there. A good example of a horse that they tried to run every 3 weeks was Runway Model. They ran her 8 times as a 2 year old and that was the end of her. They totally ruined her. She was so sore as a 3 year old that she couldn't do anything. They had to retire her.

Mike Harrington runs his good 2 year olds as much as he can. He may get 8 races out of them and then they are done. These horses never last. Most of these horse won't even be around as 3 year olds.

[Assttodixie]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

There are plenty of them out there. A good example of a horse that they tried to run every 3 weeks was Runway Model. They ran her 8 times as a 2 year old and that was the end of her. They totally ruined her. She was so sore as a 3 year old that she couldn't do anything. They had to retire her.

Mike Harrington runs his good 2 year olds as much as he can. He may get 8 races out of them and then they are done. These horses never last. Most of these horse won't even be around as 3 year olds.

The reason that Harrington runs his good 2 year olds so often is because they are almost all Swiss Yodelers. Swiss Yodelers are pretty much known for precocious 2 year old speed and they arent worth much once the others catch up. They generally reach their respective peaks early so it is actually smart to run them early and often.

Runway Model wasnt exactly a blueblood Rupert. Petitionville and Houston? She was a nice horse indeed. But is there any data that suggests that the reason that she was so sore as a three year old was any more a result of her running so much as it was her heredity, training or anything else?

Any other horses? Any bluebloods?

The boss told me to say all of this.

[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 Rupert Pupkin

There are plenty of them out there. A good example of a horse that they tried to run every 3 weeks was Runway Model. They ran her 8 times as a 2 year old and that was the end of her. They totally ruined her. She was so sore as a 3 year old that she couldn't do anything. They had to retire her.

Mike Harrington runs his good 2 year olds as much as he can. He may get 8 races out of them and then they are done. These horses never last. Most of these horse won't even be around as 3 year olds.

Anecdotal evidence is not meaningful.

Unless someone does a scientific study of the question ... with mathematical rigor ... and no one will ... there can be no such certainty on either side.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Assttodixie

I asked the BOSS about this and he agrees with you once again Mr. Brooklynite.

The boss thinks the notion that horses perform better with Spaced races is pure HOGWASH. It is akin to other widely held wives tale beliefs like Earth being flat. There is nothing to prove this other than what some trainers of today claim.

I would love to see one of these bluebloods take a Lawyer Ron type of campaign. It would be quite interesting.

Lawyer Ron's 2 year old campaing was not what it seems. It took him 6 races to break his maiden. When you're dropping back and making a little late run to come in 3rd in a maiden race, that's not going to take that much out of a horse.

I think that First Samurai's 2 year old campaign was just as demading as LR even though FS only ran 5 times total. FS was competing at the highest level and winning every race. He won his first 4 races in a row and then ran 3rd in the BC Juvenille. That was a tough campaign. Two different times he came back on only 3 weeks rest after really hard races. When a horse is running really hard and winning at the highest level, that's going to probably take a lot more out of a horse than running 5th in a maiden race.

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.

[Assttodixie]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Lawyer Ron's 2 year old campaing was not what it seems. It took him 6 races to break his maiden. When you're dropping back and making a little late run to come in 3rd in a maiden race, that's not going to take that much out of a horse.

I think that First Samurai's 2 year old campaign was just as demading as LR even though FS only ran 5 times total. FS was competing at the highest level and winning every race. He won his first 4 races in a row and then ran 3rd in the BC Juvenille. That was a tough campaign. Two different times he came back on only 3 weeks rest after really hard races. When a horse is running really hard and winning at the highest level, that's going to probably take a lot more out of a horse than running 5th in a maiden race.

Dixie says history is littered with horses that ran much more than four times in a row as two year olds and stuck around for seasons 3,4,5 and beyond. You keep saying that things have changed. But what has changed? Is there any emprical data out there can prove this change?

Originally Posted by Assttodixie

Dixie says history is littered with horses that ran much more than four times in a row as two year olds and stuck around for seasons 3,4,5 and beyond. You keep saying that things have changed. But what has changed? Is there any emprical data out there can prove this change?

There's one piece of data that can't be refuted ...

... not a single 2YO champion has repeated as 3YO champion in the past 27 years ... that's how great today's trainers and training methods are.

[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.