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

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

For the record, Alysheba, Gate Dancer and Ferdinand raced 20 years ago. Ferdinand is not really the greatest example of classic winners being important in the fall of their 3YO season, since he didn't run again after the Belmont until late December, but I'll talk about him anyway. They each had at least four starts at 2 and three pre-Derby starts at 3, and none ran nine furlongs before April. Alysheba's final Derby prep was nine days before the Derby and Gate Dancer's was 14 - both very common prior to the 1990s. (For the benefit of newcomers, most major Derby preps used to be run closer to the classics; the SA Derby, which has been run at about the end of March or beginning of April for decades, is a notable exception, but it used to be quite typical for horses to run in another race between it and the Derby.) Gate Dancer and Alysheba, both second across the line in the Classic as 3YOS, had 11 and 10 starts at 3, respectively. Both had their final preps in September but received their comeuppance at the hands of a horse who had had his final Classic prep within the last two weeks. Alysheba and Gate Dancer each had run back on 14 days or less three times before he stepped into the gate for the Kentucky Derby (not counting that the Derby start itself was on 14 days rest or less), Ferdinand twice.

Is trotting out 20-year-old examples of horses who were often run back on relatively short rest the best you can do to support the idea that the widely spaced campaigns currently in vogue is good for producing long-term careers?

While these horses did not have the testing 2YO campaigns that made champions of Affirmed and Spectacular Bid, they are not poster children for the great new way, and attempts to use them as such are disingenuous at best. It would be more pertinent to offer examples of classic winners who had one or two starts at 2, one race in the two months prior to the Derby and five or six starts as a 3YO, who were beating, or at least almost beating, open company in important races in the fall as 3YOs and remained high-class at 4. Let's hear about those.

Off the top of my head...
Sunday Silence
Skip Away
Seattle Slew
Kelso

None of these had a ton of starts as 2 yos. All went on to have very solid 3 yo and older years. Don't really follow Lumpy's reasoning on why the current training and running patterns are ruinous, but all things go in cycles. Right now it is more beneficial to retire early for stud value. That will eventually change as it becomes less attractive. Then you will see more horses raced -- and bred to race -- into their 4 yo and 5 yo seasons.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Looking at the performances of the horses in the thirties, forties, and fifties, I must say that I believe the biggest culprit of unsoundness in the breed are the track surfaces themselves. For example, Man O' War ran two to three seconds slower than the horses do today, and still broke world records at the time. Yet, maiden claimers can run faster nowadays. It is all about speed and new records.

Also, I think drugs and medications as well as the two year old in training sells cause more horses to be unsound and break down.

Now, there is a possibility that the breed may be slightly weaker than it was seventy years ago, but I don't think that is the factor. Of course, if you breed an unsound horse to an unsound horse, the most likely result is going to be an unsound horse especially if both of these horses are prepotent, but genetics don't always work like that. Species evolve gradually, and seventy years is not enough to cause the breed to be considerably weaker. Also, I believe that the trainers are as good as they have ever been.

With that being said, horses have always been unsound and have broke down. I just don't think it happened quite as often seventy years ago, but who knows. Every once in a while, we get a horse that can run like those in the past here in the states. Look at Lawyer Ron, and Cigar. Sure Lawyer Ron had a surgery, but he is back on the track and winning. You also have lots of claimers and allowance horses who run quite often without injuries as well.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

Alysheba and Gate Dancer each had run back on 14 days or less three times before he stepped into the gate for the Kentucky Derby (not counting that the Derby start itself was on 14 days rest or less), Ferdinand twice.

It's facts like this that lead me to believe that Phalaris and BB are on the right side of this argument. The breed hasn't changed THAT much in 20 years. Horses used to run on 2-3 weeks rest (or even shorter) routinely. Have trainers REALLY gotten so much smarter in the last 20 years?

I don't think current trainers are either dumber or smarter than those 20 years ago. (Hell, many of the best today were training 20 years ago.) I think it's more a factor of what's fashionable (and follow the leader). It's only natural to fear making a mistake. If your horse is injured in a race, you are more likely to be harshly judged if the horse ran recently than if it ran after a big break. Yet I doubt there is any real evidence to support that judgement.

Rupert questions why ALL the best trainers today favor more spacing between races. It's a good question. But if it turns out that good horses run just as well on 2-3 weeks rest, it wouldn't be the first time that a whole group of the leaders of some endeavor were found to be taking a non-optimal approach.

--Dunbar

[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 kentuckyrosesinmay

Looking at the performances of the horses in the thirties, forties, and fifties, I must say that I believe the biggest culprit of unsoundness in the breed are the track surfaces themselves. For example, Man O' War ran two to three seconds slower than the horses do today, and still broke world records at the time. Yet, maiden claimers can run faster nowadays. It is all about speed and new records.

In Man O' War's day ...

... there were no starting gates ... and horses were timed ... by hand ... from a standing start.

Today ... they break from gates ... are timed electronically ... and have a running start to the first timer beam.

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I don't think current trainers are either dumber or smarter than those 20 years ago. (Hell, many of the best today were training 20 years ago.) I think it's more a factor of what's fashionable (and follow the leader). It's only natural to fear making a mistake. If your horse is injured in a race, you are more likely to be harshly judged if the horse ran recently than if it ran after a big break. Yet I doubt there is any real evidence to support that judgement.

Rupert questions why ALL the best trainers today favor more spacing between races. It's a good question. But if it turns out that good horses run just as well on 2-3 weeks rest, it wouldn't be the first time that a whole group of the leaders of some endeavor were found to be taking a non-optimal approach.

--Dunbar

Absolutely right.

As I said in an earlier post on this thread ... the objectives of trainers have changed ...

... today it's shoot for one big score ... then begin syndication negotiations.

Trainers today are in a different business than trainers were 25 years ago and more ... and I repeat ... it's killing the sport.

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

[prudery]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Looking at the performances of the horses in the thirties, forties, and fifties, I must say that I believe the biggest culprit of unsoundness in the breed are the track surfaces themselves. For example, Man O' War ran two to three seconds slower than the horses do today, and still broke world records at the time.

Re-read what you just wrote and consider why this is not a creditible argument . Man O' War is NOT an example of horses of the thirties, forties and fifties ... Actual times from the past can be scientifically adjusted to allow for walkup starts, track bias, and perhaps, iron shoes . Some studies indicate that the horses of the past---and even further back than you mention, were actually faster than their recorded times indicate . As far as today's trainers vs those of yesterday, there were good and bad then and now, but today's training does focus on the big event, and major marketing influences where and when a good horse will race . Totally agree with BB and Phalaris ...

[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.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by prudery

Re-read what you just wrote and consider why this is not a creditible argument . Man O' War is NOT an example of horses of the thirties, forties and fifties ... Actual times from the past can be scientifically adjusted to allow for walkup starts, track bias, and perhaps, iron shoes . Some studies indicate that the horses of the past---and even further back than you mention, were actually faster than their recorded times indicate . As far as today's trainers vs those of yesterday, there were good and bad then and now, but today's training does focus on the big event, and major marketing influences where and when a good horse will race . Totally agree with BB and Phalaris ...

Well, I totally disagree with you. I know that Man O' War ran before the thirties...I was just using him as an example. So, then you don't think that it is the track surfaces. Funny, because those that actually run horses on the surfaces are very likely to disagree with you. Everything nowadays is about speed and new records. That is why it is so hard to keep horses sound on the California racetracks, and the California racetracks have become speedways. They weren't speedways a long time ago...not like they are today. Let someone like Rupert enlighten you if you want to argue with me. I know that he knows a lot better than you do.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

In Man O' War's day ...

... there were no starting gates ... and horses were timed ... by hand ... from a standing start.

Today ... they break from gates ... are timed electronically ... and have a running start to the first timer beam.

Yes, BB, I know this, but the fact is that the tracks are now speedways. Everyone wants to see new records. Unsoudness problems is why the Cali tracks are turning to polytrack, and why so many trainers are now endorsing it.

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Well, I totally disagree with you. So, then you don't think that it is the track surfaces. Funny, because those that actually run horses on the surfaces are very likely to disagree with you. Everything nowadays is about speed and new records. That is why it is so hard to keep horses sound on the California racetracks, and the California racetracks have become speedways. They weren't speedways a long time ago...not like they are today. Let someone like Rupert enlighten you if you want to argue with me. I know that he knows a lot better than you do.

Honey ... you need to get your facts straighter before embarrassing yourself so consistently.

The peak speed period for California tracks was from the mid-1950s through the late 1960's.

They've been slowed since then ... sometimes just a little bit and sometimes quite considerably.

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Yes, BB, I know this, but the fact is that the tracks are now speedways. Everyone wants to see new records. Unsoudness problems is why the Cali tracks are turning to polytrack, and why so many trainers are now endorsing it.

See my prior response ...

... this is getting to be more than just embarrassing ...

... you're on the verge of becoming a complete bore.

[Phalaris1913]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Absolutely right.

As I said in an earlier post on this thread ... the objectives of trainers have changed ...

... today it's shoot for one big score ... then begin syndication negotiations.

Trainers today are in a different business than trainers were 25 years ago and more ... and I repeat ... it's killing the sport.

At the end of the day, I agree. I don't believe that modern trainers are idiots. They are charged with producing successful horses based on a different paradigm than previous times. People want one-time brilliance, or a few easy romps unmarred by defeats. Therefore, there is a modern tendency to make every start count. The traditional idea of a "prep race," a race in which a horse runs to gauge its current form and fitness and to tighten it up for an upcoming target race, is utterly obsolete and foreign. You don't see in-form, high-class horses running in allowance races anymore and now, we're starting to see them skip stakes races seen as preliminary to the races that matter. BB and I recall times when the best horses ran in the Woodward, Marlboro Cup AND Jockey Club Gold Cup; just one of many series of once-prominent races that have diminished (or disappeared entirely) due to lack of interest. Ironically, now that there are many times the number of stakes races as there were a few decades ago, a given stakes-caliber horse will run in fewer of them. The inevitable result: the handful of best horses are spread among several races, creating poor fields with one or two good horses up against a few lower-quality animals who have nothing to lose in showing up and being beaten.

The "make every start count" theory of racing and training horses not only dictates avoiding minor races or serious competition for as long as possible, it also requires avoiding anything that might prove a challenge for their horse. Some of us remember when serious handicap horses ran in Carter Handicap and Met Mile, because it wasn't assumed that a horse capable of getting 10 or 12 furlongs was utterly incapable of - or at least irretrievably harmed by - running in a race less than 8.5 or 9 furlongs. You saw major turf winners runnning in major races on the dirt, and vice versa. You saw 3YOs taking on older horses and fillies in against open company. Lots of times this resulted in defeat, but when good horses were running 10 or 15 times a year, a defeat or two didn't ruin your resume.

The result was high-class horses with more defeats, but also better, more interesting sport - unless, I suppose, you groove on the idea of a handful of MLB teams playing a half-dozen times a year mainly against collegiate-caliber competition with championships determined at the end by a single inning in a single game against whatever shows up - no playoffs neeeded. Compared to a real baseball season, that's pretty much what horse racing has turned into and there are some of us who lament what has been lost. We're not going to apologize for our feelings on the subject, either.

Current trainers of good horses have a completely different sort of expectation placed upon them and they are sorting themeselves out by those who are best able to spot horses in places where they can win. We can't reasonably accuse them of incompetence for failing to turn out horses of a more traditional mold, because they are not even sort of trying to do so. When (and it is a matter of when) the artificial bubble that is the thoroughbred bloodstock market pops, some of them will convert themselves to a new situation - in which horses are worth what they can earn on the track - just fine, just as many of their horses, trained and campaigned with this in mind, will. I firmly believe that most thoroughbred foals cavorting on a farm somewhere today are capable of much better, and much more, than their older brothers and sisters are producing. The difference is in the intent of those who prepare and campaign them - not necessarily the horsemanship of those people.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Honey ... you need to get your facts straighter before embarrassing yourself so consistently.

The peak speed period for California tracks was from the mid-1950s through the late 1960's.

They've been slowed since then ... sometimes just a little bit and sometimes quite considerably.

They have been slowed a bit, but the part where I refer to them as being speedways (like a car race track; hard like a road) is that they are harder than ever. They don't have a soft surface...that is why they are turning to polytrack.

It is the same with Belmont which was faster during the 70s and 80s than it is today. Although, the horses at Belmont don't nearly have the same soundness issues in terms of quantity as those out in the Cali tracks.

Fact, after installing polytrack at Turfway, 24 breakdowns turned into 3 during the same period of time.

So BB, why did they try to slow the track down after the 80s at Belmont and after the 60s in Cali?

[prudery]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Well, I totally disagree with you. I know that Man O' War ran before the thirties...I was just using him as an example. So, then you don't think that it is the track surfaces. Funny, because those that actually run horses on the surfaces are very likely to disagree with you. Everything nowadays is about speed and new records. That is why it is so hard to keep horses sound on the California racetracks, and the California racetracks have become speedways. They weren't speedways a long time ago...not like they are today. Let someone like Rupert enlighten you if you want to argue with me. I know that he knows a lot better than you do.

Very defensive and childish . The way you used MOW in your post indicated the he was a horse of the thirties to fifties . A writing problem . I never discounted that today's surfaces are not a part of the problem, but they are not the main problem, IMO . I never proposed an argument . I do not know what " I know he knows a lot better than you do " . First of all, the statement is insensible . Second of all, how do you know what I know ? As much as it pains me to agree with BB, I must say that the word embarassing does apply .

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

For the record, Alysheba, Gate Dancer and Ferdinand raced 20 years ago. Ferdinand is not really the greatest example of classic winners being important in the fall of their 3YO season, since he didn't run again after the Belmont until late December, but I'll talk about him anyway. They each had at least four starts at 2 and three pre-Derby starts at 3, and none ran nine furlongs before April. Alysheba's final Derby prep was nine days before the Derby and Gate Dancer's was 14 - both very common prior to the 1990s. (For the benefit of newcomers, most major Derby preps used to be run closer to the classics; the SA Derby, which has been run at about the end of March or beginning of April for decades, is a notable exception, but it used to be quite typical for horses to run in another race between it and the Derby.) Gate Dancer and Alysheba, both second across the line in the Classic as 3YOS, had 11 and 10 starts at 3, respectively. Both had their final preps in September but received their comeuppance at the hands of a horse who had had his final Classic prep within the last two weeks. Alysheba and Gate Dancer each had run back on 14 days or less three times before he stepped into the gate for the Kentucky Derby (not counting that the Derby start itself was on 14 days rest or less), Ferdinand twice.

Is trotting out 20-year-old examples of horses who were often run back on relatively short rest the best you can do to support the idea that the widely spaced campaigns currently in vogue is good for producing long-term careers?

While these horses did not have the testing 2YO campaigns that made champions of Affirmed and Spectacular Bid, they are not poster children for the great new way, and attempts to use them as such are disingenuous at best. It would be more pertinent to offer examples of classic winners who had one or two starts at 2, one race in the two months prior to the Derby and five or six starts as a 3YO, who were beating, or at least almost beating, open company in important races in the fall as 3YOs and remained high-class at 4. Let's hear about those.

What are you talking about? Practically every horse out out there today does it the right way. The original question had to do with horses winning big races at 2,3, and 4. If there aren't any, then that makes your argument even weaker. It would mean that what I'm saying is not extreme enough. I'm saying that a horse can last and stay in top form as a 2, 3 , and 4 year old if they are raced sparingly. If I am wrong, and a horse can't stay in top form for 3 straight years running sparingly, then they certainly can't stay in top form for 3 years straight running 15 times a year. That's the stupidest thing I ever heard.

Anyway, if you look at the winner of the BC Classics the last few years, horses like Ghostzapper, Saint Liam, and Pleasntly Perfect were all lightly raced. They are even more extreme cases than what I'm talking about. These horses would support the argument that if you want to win the big handicap races, you should run even less often as a young horse than I recommend. It just shows how hard it is to keep horses sound these days. Unlike the old days, horses today are bred for speed rather than soundness.

Ghostzapper was a great horse but he wasn't very sound. Frankel couldn't run him very often. I don't even understand what you are saying. If you have a horse who has an injury, do you think that you can just whale on him and nothing will happen? If you had a sore ankle, what do you think would happen if you went out and sprinted on it? It would obviously get much worse. If you have a horse like Ghostzapper who has soundness issues, you have to treat him with kid gloves. You don't have a choice. If you drill him fast in the morning and try to run him every three weeks, he would last for about one or two races. It's not rocket science. As I said before, if you had a sprained ankle but you were trying to somehow run in a race in a month from now, the best thing for you to do would be to rest the ankle. If you went out and sprinted tomorrow, you would make your ankle worse and you woud lessen your chances of having any chance to make the race next month. With a very high percentage of horses these days, that is the type of thing that trainers are dealing with from day one. The horses are not very sound and you need to be very careful with them. There's not any question as to what would happen if you push them harder. If you push them harder, they will fall apart. There isn't a 99% chance that an unsound horse will get worse the harder you push him. There is a 100% chance. If you have an injury and you ignore the injury and put extreme stress on the injured area, the injury will get worse. There's no doubt about it.

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

They have been slowed a bit, but the part where I refer to them as being speedways (like a car race track; hard like a road) is that they are harder than ever. They don't have a soft surface...that is why they are turning to polytrack.

It is the same with Belmont which was faster during the 70s and 80s than it is today. Although, the horses at Belmont don't nearly have the same soundness issues in terms of quantity as those out in the Cali tracks.

Fact, after installing polytrack at Turfway, 24 breakdowns turned into 3 during the same period of time.

So BB, why did they try to slow the track down after the 80s at Belmont and after the 60s in Cali?

Where to begin ... where to begin ...

First of all ... you're fortunate that I've raised two exceptional children to adulthood ... which has long since helped me acquire the patience and fortitude necessary to deal with someone as wildly immature and unfocused as you.

Second ... if a track surface is too hard ... the solution is to make it softer. This can be accomplished will a nice heaping of good old loam. The question of whether or not to install an artifical surface is a completely different matter.

Third ... tracks which became too hard received complaints from horsemen when their charges began breaking down ... so that's why they were made softer. Of course ... they can't be made too soft because that brings on injuries like bowed tendons. So ... like Goldilocks' bed ... the tracks have to maintained "just right."

Fourth ... if California tracks are harder then ever ... then how at the same time are they softer than they used to be?

Can you begin to understand how wacky your posts are ... how impulsively they're composed ... how self-contradicitng they are ... not only from one to another ... but within themselves?

Child ... you need to get yourself under better control ... or find yourself a big, strong man who'll help you accomplish that.