REAL Sports profile on juice in racing

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I'm surprised none of the trainers told HBO that drugs have nothing at all to do with horses racing less often....

Well actually they dont

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Why do they race so infrequently now--and so many need a lot of time between starts?

You're saying medication, be it illegal or legal, has nothing to do with this trend?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Why do they race so infrequently now--and so many need a lot of time between starts?

You're saying medication, be it illegal or legal, has nothing to do with this trend?

The trend has been in effect since 1960. One of the biggest culprits in the current time is statistics. First off owners are far too concerned with a trainers win percentage, therefore trainers watch those like a hawk. Many guys will wait out a horse until the perfect senario occurs before running them. Also the Sheets mentality has become so accepted that no one wants to run back quick and risk a poor performance because the sheets guys say that it is bad. Of course at the lower tracks where much of this doesn't matter the trend is not nearly as noticable.

The funny thing about the whole starts per year per horse trend is that average field size has dropped very little in the last 40 years. I believe that it has dropped less than a horse per race while the avg starts per year has dropped signifigantly. Of course factors like winter racing and crop size are never brought up when talking about this topic, just bad trainers and evilmedications. The fact that 2 year olds in particular are campaigned so lightly in comparison to years ago is another factor that should be taken into consideration. How many 2 year olds not trained by Jamie Sanders (sorry Fearless Leader) are run more than twice or 3 times? Very few. A solid 2 year old campaign used to consist of 6 or 7 races even for the top horses.

I am not saying that we as trainers have not become too dependant on medications, because we have. But blaming everything that is wrong with the sport from breeding practices to less hardy horses to lighter campaigns on medication is just too simplistic for me.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

You are right that average field size hasn't fallen off...though, that may be due more to the big increase in foal crop size since the 60's.

In 1960, the average field size was 8.95 and the average starts a year per horse was 11.31

In 2003 (most recent year I have stats for) the average field size has dropped mildly to 8.30...the average starts per horse have declined to 6.62

I believe the breeding industry has played a chief role in this long-term trend, but, I'm also think the medication (legal and illegal) have as well.

According to the '04 ARM, 2-year-old races made up just 7.7% of the races run in 2003, and the average 2yo made 3.3 starts.

I think less medication might be greatly to the benefit of the sport.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

You are right that average field size hasn't fallen off...though, that may be due more to the big increase in foal crop size since the 60's.

Which should drop the avg # per starts. More horses = more inferior horses= less starts

The increase in size of foal crop did more damage than anyone ever seems to realize. If you triple the major leagues to 90 teams dont you think the overall quality of player would go down? Wouldn't the overall quality of play suffer? Then why would it be any different when a great number inferior horses who would not have been bred or bred infrequently are thrown into the gene pool? Shouldn't the racing suffer?

Unlike people, thoroughbreds are not a natural breed. It is a man made breed which suffers when the selectivity of breeding stock is lowered like it was in the 70's. The breed will not ever fully recover because there is too much money at stake to eliminate much of what is wrong in modern day breed to the market practices.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Which should drop the avg # per starts. More horses = more inferior horses= less starts

The increase in size of foal crop did more damage than anyone ever seems to realize. If you triple the major leagues to 90 teams dont you think the overall quality of player would go down? Wouldn't the overall quality of play suffer? Then why would it be any different when a great number inferior horses who would not have been bred or bred infrequently are thrown into the gene pool? Shouldn't the racing suffer?

Unlike people, thoroughbreds are not a natural breed. It is a man made breed which suffers when the selectivity of breeding stock is lowered like it was in the 70's. The breed will not ever fully recover because there is too much money at stake to eliminate much of what is wrong in modern day breed to the market practices.

I tend to agree with this. There is way too much racing. They could close many tracks and they should. Asia(Hong Kong/Japan) races only 4 days a week on a limited number of tracks and I believe they always have massive fields. They also have stronger medication policies.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The increase in size of foal crop did more damage than anyone ever seems to realize. If you triple the major leagues to 90 teams dont you think the overall quality of player would go down? Wouldn't the overall quality of play suffer?

You have a point...in that it would be harder to not run horses if fewer of them are around in the foal crop.

As for the quote above, I don't see how an increase in foal crop can be compared with an increase in number of baseball teams. Perhaps, I can see it being compared to an increase in human population size, and the effect it would have on the quality of major leauge baseball players. Or, how the increase in number of Breeders Cup races might result in the softening of the overall quality of those races.

Sadly, the trainer crop has also increased wildly since the days of Man O' War and his 1,680 foal crop. 9,760 trainers started at least one horse in the year 2003.

All joking aside, I can be very well be wrong....perhaps medications (both legal and illegal) really have little or no effect on the long-term soundness of horses and the amount of time they need between starts.

I just wish the great Barry Bonds wouldn't always need the day off, everytime he's played a game the previous night. But hey, someone has to be a fan of his I guess.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I think less medication might be greatly to the benefit of the sport.

Define less medication and I may agree with you. But I doubt it would change things much.
Medication is an easy target but it is a complex subject that very few who are qualified to discuss it are willing to, for fear of being cast out as a politically incorrect druggie. Advances in modern day medicine have helped every athlete in the world except baseball pitchers and supposedly thoroughbred horses.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Medication is an easy target but it is a complex subject that very few who are qualified to discuss it are willing to.

I agree that it's an easy target. And I'm certainly not qualified in any manner to discuss it....not even remotely close.

However, I have a hunch that the game, and the horse itself, would both be a lot better off with less medication (both legal and illegal) in the sport.