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

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.

[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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

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.

That is a great post. You really explained things well.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

That is a great post. You really explained things well.

She usually does ...

... keep your eye out for all her posts ... you'll learn a lot.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

She usually does ...

... keep your eye out for all her posts ... you'll learn a lot.

The only thing you will learn is a little bit about horses' records from 40 years ago. You won't learn anything about racing today.

I can tell you just from reading many of Phalaris' posts that she does not bet on horses. If she does, then she is a $2 bettor. She would go broke betting on horses because she has no understanding of most of the simplest concepts such as how much time horses need between races and this type of thing.

If you guys think you know so much, then why aren't you making big bets?

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

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.

As usual, this is right on the money. RIGHT ON THE MONEY.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

As usual, this is right on the money. RIGHT ON THE MONEY.

Most stakes horses out there are not worth tens of millions. A very high percentage of them can make more on the track than they will be worth for breeding. It is only a very small percentage of horses whose trainer's every move is to best maximize the horse's value for breeding.

So to say that this is a different times with regards to trainers' goals, that's simply not true. It may be true with well less than 1% of the horses out there but it is not true with most horses. Most stakes horses are not worth tens of millions of dollars for breeding. The goal of every trainer out there is for his horses to make as much money as they can on the track. The only exception to this rule is the rare horse that is worth millions for breeding.

[Danzig]

also, used to be that breeders bred to race. they were running the offspring of the broodmares and stallions they had developed. showing off what they had done, looking for racing success to show the world what they had done as far as breeding a better horse. those days are long gone. most are commercial operations, just another business venture.

[Five Star Derek]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

also, used to be that breeders bred to race. they were running the offspring of the broodmares and stallions they had developed. showing off what they had done, looking for racing success to show the world what they had done as far as breeding a better horse. those days are long gone. most are commercial operations, just another business venture.

Your absolutely right. This is why the two year old sales are so hard to stomach

[Danzig]

all those crooked foals, send them to the vet, fix 'em up and no one the wiser. and everyone wants in the game, so it's only going to get worse! gotta provide product for the consumer!!

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The goal of every trainer out there is for his horses to make as much money as they can on the track. The only exception to this rule is the rare horse that is worth millions for breeding.

Very, very naive.

All it takes is one big syndication deal ... and the trainer's share is enough to fix him up for life.

Sure it's nice to train winners of $1,000,000 and make $100,000 ... but it's a lot of hard work and you certainly can't be financially secure from it.

But get that $40,000,000 syndication deal ... and you make a few million in one swoop ... the equivalent of 25 years of toiling in the salt mines.

That's the main objective of today's trainers of G1-level horses ... win that one big one ... and start the negotiations.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Very, very naive.

All it takes is one big syndication deal ... and the trainer's share is enough to fix him up for life.

Sure it's nice to train winners of $1,000,000 and make $100,000 ... but it's a lot of hard work and you certainly can't be financially secure from it.

But get that $40,000,000 syndication deal ... and you make a few million in one swoop ... the equivalent of 25 years of toiling in the salt mines.

That's the main objective of today's trainers of G1-level horses ... win that one big one ... and start the negotiations.

You obviously did not read my post. I was not talking about horses that are worth tens of millions. I was talking about the other 99.9% of horses out there. By the way, even with the huge deals the trainers usually don't make big money unless the owners are very generous. The trainer will usually just get 1 share in the horse. With a really good horse like Saint Liam, Dutrow would make much more money if the horse kept on running. He's not going to make much from having 1 share in the horse. How much is 1 share worth in Saint Liam worth? Maybe $100,000. When the horse won the BC Classic, Dutrow made $300,000 in one day.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You obviously did not read my post. I was not talking about horses that are worth tens of millions. I was talking about the other 99.9% of horses out there. By the way, even with the huge deals the trainers usually don't make big money unless the owners are very generous. The trainer will usually just get 1 share in the horse.

That's not the way it works ...

... trainers usually get 2 - 4 shares ... making a $1,000,000 per share syndication worth $2-4 million for the trainer ...

... and it takes most trainers and awful lot of years to make that sort of money.

Meanwhile ... where is your football-field-long list of horses who have had multi-year championships or near-championships from a race-spacing regimen?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Very, very naive.

All it takes is one big syndication deal ... and the trainer's share is enough to fix him up for life.

Sure it's nice to train winners of $1,000,000 and make $100,000 ... but it's a lot of hard work and you certainly can't be financially secure from it.

But get that $40,000,000 syndication deal ... and you make a few million in one swoop ... the equivalent of 25 years of toiling in the salt mines.

That's the main objective of today's trainers of G1-level horses ... win that one big one ... and start the negotiations.

What in the world are you talking about? When are there $40 million syndication deals? In the current decade(2000-2006), I think there was only one horse syndicated for more than $20 million. Smarty Jones was synidcated for something in the neighborhood of $40-50 million. I don't think there was one other horse that was even above $20 million. Even a BC Classic winner like Saint Liam only was sydicated for about $8 million. I don't think that trainers normally get more than 1-2 shares. I can check on this, but even if you are right and Dutrow got 4 shares in Saint Liam, that means the deal would have been worth around $300,000 for Dutrow. He made that in one day when the horse won the BC Classic. He would have been much better off if the horse kept running.

It's a 100,000-1 shot to get a horse that's worth $40 million. You act like it's a regular occurence. I think there's only been 1 in the last 10 years.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

What in the world are you talking about? When are there $40 million syndication deals? In the current decade(2000-2006), I think there was only one horse syndicated for more than $20 million. Smarty Jones was synidcated for something in the neighborhood of $40-50 million. I don't think there was one other horse that was even above $20 million. Even a BC Classic winner like Saint Liam only was sydicated for about $8 million. I don't think that trainers normally get more than 1-2 shares. I can check on this, but even if you are right and Dutrow got 4 shares in Saint Liam, that means the deal would have been worth around $300,000 for Dutrow. He made that in one day when the horse won the BC Classic. He would have been much better off if the horse kept running.

It's a 100,000-1 shot to get a horse that's worth $40 million. You act like it's a regular occurence. I think there's only been 1 in the last 10 years.

They syndicated Fusaichi Pegasus for over 60 million in 2000