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

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

(continued from previous post)



If you have a horse who is already unsound, of course you do not race or train. You put him away until he's right and spend the time it's going to take before he's ready to approach speed work again. (That could be several months if he's gone more than a month or so without work at near top speed.) If he's never going to be reasonably right, given that most athletes of any description have minor issues, retire him. If his career was shortened by inherent problems that may be congenital, geld him. But it's dead wrong that avoiding high speed work is the way to prevent injury in the horse. You want to prevent athletic injury in the racehorse? Don't race him. If you are going to race a horse, you are morally obligated to use only specimens who can handle the demand and then train them in an appropriate manner to do that which we ask of them, and researchers tell us that nothing prepares a horse for high speed work except high speed work.

There is nothing more important in all of horse racing than to ensure the best possible safety for its equine participants. Without horses who can competently and safely race, there is no horse racing. No sport. No gambling vehicle, nothing. And the horses have no say about their involvement; they can do nothing but rely upon us to do the right thing by them. It's inexcusable to pursue policies which either directly or indirectly result in increased injury risk to racehorses. It is impossible to construct a humane argument supporting a practice which ultimately causes more horses to get hurt than some other alternate practice. If ever it can be demonstrated a given practice correlates to more injury than some other practice, those of us in any position to study the matter are obligated to investigate, and, if necessary, recommend the abandonment of - or at least seriously question - bad practices.

Is that all ivory-tower stuff? You bet. Here in the real world, money matters more than the risk of racehorses getting hurt and there are a lot of practices that are likely detrimental to horses which are all about lining pockets. Until those practices no longer bring in the money, there will be little impetus to change them. I can stand here and shout in the darkness for the rest of my natural life to no avail if that doesn't happen. But I know that I'm doing the right thing by looking for answers and speaking up when I think I have something to contribute.

I am often accused of being on the side of trying to break down horses because I realize that among other things, light racing schedules are associated with injury-shortened careers. Yes, that could be because physically troubled animals are raced less often, but it doesn't explain - if racing is inherently destructive to horses - why sounder horses that race more often are not necessarily compromised by their more strenuous campaigns. I've been studying this problem for over 15 years and I still don't have an answer. I am always working on studying various risk factors to refine what is, and isn't, likely to be part of the problem. (I just discovered last night, for example, that over a recent nine-year period, horses which are destined to break down in a race average about a month younger in age than the general population when they have their first start in a race at a distance more than a mile.) But what is definitely part of the problem is refusal to accept that there is a problem, that it's getting worse, and that it could possibly be associated with any of an endless list of changes that have occurred since there was less of a problem. When most people realize that they're on the wrong road, they turn around and go back to look for where they made a wrong turn. In horse racing, no one seems remotely interested in where the wrong turn was, or where the right road is now - they just keep on going, or even turn off in new, even more wrong, directions, while inventing new destinations as they go to justify their actions. It's astonishing how many people who do sincerely care for the welfare of the horse are so dead-set on persevering with methods that seem comparatively less successful at keeping racehorses safe and sound. And I'm the bad guy (er, girl). Go figure.

Theoretically, knowing that horses are perfectly capable of much more than we ask of them today, the fact that so many of them are too unsound to train or run indicates a problem. In a horse without predisposing physical issues, that problem very possibly lies in the training, racing and other preparation to which it was subjected before that unsoundness surfaced. Although I have come to some conclusions of what are good ideas and what aren't, I'm not a horse trainer and I'm not going to lecture on what training should be. However, the people who trained the horses on the lists above are horse trainers and while most of them are not alive today to tell us their views, ample records exist for us to inspect and theorize how these - and countless other horses of lesser repute - did just fine through campaigns some would have us believe are impossible.

You are right. I agree with your quote, "The fact that so many horses are too unsound to train or run indicates a problem." I agree with you 100%. I don't know what the problem is either. I don't know if it's the breed or the track surfaces or what. But I do know that there aren't very many sound horses out there. Many of these horses were horses who were trained really hard early in their two year old year at the two year old sales. So you can't say that they are unsound because of a lack of activity as a 2 year old.

All of my experience as both a handicapper and as an owner/racing manager over the past 25 years is that the harder they are on 2 year olds, the less chance there is that they will be winning big races as an older horse. I am sure that trend will continue. You won't see many horses winning the BC Classic that ran 20 times between their 2 and 3 year old years.

By the way, I think a relatively sound 3 year old or a 4 year old can run more than 6 times a year. I don't see any reason why you can't run them 7-8 times a year. I would always give them at least 4 weeks between races.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You are right. I agree with your quote, "The fact that so many horses are too unsound to train or run indicates a problem." I agree with you 100%. I don't know what the problem is either. I don't know if it's the breed or the track surfaces or what. But I do know that there aren't very many sound horses out there. Many of these horses were horses who were trained really hard early in their two year old year at the two year old sales. So you can't say that they are unsound because of a lack of activity as a 2 year old.

All of my experience as both a handicapper and as an owner/racing manager over the past 25 years is that the harder they are on 2 year olds, the less chance there is that they will be winning big races as an older horse. I am sure that trend will continue. You won't see many horses winning the BC Classic that ran 20 times between their 2 and 3 year old years.

By the way, I think a relatively sound 3 year old or a 4 year old can run more than 6 times a year. I don't see any reason why you can't run them 7-8 times a year. I would always give them at least 4 weeks between races.

You're completely avoiding the issue ...

... we're provided dozens and dozens of examples of G1-level horses who thrived on 12, 15, even 20 starts per year over multiple years ...

... and yet you can't provide a single example of one who has thrived on the "spaced out" regimen.

Who do you think is getting the best of this discussion?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

You're completely avoiding the issue ...

... we're provided dozens and dozens of examples of G1-level horses who thrived on 12, 15, even 20 starts per year over multiple years ...

... and yet you can't provide a single example of one who has thrived on the "spaced out" regimen.

Who do you think is getting the best of this discussion?

What are you talking about? Practically every single horse out there does it my way. Pleasantly Perfect, Ghostzapper, Saint Liam, etc.

Practically every horse that wins the BC Classic these days is lightly raced. A lot of the good 2 and 3 year olds never make it to the BC Classic because they are either retired or mishandled. I think that the Triple Crown races are practically criminal in this day and age. I think it's nuts to run a horse in the Derby, then two weeks later in the Preakness, and then 3 weeks later at 1 1/2 miles in the Belmont. It kills most horses. Even an iron horse like smarty Jones couldn't handle it. He came out of it hurt. Afleet Alex came out of it hurt. Funny Cide was never really the same. I don't think War Emblem was ever the same. They need to add an extra week between each Triple Crown race. I think this would make a huge difference.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

What are you talking about? Practically every single horse out there does it my way. Pleasantly Perfect, Ghostzapper, Saint Liam, etc.

Practically every horse that wins the BC Classic these days is lightly raced. A lot of the good 2 and 3 year olds never make it to the BC Classic because they are either retired or mishandled. I think that the Triple Crown races are practically criminal in this day and age. I think it's nuts to run a horse in the Derby, then two weeks later in the Preakness, and then 3 weeks later at 1 1/2 miles in the Belmont. It kills most horses. Even an iron horse like smarty Jones couldn't handle it. He came out of it hurt. Afleet Alex came out of it hurt. Funny Cide was never really the same. I don't think War Emblem was ever the same. They need to add an extra week between each Triple Crown race. I think this would make a huge difference.

But the truth of the matter is most of those horses could have come back as 4 year olds if there was not so much money available as stallion prospects. Their success level at 4 would be unknown.
BB wants evidence that he is right and you are wrong but there is no evidence because the game changed. Like it or not, for better or worse, the game changed.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You are right. I agree with your quote, "The fact that so many horses are too unsound to train or run indicates a problem." I agree with you 100%. I don't know what the problem is either. I don't know if it's the breed or the track surfaces or what. But I do know that there aren't very many sound horses out there. Many of these horses were horses who were trained really hard early in their two year old year at the two year old sales. So you can't say that they are unsound because of a lack of activity as a 2 year old.

.

Prepping a horse for a 2 year old sale and racing it as a 2 year old not only has a different goal, but a different approach. I don't think you can use the one to discredit the other.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Prepping a horse for a 2 year old sale and racing it as a 2 year old not only has a different goal, but a different approach. I don't think you can use the one to discredit the other.

That is not true. The preparation for a 2 year old sale is almost identical to the way they would prepare a horse for a race. They train the horses exactly the same way that they would prepare him if they were going to run him and try to win first-time out.

For the consignor, the preview( the under-tack workout for prospective buyers) is like a regular race. The consignor prepares the horse so that they will peak on the preview day. The faster the works at the preview, the more money the horse will go for. In addition, the consignor has all the same concerns as a trainer preparing a horse to run. Both the trainer and the consignor have to walk the fine line of working the horse hard to enough to get it ready for a peak performance, but not working the horse so hard that the horse will get injured. If a consignor gets a horse to work a quarter of mile in :21 1/5 at the preivew, that won't do the consignor any good if the horse doesn't come out of the work in one piece. Even if the horse works great, nobody will pay top dollar if the horse comes out of the work with an injury. A trainer preparing a 2 year old to race has the same concerns. It does him no good for the horse to win has debut by 5 lengths if the horse is going to come out of the race hurt and need 6 months off.

but i've seen comments from many regarding buying two year olds at those sales...that they essentially have to re-train the horse. that all they've been taught is go go go so as to get that fast furlong work. then you have to break them of that, teach them to take their cues from the rider...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig2

but i've seen comments from many regarding buying two year olds at those sales...that they essentially have to re-train the horse. that all they've been taught is go go go so as to get that fast furlong work. then you have to break them of that, teach them to take their cues from the rider...

That doesn't happen very often. We've bought alot of horses out of 2 year old sales and I can only think of one who always wanted to "go go go", and it took a long time to get him over that. But even with this horse, I can't say that his bevavior was necessarily a result of what he was taught training for the sale. We sent the horse to the farm for 3 months after the sale. Then we started him in very light training and he bucked his shins. To make a long story short, he didn't really do any serious training until he was a 3 year old so it was a full year after the 2 year old sale. The problem was when we would work him. He was fine galloping but when we would work him he wanted to go full-speed. He only knew two speeds, slow gallops or full-speed. He didn't know how to something in between. You could argue that this was a result of what he learned aat the 2 year old sale but I'm not so sure. It was a year later and he was the only horse that would do this. So it may not have had anything to do with what he learned at the 2 year old sale.

[Linny]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That is not true. The preparation for a 2 year old sale is almost identical to the way they would prepare a horse for a race. They train the horses exactly the same way that they would prepare him if they were going to run him and try to win first-time out.

For the consignor, the preview( the under-tack workout for prospective buyers) is like a regular race. The consignor prepares the horse so that they will peak on the preview day. The faster the works at the preview, the more money the horse will go for. In addition, the consignor has all the same concerns as a trainer preparing a horse to run. Both the trainer and the consignor have to walk the fine line of working the horse hard to enough to get it ready for a peak performance, but not working the horse so hard that the horse will get injured. If a consignor gets a horse to work a quarter of mile in :21 1/5 at the preivew, that won't do the consignor any good if the horse doesn't come out of the work in one piece. Even if the horse works great, nobody will pay top dollar if the horse comes out of the work with an injury. A trainer preparing a 2 year old to race has the same concerns. It does him no good for the horse to win has debut by 5 lengths if the horse is going to come out of the race hurt and need 6 months off.

As long as any injury (bucked shins etc) shows up after the sale the seller is only concerned with 1 fast workout. Many top trainers have told me that sale 2yo's are often poor propsects because they are so rushed and need several months off after the sales. The trainer preparing a baby to race is not only looking to the debut but to races beyond. They want to win, but they also want to teach the horse, to help him develop. They want to have a horse left the next day and the next week. The seller at the 2yo sale wants the fast work and wants to sell him before any issues occur. They don't have that "allowance in the next condition book" or "the stake at the end of the meet" in mind.
I receive several catalogs a year from vaious partnerships. They cost thousands to produce. I get gorgeous photos, pedigree analysis and comments from top trainers. I also get notes from the general manager saying "Filly X is currently at Aiken, recovering from bucked shins..." proudly offered a $XXX/share."

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Linny

As long as any injury (bucked shins etc) shows up after the sale the seller is only concerned with 1 fast workout. Many top trainers have told me that sale 2yo's are often poor propsects because they are so rushed and need several months off after the sales. The trainer preparing a baby to race is not only looking to the debut but to races beyond. They want to win, but they also want to teach the horse, to help him develop. They want to have a horse left the next day and the next week. The seller at the 2yo sale wants the fast work and wants to sell him before any issues occur. They don't have that "allowance in the next condition book" or "the stake at the end of the meet" in mind.
I receive several catalogs a year from vaious partnerships. They cost thousands to produce. I get gorgeous photos, pedigree analysis and comments from top trainers. I also get notes from the general manager saying "Filly X is currently at Aiken, recovering from bucked shins..." proudly offered a $XXX/share."

You are forgetting about what the original debate was about. Phalaris was saying that the best way to keep horses sound and to make them last is by running them 10-12 times as a 2 year old including racing them in February and March of their 2 year old year. That would be much harder on them than what they go through at a 2 year old sale. Don't get me wrong, I think they are very hard on these horses at the 2 year old sales. I think the horses are forced to do far more than they are ready for. Whenever we buy a horse out of a 2 year old sale, we send them straight to the farm. They need a good rest after the sale. But when we buy a horse that we deem to be relatively sound at a 2 year olds sale, I think he will have a good chance of lasting and having a good, long career. If you told me you were going to buy a yearling and try to run him 10-12 times as a 2 year old including races in February and March, I would tell you that your horse has practically no chance of lasting and no chance to be a good older horse.

A fairly sound horse who comes out of a 2 year old sale who is given a nice rest after the sale, has a far greater chance of having a good career than a horse who runs 10-12 races as a 2 year old. It's not even close.

[Linny]

I began following racing in earnest in '74. A friend of my dad's got me into the history of the game at that point. I read about top 2yo's like Nashua, Tom Fool, Native Dancer, Buckpasser, Northern Dancer etc who all became top 3+ racers. I saw horses like Secretariat, Riva Ridge, Affirmed, Foolish Pleasure, Honest Pleasure, Alydar all have full 2yo season and then return as top class 3yo's.
Today, a horse who's a stakes winner at 2-3-4 is a rarity, if he runs in top class competition. I am not sure the cause of the trend. Relative newcomers see the trend and assume that it's "the way it's always been done" and that's what they do. I think that several factors have influenced the breed.
1.) The Breeders' Cup-a great day of racing but overall it has a negative effect on the season.
2.) Breeding to sell-when a higher % of breeders were producing animals to race in their name and then enter the gene pool in their name, long term soundness was more important than commercial viability.
3.) Medication-lax medication rules has allowed horses who were dependent upon meds to succeed into the gene pool. Lasix and other meds have allowed horses which a couple of generations ago wouldn't have been stakes winners to reproduce at a sometimes alarming rate. Thirty years ago a 40 mare book was huge.

These 3 all work together. For example. Forty or so years ago a horse like Ghostzapper would not likely have been bred to a full book his first year. He would not have been considered sturdy enough. A horse that could only race 4x a year would have been a turn off to breeders at any price. The decreasing season produced by "pointing for the Cup" is now accepted and no one sees 'Zappa as weak because of his few starts.
Generations 'Zappa might have bred some mares but no one was covering 100+ mares a season. As such there was more balance in the breed. More sirelines represented meant a sturdier breed.
Using 'Zap is a prime example of meds as well. He raced on Lasix (and surely other meds) and while obviously very fast he was surely quite fragile. Like Unbridled's Song, he'll have many fast but fragile offspring to continue thwe downward spiral of avaerge races per season.

I don't know whats so hard to see about the Breeders Cup having an overall devestating effect on racing indirectly.
The way it works now is to win the BC and be a champion most of the time. Those honors lead to huge revenues in the breeding shed.
WHy beat up your horse all year long only to lose a championship if you don't win the Cup?
The true problem is the bozos who are given votes in the matter. They simply(most) don't follow the sport enough all year long to detremine who had the better year and vote for Cup winners.
Each year Crist or Watchamker do a column after the voting and point out some hysterical(pathetic is more like it) votes that people made. One year a guy voted for a horse owned by Charles Cella(owns Oaklawn) Northern Spur, as a champion and when asked about his vote, turned out the guy was from Arkansas and voted for the horse he said because Cella was a friend of his.
This happens every year.
Trainers have to point for the BC now. Leads to less starts and abbreviated campaigns.
The Bc is a great day and we all love it, but I don't think that it was conceived with the idea that it would ruin grade one racing the rest of the year.
Unfortunately, I don't see things ever going back to the way that they were. So looks like we are stuck. But you certainly can't blame the owners and trainers for playing the game by the new "rules" that they have been given.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Actually, they do train them for two year old sales just as they would for a race. What you have to understand (you probably do know) is that they breeze/(warm them up) them before they make them gun down the stretch in a two year old in training sale, just as in a race. They gallop around for a bit, and then come blazing down the stretch, just as you would do in a race. You rate, and then you run as fast as you can down. It's not like they just go out there and run for 1/8 of a mile and then they're done in a two year old training sale. Sure more speed is utilized in the two year old in training sales because the faster the horses go, the more that they sell for. The reason the horses are able to run so fast is that it is not the same as being in a five and a half or six furlong race...they don't have to utilize their speed that far. Is it hard on the young horses..absolutely..

[Cannon Shell]

If you trained your 2 year old racehorses like a 2 year old sales horse, you would not have very many left to be three year old racehorses.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If you trained your 2 year old racehorses like a 2 year old sales horse, you would not have very many left to be three year old racehorses.

That's not true. Most of the good consignors do not push their horses in the workouts before the preview. Most of the horse only have 1-2 workouts before the preview. If we are talking about a horse who works :10 1/5 at the preview, he probably only worked in :11 breezing before that. The consignors want the horses to peak at the preview. If they give them a really hard work before the preview, the horse might get hurt. The good consignors are not going to take that chance. They basically prepare the horse the same way they would prepare him for a race. If they were going to prepare the horse for a 5 furlong race, if they gave the horse any 5 furlong workouts, the workouts would probaly be in 1:01 even though the horse would run the race much faster than that. The horse may run the race in :58 2/5 but the trainer isn't going to work him that fast in preparation.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That's not true. Most of the good consignors do not push their horses in the workouts before the preview. Most of the horse only have 1-2 workouts before the preview. If we are talking about a horse who works :10 1/5 at the preview, he probably only worked in :11 breezing before that. The consignors want the horses to peak at the preview. If they give them a really hard work before the preview, the horse might get hurt. The good consignors are not going to take that chance. They basically prepare the horse the same way they would prepare him for a race. If they were going to prepare the horse for a 5 furlong race, if they gave the horse any 5 furlong workouts, the workouts would probaly be in 1:01 even though the horse would run the race much faster than that. The horse may run the race in :58 2/5 but the trainer isn't going to work him that fast in preparation.

Rupe baby you are way off on this one. Remember that once entered in a sale they have a d-day that things have to be right on. They dont stop on them or back off if they have issues, they plow through and make them work. Just the amount of vet work alone done on these babies in jan/Feb/March is enough to give pause before buying one of these used cars. There is a big difference in how you get a baby ready to sell or to race.