Apparent to whom?

To people that understand its like asking a teenage pitcher to throw 90 curveballs in a little league game.

I like watching them run also. But ultimately, its just not good for the animals. They are too young to be run this hard. It is apparent to me.

The entire game is then bad for the horses.

Asking any pitcher on any level at any age to throw 90 curveballs in a given game is a bad idea but I have yet to understand what we are supposed to do with 2 year olds if we cant race them? Send them to prep school for a year?

Train them.
Because you know most of the animals, if trained properly, will give you everything they have in a race. Enough to hurt themselves at this age. And the rider cant slow them down when there is money on them.

Yes it is.
But its worse for two year olds.

There is this falicy that horses only get hurt when they are giving all they have. Horses get hurt in most cases because they have conformational defects that dont allow them to strike the ground on an even, consistent basis. Eventually the problems that crop up as either primary lameness in the defect area or secondary lameness somewhere else due to the original defect. Younger horses are more apt to get sore shins but the thing about young horses is that they recover and heal quicker also.

Of course having a year's worth of training expenses in a 2 year old with no chance of recovering anything is not going to make the owning horses any more economically viable.

I wasnt talking about missing the BC because of a "phantom" injury but not running in the other races during the year. I think that by getting horses running more during the year more people may actually get interested in them. Give them time to acutally get a fan base.

I believe Phalaris has collected data that strongly supports the idea that the MORE you race 2-yr-olds, the longer their racing careers will be. This was on the ESPN board awhile back. There may have been constraints on how long the races should be. I don't remember the details, but Phalaris has posted here occasionally, too. Maybe he/she will check in.

--Dunbar

Never said this is how they only get hurt.

I said two year olds are still developing and to run them in races increases the probability of injury. And yes they do recover quicker, for the same reason they get injured, they are still growing. Same in humans.

ANd the money is the main reason why they are on the track at this age. It aint for their health and longevity.

And the main reason people race horses at 3? At 4? At 5? Or don't race them at 4? Or 5?

It's all about money for God's sakes.

Love to see the study. I would love to see the data on the two year olds that failed to run after two that was certainly taken into account (and why they failed to run; good luck with that injury report).

I just dont see breeders advertising longevity on the track as heavily as who their mommy and daddy were/are. So I cant believe horses are currently being bred for longevity on the track.

Two year olds need to run. Just not in races where they have a chance of getting totally exhausted, having their young immature bones and muscles go wobbly on them, and then taking that bad step. Or running them when they are already sore, which is going to happen more often in youngsters with developing muscles, having them go wobbly, and having to continue to the finish line under pressure from the jockey.

I have to agree with Bob Baffert and say that appearance fees is a good idea. If you throw $50k or $100k to the owner of a horse just to race then you may entice some runners.

I thought Bob was an advocate of the trainer get a fee.....and keeping it quiet.

Thank you for the obvious.

Are there ever attempts to weigh the money against what is over the line cruel to the animal? Seems to me there has been a long history of this conflict. With the two year olds...

Ok, that made me laugh. But you do have a point.

I thought you said they shouldn't be running two year olds.Now you say they should be running.WHich is it?

I'll stick to the opinions of professionals, like Chuck, and pass on your false concerns.

If you didn't race two year olds, then we would only get to see horses race for one or two years (age 3 and maybe age 4). Two year old racing adds a great deal of excitement to the sport.

So Chuck has no concerns?

And why are my concerns false? Your data and experience with this?