Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
You are buying into a argument that makes no sense. First of all of course mares individually dont make as much difference as stallions do individually but lets face it, if there are 35000 foals there are at least 35000 mares needed to produce them. The fact that stallions covered 40 to 50 mares per year in the 60's seems to have escaped everyones attention. A stallion now covers three times that amount meaning a bad stallion is having three times the effect of a good stallion. But a stallion that has weaknesses is still going to have weaknesses regardless of medication. You want to say they wouldn't be breeding? Fine but most of the well bred horses are going to get a chance somewhere. I find it amazing that everyone simply talks about the stallions.
This argument of allowing weaker horses to pass off genetic weakness is bunk. You say he was talking about steroids but I want to know where to draw the line. Like I said about PE, if she never ran after she broke down originally would she have been the same success as a broodmare? Of course she would have. Her return to the races was due to modern technology and medicine, in the 50's she would never have raced again. So why is that technology that allowed an obviously "weaker" horse to return to the races and succeed not be the same as Lasix allowing a horse who bleeds to do the same? Is bleeding an inheirent trait? Is "brittleness" a real trait? Or rather the real cause of most soundness issues, confirmation issues to blame? The whole medication is weakening the breed crowd never brings in anyone from outside of racing to verify what they are saying. Why is that? Because they would rather spew opinion rather than truth. The trend of lesser starts began long before the medication door was opened. A fact that is ignored rather routinely. Everybody says that the tracks are getting harder but Jerry Brown has shown at least some documentation that that is not the case. But it fits the argument better if it the tracks are getting harder, something else to blame. People want to say that more horses are breaking down than ever yet there is no proof that is the case.
So if i treat my horse with hyperbaric oxygen to keep it from bleeding, shockwave and adequan to keep its joints sounder, gastrogard to keep its ulcers from cropping up, RVI and Bodybuilder for its muscles and the horse goes out and wins a bunch of races and becomes a stallion it is bad for the breed? Because in 1950 none of these things were available and the subtraction of one may have caused my horse not to perform and hence not been a stallion prospect. Or I could say that my horse needs Lasix or steroids to do the same and then we are howling because those help "enhance" his performance and will in turn "weaken" the breed. So are we saying that all modern techniques that help a "weaker" horse succeed should be eliminated? We should simply let the bleeders bleed? Or whenever a horse has any infirmity just turn them out? Because if "weaker" horses are being bred and creating "weaker" horses, where exactly do we draw the line? Who determines what constitutes weakness? The generalizations used by Beyer and others are simply an agenda that has been pushed strongly recently without much rational except that it sounds right. That and the other countries are doing it. And yet virtually all of Coolmores Irish stallion roster is made up of American Bred decendants of Northern Dancer. And the euros are putting in more american style tracks and buying up our bloodstock at record levels. All products of "medication weakened" breeding.
|
My point with a colt needing to run on medication in order to do well was that, with less permitted medications, he's not as likely to perform well, and thus likely to have less of a chance to get a foothold in the breeding market. I wasn't saying such a horse would be forbidden or unable to breed, just that market desire for a young stallion who'd been a success at the races would make things harder on one that hasn't done well. This seems pretty clear to me; I'm not seeing where you're getting confused.
I don't think I said anything about "allowing weaker horses to pass off genetic weaknesses" as though one needed to give them permission, so I'm not sure what was "bunk." I think it's fairly well established that our physical traits are in our genes and we pass them along to offspring, whether we are horses, people, or Madagascar hissing cockroaches. And no, those genes can't be changed by medicine or surgery- my father's and my noses look nothing alike, but that's because he broke his as a teenager- I still got what he was born with, before that diving accident. :) Again, the argument was, if permissive medication enables horses that, under their own genetically-given abilities, would not have managed a career at the races, to succeed, those horses are more likely to have an opportunity at the breeding market, based on those artificially enhanced successes (and by "opportunity" I don't mean "permission" I mean there might be a demand for said horse that there wouldn't be otherwise. Again, I don't get what is unclear about that).
Once again, a horse returning to the races after recovering from an injury is not the same thing as running a medicated horse. I don't think there's a racing fan anywhere who doesn't understand that athletes do get injured sometimes. If anything, the fact that PE recovered from what should have been a career-ending injury is testament to her good genes, since many horses would not have been able to, no matter how heavily medicated they were, or how much metal was put into their legs.
One thing I find so entertaining about conservative mindsets is the "all or nothing" mentality- "Medicating horses can be bad?" "Fine, you're saying let's ban everything! What about ulcer medications?" "You don't want to operate on them, either, do you? Why do you hate our freedom?" ;) Because we don't know where to draw the line right this second doesn't mean the dialogue shouldn't be taking place. There are more TBs born now than 50 years ago, as you've said in earlier posts, and yet fields are smaller and individual horses make fewer starts. That, again, was the point of Beyer's article- that medication is not helping American racing- the push for it was based on increasing the number of starts horses could make, and that didn't happen. All of your comments have had to do with breeding, not the state of racing. Which of course, reinforces the biggest problem with racing, which is that breeding controls it. You yourself are a trainer, and almost all of your comments have been focused on breeding, I'm sure because that's where the actual money is. They should start calling trainers "future stud developers." (I'm teasing, of course, but sometimes it seems not that far off base to racing fans). Do you not give a horse antibiotics if it has an infection? Of course you medicate them. Do you give it steroids to build up muscle it might not be genetically predisposed to have? I would say no, as steroids aren't good for mammals (except in cases being used to treat severe illness, yes I know). If they had no adverse side effects, I think baseball bigwigs wouldn't be screaming about them so much.
I thought you made a good case in a post some time ago about medication enabling trainers to turn a horse around faster and that enabling owners to see a return on their investment faster, but that requires putting what may or may not be best for the animal below what's best for the owner, as the money is the motivating factor. Is that right or wrong? I don't know. I certainly think most trainers want what's best for their animals, and I also know racing is a very expensive sport. And, too, horses make fewer starts now, so is it really making a difference? Again, I don't know. I just thought it was a good financial argument and still remember it.
You also (indirectly, I think) bring up a number of tangents, but I think it helps reinforce that racing's issue is not medication only, or breeding only, or tracks only- it's a number of things that combined result in fewer starts and smaller fields. But, as long as the gambling dollars hold out, there's no reason for American racing to change anything. Also a very American trait- if it's not really, really, catastrophically breaking, why bother doing anything? And even then, maybe not bother. ;)
Anyway, good stuff, as always, Chuck. Thanks for responding.
