It is quite possible that unusually huge, out of character races will put a horse on the shelf for a bit longer than usual. It is possible that some of these efforts may be chemically induced. But I also think that trainers and owners are more aware of these efforts and are apt to give a bit more time as not to be criticized by the press and sheet guys.

There is nothing worse than talking an owner into doing something a little unconventional and having the DRF guy who writes the write up on the edge of the form flame you. Or run in a race because the owner wants to and the guy calls you an idiot for running in that spot.

People in this business especially owners are monkeysee/monkey do.

" no comment " on some of the closer looks.

Depends on her breeding and physical type.

I think that there are lots of sound horses out there, thousands and thousands. However, most are SLOW.

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.

I think the lasix alone knocks them out. It just completely dehydrates them. I would think the lasix alone probably makes it so it takes a few more days to recover, especially if it's a very hot day.

hope you guys are wearing your sunday best, this thread is on equidaily......



>>> Internet racing fans debate modern techniques in forum thread titled: "Spaced" Races And "Fresh" Horses Are Killing The Sport


whatdya know!

By the way, even if horses had no value for breeding they would still be handled pretty much the same way. Look at horse like The Tin Man. He's a gelding so he has can't be bred. Do you seem him running every 3 weeks? Of course not. Even with a gelding like him, the connections will get the most money out him by spacing his races properly and only running in the big races. That's the best way to make the most money. By spacing his races properly, he is always relatively fresh and he always fires. Do you guys think he would be winning race after race if they ran him every 3 weeks? If you do, then you have a lot to learn.

They syndicated Fusaichi Pegasus for over 60 million in 2000

Yes, you are right. I was thinking that was back in the 1990s. It was in fact in 2000. Alright so there have been two horses then, not one.

Yeah, but...

That is kind of deceiving dont you think? If Empire Makerr would have been syndicated, how much would his deal have been? How about Minehsaft? How about Giants Causeway? How about Ghostzapper?

The reason there arent more mega-syndication deals is because it is a rarity to see a little guy own a blue blooded champion.

Your math is a little bit off. There are many horses being born right now that are 6th generation descendants of horses that were retired as recently as 1980. Many of the great horses retire after their 3 year old year. That means they begin standing at stud when they are 4 years old. That means that a horse who retired in 1980 may have some great, great, great, great grandchildren being born right now. When you have many horses breeding by the age of 4, that means that you have new generations every 5 years. Huge changes can take place over 40 years. Right now you have some horses being born that are 8 generations later from the horses of 40 years ago. It's not surprising that things are different now. There can be huge changes over 8 generations.

How old is the average human when they beging having kids, maybe 25? That's 6x as long of most stallions who beging at 4 . When you look at horses from 40 years ago, that's like looking at humans from 240 years ago. There have been huge changes when you go back 10 generations like that. I think they said the average height of the guys on the Mayflower was about 5"4.

Yes, I guess that's true. I forgot about some of those horses. But still, there aren't many horses that are worth $30 or $40 million for breeding when they retire. I was thinking we get 1 every 10 years. Maybe we get 4-5 every 10 years. The point is there aren't a lot of them. BB was acting like there are plenty of horses that are worth $40 million when they retire. In reality, there are very few. Even a great horse like Saint Liam who won the BC classic was only worth about $8 million. Pleasantly Perfect won the Dubai World Cup and the BC Classic. I think his deal was only worth about $10 million. A trainer is only going to make about $100,000-$300,000 on a deal like that. The trainer would make much more if the horse kept running. The trainers aren't anxious to retire the horses.

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.

While thoroughbreds can and do have foals on the ground at age 5, it would be incorrect to imply that all, or even most, foals are the products of such youthful parents. In truth, at present, the average age of a thoroughbred's parents when he is born is about 11-12 years.

Of the thoroughbred foals of 2000 who raced at least once by 2005, on average, their sires were born in 1988 and their dams in 1990. On average, their sire's sires were born in 1977 and their dam's sires in 1978. I lose a small percentage of horses going back to the third generation, but on average, the sire's grandsires were born in 1966 and the damsire's sires were born in 1967. That's three generations. In fact, among foals of 2000, more than 10 percent of them have sire's sires and dam's sires - 2nd generation sires - born in the 1960s. That's not even considering the percentage of these horses whose 2nd generation dams were born in the 1960s.

You're making an assumption that because there can be a five-year span from birth of a horse to birth of his or her offsping that this is a norm, representing the majority of thoroughbred births, generation after generation. That's simply not true. There are not many prominent examples, at least in the sire-son relationships that necessarily account for the most resulting offspring, of several successive five- or six-year generations. I welcome you to produce a significant number of horses - enough to be worth a few percentage points in foal crops of 30,000+ - who are sixth-generation descendants of horses retired in 1980.

I agree with this in that I don't think the breed is getting weaker either like many people think. The same problems in Thoroughbred racing exists in other breed racing too, and believe me, the Quarter Horse breed is a very strong breed overall. I think it is a combination of some of the things that you said (well some of these things I know that you said and some of these things I don't know if you said)...running sore horses, poor management and training techniques, two-year old in training sales, medications, not having proper turnout time as a young horse to allow the bones to grow and develop properly (proven in a study that young horses do better mentally and physically if they are turned out most of the time than if they stay in their stalls most of the time), not having proper turn out time when stabled at the tracks, running horses with faulty conformation=breakdowns, misteps...etc., etc., I think two of the biggest culprits for unsoundnesses are track surfaces and medication though. I think trainers resorted to different methods of training because, in the changing times, the old methods were no longer working to keep horses sound and from breaking down. Also, while many trainers truly love the horses and what they do, some only see the horses as money machines and business.

As far as races being spaced far apart, I personally don't care when and where a horse runs as long as the trainer is doing a good job of managing the horse and as long as he is keeping the horse sound and from breaking down.

My final words before departing on my secret mission ...

• We can agree that just about all trainers want to win the Kentucky Derby ... and eagerly seek to find and prepare a colt for that objective. And yet ... look at the absolute joke that most recent Kentucky Derbies have been. At best there has been one ... and if we realy stretch it, two ... horses out of fields of 20 ... who were fit enough to make a decent effort there. In several years ... none ... not a single one ... was fit enough to go 10f on the first Saturday in May. Can you say Giacomo? And how did utter mediocrities like Funny Cide, War Emblem, and Charismatic get into a position to win the Triple Crown? Where were all their superbly-conditioned opponents? What does this say about today's training methods?

• In any case ... the subject of this thread was how "spaced" races are killing the sport at the G1 level. And that, my friends, is undeniable. Here we all are waiting, and waiting, and waiting for something intersting to happen ... and this in fact is a rare year when there are several exceptionally talented colts and horses in training. Bernardini may well be the best colt since Spectacular Bid ... but go down to your local mall and ask ten people at random who Bernardini is.

Whether or not "spacing" is a good or bad way to condition race horses ... and I think the evidence is overwhelming that it's bad ... very bad ... it's affect on building a future fan base is undeniable ...

... it's a disaster.

I'm not saying that most horses current yearlings are 8th generation descendants from 40 years ago. I'm just saying that some of them are. If a sire even has 1 stakes horse from his first crop that stands at stud, and then this horse has 1 stakes horse from his first crop that stans at stand, and so on, then you would have 8th generation descendants as soon as 40 years later. This may not be the norm, but every decent stallion will produce plenty of stakes horses that will stand at stud, and many of thse horses will be produced in the stallion's first few years standing, so there will be some new generations created every 5 years and certainly a lot of generation turn over every 5-8 years.

For good reason! This has been a very good thread, IMO. We have knowledgeable people on both sides of the argument, and for the most part, the exchange has been civil, notwithstanding an egregious "idiot" or two thrown in.

We have 2 facts that are difficult to reconcile.

Fact 1. Top horses 20 years ago ran more races/year and ran with less time between races than horses today.

Fact 2. Virtually all top trainers today prefer to run with more time between races.

Several explanations have been offered, but IMO no single explanation can explain the difference.

I suspect (but am by no means certain) that Rupert is correct that the top horses today do need more time between races than the top horses even 20 years ago. But even if Rupert is correct, the question remains, why?

Can the breed have changed so much in 20 years? I don't think so. Rupert points out that you COULD have a new generation every 5 years. But you also have stallions producing offspring well into their teens and even longer. I'd estimate the average generation at 8-10 years. And I don't think you can make a big enough change in the genetic make-up of a species in 2-3 generations to account for the kind of shift we have seen in performance expectation. Still, natural selection (for faster, more fragile horses) and in-breeding could explain some part of the shift in racing frequency.

Phalaris suggests that much of the reason that horses today are more fragile is that they are handled incorrectly as 2-yr-olds. I suspect (but am by no means certain!) that Phalaris, too, is correct. Phalaris has compelling data to back up his/her arguments. Rupert, either here or in another thread, has astutely pointed out that part of the reason that well-run 2-yr-olds last longer and run more races than lightly run 2-yr-olds could be due to an inherent statistical bias; namely, some horses run more as 2-yr-olds simply BECAUSE they are sounder in the first place. Therefore, it would make sense that these horses would also run more often as 3- and 4-yr-olds. Still, the idea of building a good foundation at an early developing age makes sense to me. And at a minimum, Phalaris’ data suggests that running horses frequently for relatively short distances as 2-yr-olds does not hurt their later prospects.

Cannon Shell and BTW have suggested that the ever-greater use of drugs has an effect on the ability of top horses to recover after a race. That, too, makes good sense to me.

I don’t buy the “blame it on the Breeder’s Cup”, “blame it on racing surfaces”, or “blame it on syndication deals”, arguments. These may have some significant influence on a few horses or a minute influence on many horses, but those factors don’t appear to explain what’s happened to the whole top echelon of racing in N. America.

While I accept (reluctantly) Rupert’s contention that contemporary horses need more time than horses racing just 20 years ago, I don’t think it necessarily follows that the scheduling now in favor is the optimal one. It may no longer be optimal to bring horses back on 2-3 weeks rest, but it may be as good or better to bring them back on 4 weeks rest than to let them sit out for 5-8 weeks. I expect that the spacing will continue to be adjusted in the future, just as it has been adjusted over the last half-century.

My own conclusion from what’s been written thus far in this thread is that the change in racing frequency is primarily due to a mix of 3 factors: genetic selection of more fragile horses, poorer conditioning of young horses, and increased use of medications. I don’t have much feel for how those 3 factors are weighted, but I think all 3 are significant.

Other reasonable people could certainly draw different conclusions. But given that the popularity of racing is at lease somewhat correlated to how much and for how long its stars race, it seems important to try to figure out if anything can be done to get them to safely run more often.

--Dunbar

Most horseplayers are much more excited about when a horse on their "watch list" is going to run, than when Bernardini is going to run. I'm not going to make any money betting on a 2-5 shot. It's nice to have fans like you but the sport doesn't make money from fans like you since you are not a bettor. The sport needs more bettors, not fans who don't bet.

Phalaris said she had some evidence that 2 year olds that run often will have more races as older horses than their counterparts. That may be true with the average horse, but the average horse (when you count all the small tracks) is a $10,000 horse. As you pointed out, the obvious explanation for this is that horses who are sound at a young age are more likely to be sound as they get older.

But if you have a good horse and you want that horse to be around as a 3 and 4 year old, you don't want to run that horse a bunch of times as a 2 year old. If you look at the field in any good handicap race, you will rarely see horses that ran 9-10 times as a 2 year old.

I think you need to use the same logic that we use in saying that we know that if you want to win the Ky Derby, you don't want to enter the race with 2-3 lifetime races. Those horses are not successful in the Ky Derby. By the same token, horses who run 9-10 times as 2 year olds are rarely successful in the handicap division.

I think the 2 are correlated. A good number of serious bettors get into the game by first becoming fans.

Also, if there were enough fans, TV deals could funnel more significant money into the industry.

--Dunbar

While I accept (reluctantly) Rupert’s contention that contemporary horses need more time than horses racing just 20 years ago, I don’t think it necessarily follows that the scheduling now in favor is the optimal one. It may no longer be optimal to bring horses back on 2-3 weeks rest, but it may be as good or better to bring them back on 4 weeks rest than to let them sit out for 5-8 weeks. I expect that the spacing will continue to be adjusted in the future, just as it has been adjusted over the last half-century.



--Dunbar[/quote]

In general, to give a horse 8 weeks between each race is definitely too much time. It obviously depends on the circumstances. If you're shipping a horse all over the place, the horse will need more rest between races. But for your typical horse, 4-5 weeks between races is fine. If the horse had a really hard race, you may want to give a little more time. In general, 4-6 weeks is a good amount of time between races.

I'm certainly more a fan than a bettor as I only bet around $2-3,000 a year. That may hardly be a blip on the radar of the tracks in terms of handle but when you have thousands of fans like me it certainly adds up. In my case the betting comes from being a fan of the game. If the game gets to the point where it no longer interests me then my betting will dwindle. This is part of the reason why it is important to cater to the fans as well as the bettors.

The other aspect is that the true bettors are looking to make money off their betting. Considering the large takeouts, the best way to beat the system is for there to be casual fans that go to the track and bet the horses that have no shot. Otherwise every horse is going to have realistic odds minus the takeout and isn't worth a bet. The more fans that are drawn to the track a couple times a year and are willing to blow $100 without really caring (like you see all the time in casinos) the better for the bettors.

Yes, that's true. You guys make some good points. I was sort of thinking of fans like Bold Brooklynite that are long-term fans that don't bet. He is probably the exception to the rule. There are probably a lot of fans like yourself out there who do bet and who are more likely to go to the track if a superstar is running. Such fans may not be big bettors but every bit counts.

This is my first post in this thread because I've been fighting a bug.

First thing I'd like to point out is that horses like Cigar (10 races at 4, 7 at 5) was racing only 10 years ago, not 20. It was not that long ago that we could count on seeing our champions run most of the year, coast to coast. Holy Bull (11 races at 3, last race in Sept). Silver Charm (7 at 3, 9 at 4, just 8 years ago). The trend has been downward for a couple of decades, but the "fresh horse" argument is quite a recent development. Winning a major stakes race without a prep race within 2-3 weeks was considered a training feat of no small merit, because your competition would be racing fit from such preps.

Secondly, the top horses of yore would run their more races in a much more concetrated period of time. After Saratoga, fall Belmont, and fall Aqueduct, the NY horses would get anywhere from 2 to 4 months off - 2, if they were running at Hialeah, 4 if they were coming back when Aqueuct (previously Jamaica) opened in March. Then they would run every couple of weeks (or more closely) until they got another break. Today, a horse may run as many races as a 3yo before the Derby as Secretariat did (3), but he did it in 6 weeks, not 3-4 months. There was no first-class racing in Southern California after Hollywood Park ended (Del Mar was a lesser meet then and the best stables went east for Saratoga and the big fall races) and Santa Anita started in December. The Australians still run this way, with their champions running every week or two thru Sept and October, then often taking a couple of months off (a 'spell') before returning after New Year's. IMHO, spacing races 6-8 weeks apart and doing it all year is harder on a horse than a campaign of races 2-3 weeks apart, with a rest period until the next campaign, so I am not surprised that such horses break down more.

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...

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..

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 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.

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.

I'm not way off here. Not only do I buy horses at these sales but we sell them too. If a horse has an injury, we will back of and withdraw him from the sale.

They will often times back off if the horse has issues. If the horse has sore shins they will go on with him. But if the horse has a serious problem, they will back off. Nobody is going to buy a horse with a serious problem.

The definition of successful has changed. When a top handicap horse (when there were real handicaps) ran 12-15 times a season and lost 5 or 6 times, he still had a decent shot at a title. Now you can win all year, lose the Breeders' Cup by a neck and your a "phony."

In 1942 Whirlaway ran 22 times between April 9th and Dec 12. He won 11 (one was a walkover) and never finished off the board. He won races like the Clark H, the Brooklyn, and the JCGC and the Dixie H. He placed in the Suburban and the Arlington H among others. He raced from 6f to 2 miles. A season like that today would never happen because top horses are held out for all but 4 or 5 top engagements, all geared to having his A game for the Breeders' Cup.

Trainers can and will do what they want with their stock but my disgreement is with not running a fit healthy horse. They skip races with a fit horse then cry and moan when horsey gets hurt in training and has to miss the big dance.

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 may do these things but the vast majority of sales trainers dont.

Define serious problem.

If you are selling then let me ask you a question. Have you ever seen vet work done on a 2 year old at the sale that would not been done if that horse was not in a sale?

As I've said before, I don't know anything about what happened in 1942. I know a lot about racing from about 1982 to the present. I can tell you that one of the first things I noticed as a handicapper was that horses that ran every 2-3 weeks usually did not stay in form for very long. These horses would usually run a few good races and that would be the end of them. The good trainers know this and that is why they don't run their hores every 2-3 weeks. I'm not saying that horses can't run every 4 weeks. I think every 4 weeks is fine. If you have a relatively sound horse and run him all year every 4 weeks or so, you could probably get 10-11 races out of him. Races are not going to always come up when you want them to, so you probably couldn't run the horse 12 times. Not only that, if you're going to run the horse for a year straight, it's probably a good idea to send him out to the farm for a month at the end of the year. Then would end up costing you a few months because a horse loses his conditioning when he's out orf training for a month.

If I had a horse that I thought could win the Breeder's Cup, I wouldn't try to run him too many times that year. I'd probably give him a break and start up with him in March. I think it is a little too conservative to only run him 3 times before the Breeder's Cup. There's a lot of money out there and I'd feel pretty stupid if we skipped a ton of god races that we could have won and then ended up losing in the BC. So I would probably plan a campaign where the BC ends up being the horse's 6th race of the year or something like that. Competing at the highest level like that, I would probabl give the horse a little more time between racs than an average horse. I'd tried to run him every 4-6 weeks.

As I said before, the main physical issue that they will push a horse with is sore shins. That would be the one physical issue that they treat differently with a sales horse. If you have a 2 year old that you are keeping and he has sore shins, you stop on him. But consignors will usually not stop on a horse because of sore shins. They might stop on them. It obviously depends how sore the shins are.

With all of these things, it obviously depends on the consignor and it depends on how valuable the horse is. The good consignors that have a lot of credibility are not desperate. They think nothing of putting a $300,000 reserve on a horse that they only paid $150,00 for if they really like the horse. With a good consignor, the sale is not their last chance to sell the horse. If they have a good reputation and have a lot of credibilty, they will be able to find a buyer for the horse even if they have to wait for a few months.

I agree, and this is why I hope The Green Monkey runs as fast as a green monkey, this ridiculous price for this horse is just another nail in the coffin of the sport that used to be horse racing.

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.