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

[blackthroatedwind]

I wouldn't suggest this is the only reason, by any stretch of the imagination, but isn't there some concern that one reason many of these horses have such well spaced campaigns is often the recovery time from whatever medication they may be using is substantial?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I wouldn't suggest this is the only reason, by any stretch of the imagination, but isn't there some concern that one reason many of these horses have such well spaced campaigns is often the recovery time from whatever medication they may be using is substantial?

Recovery time from the medication itself?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Recovery time from the medication itself?

In essense. Basically I'm suspicious in general, and the fact that we often see dramatic improvements in horses who subsequently hold that form for one, or maybe two races, and then often disappear for what may be quite a while, if not forever, makes me think that medications that improve performance also take a heavy toll on the horses. Thus I figure the spacing between races is somewhat related.

I'm probably just overly paranoid.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

In essense. Basically I'm suspicious in general, and the fact that we often see dramatic improvements in horses who subsequently hold that form for one, or maybe two races, and then often disappear for what may be quite a while, if not forever, makes me think that medications that improve performance also take a heavy toll on the horses. Thus I figure the spacing between races is somewhat related.

I'm probably just overly paranoid.

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.

[blackthroatedwind]

" no comment " on some of the closer looks.

[Danzig]

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!

[Rupert Pupkin]

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.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

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!

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

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

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

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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I wouldn't suggest this is the only reason, by any stretch of the imagination, but isn't there some concern that one reason many of these horses have such well spaced campaigns is often the recovery time from whatever medication they may be using is substantial?

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.