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

[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.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by oracle80

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.

What if Belmont ran a "Summer" Breeders Cup-type event in late June or in July with purses close to or at the BC level?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

What if Belmont ran a "Summer" Breeders Cup-type event in late June or in July with purses close to or at the BC level?

Paid for by whom?


And, to be honest, NYRA already does this....it's called Saratoga.