Beyer in Chilie

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

de Kock has been slapping Sheikh Mo in the face repeatedly this winter.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Average starts per season here - by year.

1960 - 11.31
1965 - 10.88
1970 - 10.22
1975 - 10.23
1980 - 9.21
1985 - 8.28
1990 - 7.94
1991 - 7.98
1992 - 8.03
1993 - 7.86
1994 - 7.84
1995 - 7.73
1996 - 7.59
1997 - 7.54
1998 - 7.29
1999 - 7.19
2000 - 7.10
2001 - 6.97
2002 - 6.80
2003 - 6.62
2004 - 6.57
2005 - 6.45
2006 - 6.37
2007 - 6.31
2008 - 6.20
2009 - 6.23
2010 - 6.11


Can 2011 finally be the year that it dips under 6?

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Average starts per season here - by year.

1960 - 11.31
1965 - 10.88
1970 - 10.22
1975 - 10.23
1980 - 9.21
1985 - 8.28
1990 - 7.94
1991 - 7.98
1992 - 8.03
1993 - 7.86
1994 - 7.84
1995 - 7.73
1996 - 7.59
1997 - 7.54
1998 - 7.29
1999 - 7.19
2000 - 7.10
2001 - 6.97
2002 - 6.80
2003 - 6.62
2004 - 6.57
2005 - 6.45
2006 - 6.37
2007 - 6.31
2008 - 6.20
2009 - 6.23
2010 - 6.11


Can 2011 finally be the year that it dips under 6?

If John Ward has anything to say about it.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Average starts per season here - by year.

1960 - 11.31
1965 - 10.88
1970 - 10.22
1975 - 10.23
1980 - 9.21
1985 - 8.28
1990 - 7.94
1991 - 7.98
1992 - 8.03
1993 - 7.86
1994 - 7.84
1995 - 7.73
1996 - 7.59
1997 - 7.54
1998 - 7.29
1999 - 7.19
2000 - 7.10
2001 - 6.97
2002 - 6.80
2003 - 6.62
2004 - 6.57
2005 - 6.45
2006 - 6.37
2007 - 6.31
2008 - 6.20
2009 - 6.23
2010 - 6.11


Can 2011 finally be the year that it dips under 6?

Trainers are going to say the breed has changed and horses cant take the training anymore.

Owners have become trained that horses can only run once a month

From 1960 to 1975 the drop was about 10%
From 1975 to 1990 the drop was closer to 25%
From 1990 to 2005 the drop was close to 20%
If the trend continues by 2020 starts per year will be around 5

What happened to the breed between 1975 and 1990?

You think conditional claimers are to be blamed for some short fall. I think trainers now have so many options they do wait for the best opportunity. Trainers dont really earn much more then a modest wage with day rate fees so I would think they are motivated like most to find a spot that a horse should earn the most money in.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I don't know what to think about that... I'm sure there are several good reasons that have contributed to it. Perhaps some more strongly than others.

Sometimes you just have to say I don't know

Cannon Shell gets all fired up whenever lasix is brought up - but that is a medication that dehydrates...and it's use started getting strong in the late 70's I think.

My father was a career 15% trainer - he started training in the early to mid 70's before you could use it at the tracks around here. He said when he couldn't use it he never did - and later when he could use it he almost always did.

He thinks it doesn't make a big difference in how they come back - but generally - the same horse didn't bounce back right away quite as well when they raced with it compared to when the same horse didn't race with it. He's taken it himself before working out at the gym and says he felt fine working out on it - but a lot more exhuasted than normal afterwards.

[randallscott35]

The issue is less lasix and more that lasix can be used to mask other agents.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

The issue is less lasix and more that lasix can be used to mask other agents.

Lasix can't mask drugs at the detection levels currently used. The "masking" effect used to be substances were flushed out of the system when the Lasix took effect. The newer testing levels are so minute that the substances are found at microscopic levels. The problem with testing isnt that they are missing drugs because of masking agents, it is they don't know what to test for.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I don't know what to think about that... I'm sure there are several good reasons that have contributed to it. Perhaps some more strongly than others.

Sometimes you just have to say I don't know

Cannon Shell gets all fired up whenever lasix is brought up - but that is a medication that dehydrates...and it's use started getting strong in the late 70's I think.

My father was a career 15% trainer - he started training in the early to mid 70's before you could use it at the tracks around here. He said when he couldn't use it he never did - and later when he could use it he almost always did.

He thinks it doesn't make a big difference in how they come back - but generally - the same horse didn't bounce back right away quite as well when they raced with it compared to when the same horse didn't race with it. He's taken it himself before working out at the gym and says he felt fine working out on it - but a lot more exhuasted than normal afterwards.

There was no Lasix in NY until the late 80's yet the trend of fewer races started in the 60's. And yet field size has remained rather constant through the years, with only about an average of one less horse per race now thn in the 60's.

IMO steroid abuse was way more detrimental to horses than Lasix could ever be yet since they were completely banned the numerical trends havent changed a bit or worsened.

Dehydration in racehorses is not a major issue to deal with, especially when you only have to run 6 times a year.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

IMO steroid abuse was way more detrimental to horses than Lasix could ever be yet since they were completely banned the numerical trends havent changed a bit or worsened.

My father told me he gave steroids to everything. So that abuse was going back at least as far as the early 70's ... he disagrees and said he thought it made the horses stronger and - if anything - able to race more often.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

My father told me he gave steroids to everything. So that abuse was going back at least as far as the early 70's ... he disagrees and said he thought it made the horses stronger and - if anything - able to race more often.

Properly used they can certainly help. But lets not act like with no guidelines there wasn't abuse. Giving steroids to young horses before they are training is probably as big of abuse as their is and that has zero to do with training. That didnt start in the 70's because up to 20 years ago horses were not prepped (trained basically) for the yearling sales like they do now.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There was no Lasix in NY until the late 80's yet the trend of fewer races started in the 60's. And yet field size has remained rather constant through the years, with only about an average of one less horse per race now thn in the 60's.

IMO steroid abuse was way more detrimental to horses than Lasix could ever be yet since they were completely banned the numerical trends havent changed a bit or worsened.

Dehydration in racehorses is not a major issue to deal with, especially when you only have to run 6 times a year.

Would love to read your response to Pat's reply. Apparently Pat is well versed in worldwide medications laws.