Repole, citing juvenile Lasix ban, won't send horses to Breeders' Cup

[Cannon Shell]

“If you look at the numbers, about the time Lasix became prevalent everywhere – somewhere in the early 90s – look at the starts per horse and starts per year,” said Seth Hancock, whose family owns storied Claiborne Farm, a signatory to the no-2-year-old-Lasix pledge. “If you charted it on a graph, you’d see a big drop off.”

This is not true.

http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=10

The trend of declining starts per year per horse began in the early 60's.

Average starts per horse per year
1960- 11.31
1965- 10.88
1970- 10.22
1975- 10.23
1980- 9.21
1985- 8.28
1990- 7.94
1995- 7.73
2000- 7.10
2005- 6.45
2011- 6.20

This number has been trending down far before lasix was being used. There was a larger drop off between1960-1990 (pre widely used lasix) than 1990-2011 timeframe which Hancock uses. Using these numbers as evidence that lasix is the chief cause for horses running less often is a joke or as Riot would say, a lie.

At some point I wish someone would point out this little chart to them which is especially ironic considering that the information is free to all at the Jockey Club website. Regardless of what side of the issue you are on it is typical of this industry to use made up theoretical numbers because thats what people believe is their recollection as opposed to actual data which is big reason why things never get fixed.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

“If you look at the numbers, about the time Lasix became prevalent everywhere – somewhere in the early 90s – look at the starts per horse and starts per year,” said Seth Hancock, whose family owns storied Claiborne Farm, a signatory to the no-2-year-old-Lasix pledge. “If you charted it on a graph, you’d see a big drop off.”

This is not true.

http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=10

The trend of declining starts per year per horse began in the early 60's.

Average starts per horse per year
1960- 11.31
1965- 10.88
1970- 10.22
1975- 10.23
1980- 9.21
1985- 8.28
1990- 7.94
1995- 7.73
2000- 7.10
2005- 6.45
2011- 6.20

This number has been trending down far before lasix was being used. There was a larger drop off between1960-1990 (pre widely used lasix) than 1990-2011 timeframe which Hancock uses. Using these numbers as evidence that lasix is the chief cause for horses running less often is a joke or as Riot would say, a lie.

At some point I wish someone would point out this little chart to them which is especially ironic considering that the information is free to all at the Jockey Club website. Regardless of what side of the issue you are on it is typical of this industry to use made up theoretical numbers because thats what people believe is their recollection as opposed to actual data which is big reason why things never get fixed.

Seems to be more of a descent from the 80s on. Is that due to a greater emphasis on breed to sell and record auction prices vs. the traditional homebred operations? It was my understanding that the decade of the 1980s was where a yearling sales bubble developed. Surely there's a shortening of careers as a result when getting their babies in the ring is an objective of increasing importance.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

Seems to be more of a descent from the 80s on. Is that due to a greater emphasis on breed to sell and record auction prices vs. the traditional homebred operations? It was my understanding that the decade of the 1980s was where a yearling sales bubble developed. Surely there's a shortening of careers as a result when getting their babies in the ring is an objective of increasing importance.

I think your hypothesis makes sense with regards to stakes horses who have value as stallions. But what percentage of horses is that, maybe 1 or 2%?

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think your hypothesis makes sense with regards to stakes horses who have value as stallions. But what percentage of horses is that, maybe 1 or 2%?

The 2009 North American foal crop was around 32,000 in size.

1% of 32,000 is 320. Safer to say it's more like .1%, the answer to your question.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

The 2009 North American foal crop was around 32,000 in size.

1% of 32,000 is 320. Safer to say it's more like .1%, the answer to your question.

Yes, you are probably right. It is probably closer to .1%.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

Seems to be more of a descent from the 80s on. Is that due to a greater emphasis on breed to sell and record auction prices vs. the traditional homebred operations? It was my understanding that the decade of the 1980s was where a yearling sales bubble developed. Surely there's a shortening of careers as a result when getting their babies in the ring is an objective of increasing importance.

I think it has far more to do with the number of horses than anything. In 1960 there were 29798 starters. By 1990 there 89716. You dont have to be a genius to figure out that as the numbers expanded the average horse in 1990 was of far less quality than the average horse in 1960. A huge factor in breeding quality horses is the culling of weak producers, both mares and stallions. In order to expand the numbers the culling of weak individuals was clearly not occuring at the rate that it should have been leading to a weaker, more flawed horse overall. Plus the addition of statebred programs into the mix where the horses being produced were clearly subpar didnt help matters either.

The largest 5 year drop came between 1975 and 1980. Please tell me how the breed was impacted during those 5 years by lasix?

From 1970 to 1990 the drop was 2.28 starts. The drop from 1990 to now is 1.74. I use 1990 because Hancock did and the writer clearly didnt do due dilegence to check the numbers.

Anyway Hancock made the statement that begining in the early 90's there was a dramatic drop off in the number of starts per year per horse. That is simply not true.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I think it has far more to do with the number of horses than anything. In 1960 there were 29798 starters. By 1990 there 89716. You dont have to be a genius to figure out that as the numbers expanded the average horse in 1990 was of far less quality than the average horse in 1960. A huge factor in breeding quality horses is the culling of weak producers, both mares and stallions. In order to expand the numbers the culling of weak individuals was clearly not occuring at the rate that it should have been leading to a weaker, more flawed horse overall. Plus the addition of statebred programs into the mix where the horses being produced were clearly subpar didnt help matters either.

The largest 5 year drop came between 1975 and 1980. Please tell me how the breed was impacted during those 5 years by lasix?

From 1970 to 1990 the drop was 2.28 starts. The drop from 1990 to now is 1.74. I use 1990 because Hancock did and the writer clearly didnt do due dilegence to check the numbers.

Anyway Hancock made the statement that begining in the early 90's there was a dramatic drop off in the number of starts per year per horse. That is simply not true.

Perhaps me meant to say the number of starts per year per runner??

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

“If you look at the numbers, about the time Lasix became prevalent everywhere – somewhere in the early 90s – look at the starts per horse and starts per year,” said Seth Hancock, whose family owns storied Claiborne Farm, a signatory to the no-2-year-old-Lasix pledge. “If you charted it on a graph, you’d see a big drop off.”

This is not true.

http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=10

The trend of declining starts per year per horse began in the early 60's.

Average starts per horse per year
1960- 11.31
1965- 10.88
1970- 10.22
1975- 10.23
1980- 9.21
1985- 8.28
1990- 7.94
1995- 7.73
2000- 7.10
2005- 6.45
2011- 6.20

This number has been trending down far before lasix was being used. There was a larger drop off between1960-1990 (pre widely used lasix) than 1990-2011 timeframe which Hancock uses. Using these numbers as evidence that lasix is the chief cause for horses running less often is a joke or as Riot would say, a lie.

At some point I wish someone would point out this little chart to them which is especially ironic considering that the information is free to all at the Jockey Club website. Regardless of what side of the issue you are on it is typical of this industry to use made up theoretical numbers because thats what people believe is their recollection as opposed to actual data which is big reason why things never get fixed.

They were using a lot of lasix in the early 1980s. There was a bigger drop percentage wise from 1980 until now than there was before 1980. Is it partly because of lasix? I don't know for sure but I think it is certainly a reasonable hypothesis that lasix could be a contributing factor.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Average starts per horse per year
1960- 11.31
1965- 10.88
1970- 10.22
1975- 10.23
1980- 9.21
1985- 8.28
1990- 7.94
1995- 7.73
2000- 7.10
2005- 6.45
2011- 6.20

[PatCummings]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

“If you look at the numbers, about the time Lasix became prevalent everywhere – somewhere in the early 90s – look at the starts per horse and starts per year,” said Seth Hancock, whose family owns storied Claiborne Farm, a signatory to the no-2-year-old-Lasix pledge. “If you charted it on a graph, you’d see a big drop off.”

This is not true.

http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=10

The trend of declining starts per year per horse began in the early 60's.

Average starts per horse per year
1960- 11.31
1965- 10.88
1970- 10.22
1975- 10.23
1980- 9.21
1985- 8.28
1990- 7.94
1995- 7.73
2000- 7.10
2005- 6.45
2011- 6.20

This number has been trending down far before lasix was being used.

Using the raw numbers to identify the trend can occasionally be misleading, percentage declines are probably more notable, and the trend shows that the decline has been steady from a percentage standpoint, which frankly, should cause an even greater concern.

1970s-1990s - the percentage decline has been 22.3%
1990s-2011s - the percentage decline has been 21.9%

Makes you start to think...was the increasing demand for speed in breeding more to blame? If rest was increased, would horses be faster on the fewer occasions they did run than if consistently run over shorter periods of rest?

In some specifics, the decline from 1975-80 = 9.9%, and from 1980-1985 = 10.1%. It flattened out from 1985-90 at 4.1% and 1990-1995 to 2.6%, then continued down from 1995-2000 at 8.2% and 2000-2005 at 9.2%.

The change of 3.8% down from 2005 to 2011 was the smallest percentage change since 1990-1995 and overall, the second-smallest from 1970-1975 (when there was a negligable increase).