Beyer in Chilie

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Just wait until World Cup night when there's a lot of money in the pools. All the suckers for De Kock will be out in full force.

Well played Nicky

[PatCummings]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Why does anyone think that horses are racing drug free in other countries? Because they don't admit to running on Lasix? LOL. Yeah ok. Many of the "advances" in juice come directly from other countries. Brett Pelling and the "Blue magic" are direct imports from down under.

Here is a link from "drug-free" Australia http://www.theage.com.au/news/Horse-...996492071.html

Doesn't sound much different than here

Biancone didn't arrive on these shores squeaky clean only to be corrupted by our "drug culture".

Does anyone really believe South American racing is drug free?

Remember when Japanese trained Deep Impact tested positive in the Arc?http://www.drf.com/news/deep-impact-...tive-after-arc

As for using Dubai as an example of Drug free racing remember that there were more races run in the US last weekend than will be run in Dubai all year.

The idea that American bloodlines have been "weakened" by medication is laughable but sadly many people will continue to believe such nonsense. Foreign buyers buy far more bloodstock at public auction here than anywhere else.

Sadlers Wells- American bred (leading sire in Europe)
Danehill- American bred (leading sire in Europe and Australia)
More than Ready- American bred (top 3 sire in Australia)

Most of the top mares bought at Keeneland that are exported as breding stock are American bred.

The two most childish and simplistic (and absolutely wrong) myths about horseracing are the "medication weakens the breed" and "only a commissioner can save the game".

I am not, nor have I ever, suggested that racing in Dubai or anywhere else was drug-free - I would suggest, however, that the height of the rubbish from American trainers about needing to "give their horses time" is a result of permissive race-day medication usage. And if it isn't, then where does that come from?

Nowhere else but in North America do trainers regularly cite those needs - and to say that horses cannot perform at top levels, within say three to seven days after a previous top effort is simply ignorant. It happens with absolute regularity most everywhere else in the world at some point in the year. The closest to that happening in the US is the Triple Crown.

Would anyone like to offer some suggestions as to what it is that makes our trainers unable to garner the same performance from their horses as trainers on four other continents?

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by PatCummings

I am not, nor have I ever, suggested that racing in Dubai or anywhere else was drug-free - I would suggest, however, that the height of the rubbish from American trainers about needing to "give their horses time" is a result of permissive race-day medication usage. And if it isn't, then where does that come from?

Nowhere else but in North America do trainers regularly cite those needs - and to say that horses cannot perform at top levels, within say three to seven days after a previous top effort is simply ignorant. It happens with absolute regularity most everywhere else in the world at some point in the year. The closest to that happening in the US is the Triple Crown.

Would anyone like to offer some suggestions as to what it is that makes our trainers unable to garner the same performance from their horses as trainers on four other continents?

Things are a bit different now with the economy, but do other countries have such high stallion deals?

I think what the horses are capable of and what the trainer decides to do are two very different things.

[my miss storm cat]

Originally Posted by _ed_

48 vs 20 is a bit of a difference.

Yeah it sure is and lest we forget (oh I always have to interject HK don't I?)...

Some G1 horses...

Cape of Good Hope... 41 starts
http://www.hkjc.com/english/racing/O...=B243&search=1

Bullish Luck, 54 starts
http://www.hkjc.com/english/racing/O...=C155&search=1

Scintillation, 45 starts
http://www.hkjc.com/english/racing/O...=C228&search=1

Viva Pataca, 41 starts
http://www.hkjc.com/english/racing/h...=G096&search=1

Good Ba Ba, 44 starts
http://www.hkjc.com/english/racing/h...=E201&search=1

(For the record it's Chile and not Chilie but it does look kinda cute this way).

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

(For the record it's Chile and not Chilie but it does look kinda cute this way).

Hondurass.

[my miss storm cat]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Hondurass.

Bangcoc... oh never mind!

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

Bangcoc... oh never mind!

Stay on topic!! South Americ*** only.

[my miss storm cat]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Stay on topic!! South Americ*** only.

Oh, ooops! Sorry Coachie.

I'll have to ask NTamm if I can use his All the suckers for De Kock line somewhere else.

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

Oh, ooops! Sorry Coachie.

I'll have to ask NTamm if I can use his All the suckers for De Kock line somewhere else.

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

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[robfla]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Just wait until World Cup night when there's a lot of money in the pools. All the suckers for De Kock will be out in full force.