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

[Five Star Derek]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Lesson #1 - Dont believe what you read, especially if it is about horseracing.

Lesson #2 - Think for yourself. If they knew the horse had a stress fracture and ran him in the Belmont anyway, then they are dangerous. Just like the rest of us they speculate that it happened in the Preakness but he sure looked good running 1 1/2 miles 3 weeks later.

Cannon-I appreciate your advice but I've been around this game long enough and at different capacities to know that you can't believe everything you read. That goes for many things also. By the way, I didn't read this I heard it first hand. I spend most of my time close to the tracks in the northeast so that is generally where I do my horse business and that is where I am in tune with the most.

I never mentioned stress fracture in my previous threads so I don't know where you came up with that. Most horses running today have various ailments and trainers continue to run them depending on the trainer and the ailment. They can continue to run good but maybe not have as long of a career. I'm sure you already know this. As far as speculation is concerned, I'll chose to listen to the connections speculation rather then somebody on a message board. They would know more about their horse than us and by the way Tim Ritchey is a straitforward guy in this business. He doesn't like to pull punches.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

At the end of the day, I agree. I don't believe that modern trainers are idiots. They are charged with producing successful horses based on a different paradigm than previous times. People want one-time brilliance, or a few easy romps unmarred by defeats. Therefore, there is a modern tendency to make every start count. The traditional idea of a "prep race," a race in which a horse runs to gauge its current form and fitness and to tighten it up for an upcoming target race, is utterly obsolete and foreign. You don't see in-form, high-class horses running in allowance races anymore and now, we're starting to see them skip stakes races seen as preliminary to the races that matter. BB and I recall times when the best horses ran in the Woodward, Marlboro Cup AND Jockey Club Gold Cup; just one of many series of once-prominent races that have diminished (or disappeared entirely) due to lack of interest. Ironically, now that there are many times the number of stakes races as there were a few decades ago, a given stakes-caliber horse will run in fewer of them. The inevitable result: the handful of best horses are spread among several races, creating poor fields with one or two good horses up against a few lower-quality animals who have nothing to lose in showing up and being beaten.

The "make every start count" theory of racing and training horses not only dictates avoiding minor races or serious competition for as long as possible, it also requires avoiding anything that might prove a challenge for their horse. Some of us remember when serious handicap horses ran in Carter Handicap and Met Mile, because it wasn't assumed that a horse capable of getting 10 or 12 furlongs was utterly incapable of - or at least irretrievably harmed by - running in a race less than 8.5 or 9 furlongs. You saw major turf winners runnning in major races on the dirt, and vice versa. You saw 3YOs taking on older horses and fillies in against open company. Lots of times this resulted in defeat, but when good horses were running 10 or 15 times a year, a defeat or two didn't ruin your resume.

The result was high-class horses with more defeats, but also better, more interesting sport - unless, I suppose, you groove on the idea of a handful of MLB teams playing a half-dozen times a year mainly against collegiate-caliber competition with championships determined at the end by a single inning in a single game against whatever shows up - no playoffs neeeded. Compared to a real baseball season, that's pretty much what horse racing has turned into and there are some of us who lament what has been lost. We're not going to apologize for our feelings on the subject, either.

Current trainers of good horses have a completely different sort of expectation placed upon them and they are sorting themeselves out by those who are best able to spot horses in places where they can win. We can't reasonably accuse them of incompetence for failing to turn out horses of a more traditional mold, because they are not even sort of trying to do so. When (and it is a matter of when) the artificial bubble that is the thoroughbred bloodstock market pops, some of them will convert themselves to a new situation - in which horses are worth what they can earn on the track - just fine, just as many of their horses, trained and campaigned with this in mind, will. I firmly believe that most thoroughbred foals cavorting on a farm somewhere today are capable of much better, and much more, than their older brothers and sisters are producing. The difference is in the intent of those who prepare and campaign them - not necessarily the horsemanship of those people.

As usual, this is right on the money. RIGHT ON THE MONEY.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I really don't know what effect that strange galloping regimen had on him. I will tell you that I think he would have definitely won the BC juvenille if they didn't run him so many times. He was awesome in his first 4 races. In his 5th and 6th races of his 2 year old year, he didn't look like the same horse. If they would have spaced his races properly and made the BC Juvenille his 4th race of the year, I don't think he would have had any problem beating Wilko in the BC Juvenille.

I'm guessing that he was hurting by the time he got to the BC Juvenille. In addition, they waited awfully long before bring him back as a 3 year old. He didn't come back until Mach. I wonder if this was by choice. It probably was not. He probably had some type of injury and was not ready to run until March. I didn't like the way they brought him back on only two weeks rest after he won his first race back.

I just don't like the way they handled the horse. As I said before, if they only ran him 4 times as a two year old, I think he would have won the BC Juvenille. Not only that, but I think he would have come out of his 2 year old year unscathed and he would have probably been ready to go sooner as a 3 year old. Then they could have put him on a normal schedule instead of starting so late and having everything so rushed.

Yes, I have often wondered about the late start back as well. I have also wondered why in the world that they rushed Alex back to the track so quickly after he had that screw inserted and gave him such a quick workout. That, no doubt, did the horse in, but he might have been gone anyway. I liked the way that they trained him though. I think getting out of his stall two times a day helped him since the horses stabled at the tracks can't get out into the pastures to romp around. I don't think that this would work with every horse, or hardly any horse, but it actually may have helped hold Alex together as long as he stayed together. Thanks...your post makes sense as usual.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Five Star Derek

Cannon-I appreciate your advice but I've been around this game long enough and at different capacities to know that you can't believe everything you read. That goes for many things also. By the way, I didn't read this I heard it first hand. I spend most of my time close to the tracks in the northeast so that is generally where I do my horse business and that is where I am in tune with the most.

I never mentioned stress fracture in my previous threads so I don't know where you came up with that. Most horses running today have various ailments and trainers continue to run them depending on the trainer and the ailment. They can continue to run good but maybe not have as long of a career. I'm sure you already know this. As far as speculation is concerned, I'll chose to listen to the connections speculation rather then somebody on a message board. They would know more about their horse than us and by the way Tim Ritchey is a straitforward guy in this business. He doesn't like to pull punches.

So u are saying that u have firsthand knowledge that these people KNEW that he was injured in the Preakness but instead of backing off on him, they pushed forward just for the sake of winning the Belmont? How in the world is this in line with what they always stated, that they were doing what was best for the horse? If indeed u got this first hand and it's a fact that he was hurt in the Preakness, their actions were not only dangerous and insensitive to the horse, but I would argue that they border on criminal.

[Danzig]

there are many reasons why horses don't run as much as in the 'good old days'.

breeding practices for one--commercial breeders imo are hurting the breed, going after speed regardless of the horse who carries that speed. way back when, breeders were in the sport due to love of the horse, and love of sport. they bred looking for the best representatives of the breed, now it's who will fetch the biggest price at auction. it's the equivalent of puppy mills anymore. many aren't in it to improve the breed, but only to improve their bottom line. it's why i have respect for dinny phipps, and the few others like him. they are in it for love of the horse, and for the horse.

also, regarding tracks..i've always seen that the tracks today are deeper, slower, and safer than in the past. it explains why horses may have gotten faster, yet records don't fall.

as for running more often.... no one wants to take a chance anymore on a loss, so the horses are brought along easily until in peak condition when they're at their very best, ready to fire big. of course there are so many tracks with top races, it's a lot easier to find a good, lucrative, and no doubt easier spot to go after big bucks and a graded race. a lot more tracks than in the past, easy to avoid other top comp--don't like the weight assigned? threated to pull out, or pull out...next track down the road will hook you right up.
also, everyone wants a bull lea now--not the citation. don't run often, you may not be at your best and might lose and cost some stud fees.....

it's a breeding game right now. not a racing game.

it's funny, back then, horses got a lot of respect when they carried a mound of weight and still fought hard. might get nipped at the wire by some pretender, but everyone knew they had seen a true champ--horses like citation for example.

look at dr fager. set a mile record that stood for years while carrying weight no horse sees these days. najran tied it. you think anyone gives a rats butt about najran? nope. the good dr is the one who will be revered for years to come, he was the real racehorse.

so, you want to place blame? put it squarely on the breeders shoulders. that's where it belongs. owners pretty much want to buy the best looking one out there. the breeders are the ones who are supposed to be the knowledgable people, selecting the best to breed. they call all the shots, from beginning to end.

it's a breeders sport. they need to change the title from thoroughbred racehorse to breedhorse. that's all anyone seems interested in anymore. big fees, big syndication deals.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

As usual, this is right on the money. RIGHT ON THE MONEY.

Most stakes horses out there are not worth tens of millions. A very high percentage of them can make more on the track than they will be worth for breeding. It is only a very small percentage of horses whose trainer's every move is to best maximize the horse's value for breeding.

So to say that this is a different times with regards to trainers' goals, that's simply not true. It may be true with well less than 1% of the horses out there but it is not true with most horses. Most stakes horses are not worth tens of millions of dollars for breeding. The goal of every trainer out there is for his horses to make as much money as they can on the track. The only exception to this rule is the rare horse that is worth millions for breeding.

[Five Star Derek]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

So u are saying that u have firsthand knowledge that these people KNEW that he was injured in the Preakness but instead of backing off on him, they pushed forward just for the sake of winning the Belmont? How in the world is this in line with what they always stated, that they were doing what was best for the horse? If indeed u got this first hand and it's a fact that he was hurt in the Preakness, their actions were not only dangerous and insensitive to the horse, but I would argue that they border on criminal.

Most horses who run are hurt in some way, that is a fact. This is the unfortunate part of our business. There is no question that there are many trainers that do insensitive and dangerous things to horses by running them with certain conditions which could border on criminal. There would be no racing if only completely sound horses would be aloud to run. Sometimes a simple quarter crack could turn into a catestrophic injury by slightly altering a horse running style. Is that criminal or is it a judgement call gone wrong?

[Danzig]

also, used to be that breeders bred to race. they were running the offspring of the broodmares and stallions they had developed. showing off what they had done, looking for racing success to show the world what they had done as far as breeding a better horse. those days are long gone. most are commercial operations, just another business venture.

[Five Star Derek]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

also, used to be that breeders bred to race. they were running the offspring of the broodmares and stallions they had developed. showing off what they had done, looking for racing success to show the world what they had done as far as breeding a better horse. those days are long gone. most are commercial operations, just another business venture.

Your absolutely right. This is why the two year old sales are so hard to stomach

[Danzig]

all those crooked foals, send them to the vet, fix 'em up and no one the wiser. and everyone wants in the game, so it's only going to get worse! gotta provide product for the consumer!!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Five Star Derek

Most horses who run are hurt in some way, that is a fact. This is the unfortunate part of our business. There is no question that there are many trainers that do insensitive and dangerous things to horses by running them with certain conditions which could border on criminal. There would be no racing if only completely sound horses would be aloud to run. Sometimes a simple quarter crack could turn into a catestrophic injury by slightly altering a horse running style. Is that criminal or is it a judgement call gone wrong?

Yes, everything you are saying is true.

But with regard to Afleet alex, I certainly don't think that Ritchey thought that Alex had a fracture before the Belmont. They discovered the injury after the Belmont and they are guessing that he sustained the injury in the Preakness. That is their best guess. They don't know it for sure.

[Five Star Derek]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, everything you are saying is true.

But with regard to Afleet alex, I certainly don't think that Ritchey thought that Alex had a fracture before the Belmont. They discovered the injury after the Belmont and they are guessing that he sustained the injury in the Preakness. That is their best guess. They don't know it for sure.

Rupert-I never implied or wrote in any previous threads that Ritchey thought Alex had a fracture before the Belmont. Only that AA was injured to some degree in the Preakness. This of course is all speculation on everybody's part. I just think the connections know their horse well and think they would know better than all of us.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Here we all are ... doing what we have become accustomed to doing ... waiting ... and waiting ... and waiting ... for something interesting to happen at the top tier of the sport we all love.

Weeks and weeks and weeks go by ... without any sighting of our best horses bursting out of a starting gate.

I did a bit of research a few weeks ago into the performances of past champion fillies ... and revealed that most of them were making 12 to 15 starts per campaign ... and some made several more.

Not that many years ago ... a horse who made fewer than 10 starts in a given year would not even be considered for a championship because of lack of activitiy.

Now ... we're thrilled when the best horses make four starts in a year ... and absolutely ecstatic when they're asked to make a heroic total of six.

Here we are in a banner year for quality race horses ... the likes of which haven't been seen for many a moon ... and what do we get ... weeks and weeks and weeks of waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting.

We're the fanatics ... and we're being bored to sleep. Just imagine how this plays with the general public.

All that really matters is how the bettors feel about it. As long as the bettors like it, that's all that matters. I'm a relatively big bettor. I'm not saying whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but if I like a horse
alot, I'll bet somwehere between $500 and $1000 on him.

Didn't you say that you're not even a bettor? It only matters what the bettors think. They're the ones who keep the sport going.

If I wanted to check on how a candidate was going to do in an election, I would poll people who were going to vote. I wouldn't poll people who are not going to vote. That wouldn't give me any information.

I'm not putting you down. My point is that if you are only a fan and not a bettor, then what is important to you may be entirely different from what is important to a bettor. As a bettor, I want to see horses have plenty of time between races. Then I have more confidence that the horse will fire. I'm usually not going to make a big bet on a horse that I feel is coming back too soon even if I think the horse is the best horse in the race, the reason being that I will not have confidence that the horse will run his best if he hasn't had enough rest.

[Phalaris1913]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

What are you talking about? Practically every horse out out there today does it the right way. The original question had to do with horses winning big races at 2,3, and 4. If there aren't any, then that makes your argument even weaker. It would mean that what I'm saying is not extreme enough. I'm saying that a horse can last and stay in top form as a 2, 3 , and 4 year old if they are raced sparingly. If I am wrong, and a horse can't stay in top form for 3 straight years running sparingly, then they certainly can't stay in top form for 3 years straight running 15 times a year. That's the stupidest thing I ever heard.

You gave us three horses from 20 years ago that were by reasonable definition not raced sparingly: multiple times they had come back on short rest and two of them had 10+ starts at 3. Your job was to come up with horses that were major stakes horses at 2, 3 and 4 which were raced sparingly. Perhaps this battle is mainly over respective definitions of "sparingly" but I will define "sparingly" as "typical of 21st century G1 horses - fewer than 4 starts at 2, maybe a half-dozen starts per year thereafter spaced widely." After all, this whole thread is about what widely spaced schedules have done to racing. Have at it. Find us some.

In the meantime, I'll trot out some examples of horses who somehow, miraculously, survived campaigns you say that horses can't handle.

The old American Racing Manuals had an interesting feature. They used to include the past performances of all the horses rated on the Experimental and Free handicaps in the early 1960s. Let's see what kind of race records that the horses who were good enough to make the Experimental Handicap at 2 and the Free Handicap at 3 and 4 had:

Foals of 1957
Colts and Geldings
All Hands - 9 starts at 2, 17 starts at 3, 13 starts at 4
April Skies - 9 starts at 2, 23 starts at 3, 18 starts at 4
Bourbon Prince - 12 stars at 2, 11 starts at 3, 15 starts at 4
Conestoga - 11 starts at 2, 17 starts at 3, 9 starts at 4
Count Amber - 15 starts at 2, 17 starts at 3, 10 starts at 4
Heroshogala - 15 starts at 2, 21 starts at 3, 21 starts at 4
New Policy - 11 starts at 2, 16 starts at 3, 12 starts at 4
Pied d'Or - 13 starts at 2, 19 starts at 3, 21 starts at 4
Run for Nurse - 21 starts at 2, 18 starts at 3, 19 starts at 4
T.V. Lark - 14 starts at 2, 23 starts at 3, 18 starts at 4
Fillies
Airmans Guide - 6 starts at 2, 4 starts at 3, 10 starts at 4
Darling June - 11 starts at 2, 10 starts at 3, 15 starts at 4
Evening Glow - 7 starts at 2, 5 starts at 3, 17 starts at 4
Make Sail - 4 starts at 2, 19 starts at 3, 18 starts at 4
My Dear Girl - 7 starts at 2, 11 starts at 3, 2 starts at 4
Rash Statement - 12 starts at 2, 17 starts at 3, 17 starts at 4
Sarcastic - 8 starts at 2, 14 starts at 3, 10 starts at 4
Undulation - 3 starts at 2, 10 starts at 3, 4 starts at 4

Foals of 1958
Colts and Geldings
Beau Prince - 11 starts at 2, 18 starts at 3, 14 starts at 4
Bluescope - 7 starts at 2, 16 starts at 3, 14 starts at 4
Carry Back - 21 starts at 2, 16 starts at 3, 18 starts at 4
Crozier - 6 starts at 2, 15 starts at 3, 9 starts at 4
Editorialist - 12 starts at 2, 14 starts at 3, 18 starts at 4
Garwol - 18 starts at 2, 16 starts at 3, 26 starts at 4
Globemaster - 11 starts at 2, 10 starts at 3, 6 starts at 4
Guadalcanal - 4 starts at 2, 10 starts at 3, 15 starts at 4
Hitting Away - 3 starts at 2, 15 starts at 3, 19 starts at 4
Olden Times - 6 starts at 2, 9 starts at 3, 13 starts at 4
Try Cash - 8 starts at 2, 16 starts at 3, 21 starts at 4
Vapor Whirl - 18 starts at 2, 15 starts at 3, 4 starts at 4
Fillies
Counter Call - 5 starts at 2, 9 starts at 3, 16 starts at 4
Mighty Fair - 8 starts at 2, 27 starts at 3, 16 starts at 4
My Portrait - 10 starts at 2, 17 starts at 3, 19 starts at 4
Play Time - 9 starts at 2, 12 starts at 3, 15 starts at 4
Primonetta - 4 starts at 2, 11 starts at 3, 10 starts at 4
Shuette - 8 starts at 2, 18 starts at 3, 18 starts at 4
Smashing Gail - 8 starts at 2, 11 starts at 3, 7 starts at 4
Times Two - 11 starts at 2, 18 starts at 3, 22 starts at 4

Foals of 1959
Colts and Geldings
Admiral's Voyage - 11 starts at 2, 14 starts at 3, 15 starts at 4
Decidedly - 8 starts at 2, 12 starts at 3, 13 starts at 4
Doc Jocoy - 8 starts at 2, 16 starts at 3, 5 starts at 4
Donut King - 14 starts at 2, 7 starts at 3, 10 starts at 4
Greek Money - 16 starts at 2, 12 starts at 3, 7 starts at 4
Jaipur - 7 starts at 2, 10 starts at 3, 2 starts at 4
Native Diver - 5 starts at 2, 11 starts at 3, 15 starts at 4
Ridan - 7 starts at 2, 13 starts at 3, 3 starts at 4
Smart - 20 starts at 2, 19 starts at 3, 15 starts at 4
Sunrise County - 11 starts at 2, 10 starts at 3, 13 starts at 4
Times Roman - 11 starts at 2, 16 starts at 3, 11 starts at 4
Fillies
All Brandy - 11 starts at 2, 12 starts at 3, 12 starts at 4
Bramalea - 10 starts at 2, 18 starts at 3, 10 starts at 4
Cicada - 16 starts at 2, 17 starts at 3, 8 starts at 4
Firm Policy - 6 starts at 2, 10 starts at 3, 5 starts at 4
Royal Patrice - 5 starts at 2, 23 starts at 3, 8 starts at 4
Savaii - 7 starts at 2, 12 starts at 3, 22 starts at 4
Tamarona - 10 starts at 2, 19 starts at 3, 18 starts at 4
Upswept - 7 starts at 2, 12 starts at 3, 11 starts at 4

Some of these horses appeared at 5 and beyond on the Free Handicap, but I'm just looking at 2-3-4YO form.

Of course these horses are products of another time: back when US thoroughbreds raced an average of over 10 times a year (vs. 6.5 today) and training intent was quite different. But you would have us believe that it's just plain not possible to have 10-15+ start seasons at any level, let alone among better stakes horses. You're wrong. The horses can do it, if that's the trainer's intent and they do it right.

I could go on, but I actually do have other things I should be doing today. I'm going to assume that you get the point. Even though there are a few horses on these lists who were raced in a relatively "sparing" manner, that does not change the fact that there were many horses capable of running at a decent stakes level at 2-3-4 during these three sample years and most of them were raced anything but sparingly.

It just shows how hard it is to keep horses sound these days. Unlike the old days, horses today are bred for speed rather than soundness.

True enough, we breed with complete disregard for soundness. It would help if we expected enough of racehorses that unsound horses who can barely stay in training were not able to accomplish enough to become attractive breeding stock. Your "sparing" campaigns propagate weakness by not selecting against it.

(continued)

[Phalaris1913]

(continued from previous post)

I don't even understand what you are saying. If you have a horse who has an injury, do you think that you can just whale on him and nothing will happen?

If you have a horse who is already unsound, of course you do not race or train. You put him away until he's right and spend the time it's going to take before he's ready to approach speed work again. (That could be several months if he's gone more than a month or so without work at near top speed.) If he's never going to be reasonably right, given that most athletes of any description have minor issues, retire him. If his career was shortened by inherent problems that may be congenital, geld him. But it's dead wrong that avoiding high speed work is the way to prevent injury in the horse. You want to prevent athletic injury in the racehorse? Don't race him. If you are going to race a horse, you are morally obligated to use only specimens who can handle the demand and then train them in an appropriate manner to do that which we ask of them, and researchers tell us that nothing prepares a horse for high speed work except high speed work.

There is nothing more important in all of horse racing than to ensure the best possible safety for its equine participants. Without horses who can competently and safely race, there is no horse racing. No sport. No gambling vehicle, nothing. And the horses have no say about their involvement; they can do nothing but rely upon us to do the right thing by them. It's inexcusable to pursue policies which either directly or indirectly result in increased injury risk to racehorses. It is impossible to construct a humane argument supporting a practice which ultimately causes more horses to get hurt than some other alternate practice. If ever it can be demonstrated a given practice correlates to more injury than some other practice, those of us in any position to study the matter are obligated to investigate, and, if necessary, recommend the abandonment of - or at least seriously question - bad practices.

Is that all ivory-tower stuff? You bet. Here in the real world, money matters more than the risk of racehorses getting hurt and there are a lot of practices that are likely detrimental to horses which are all about lining pockets. Until those practices no longer bring in the money, there will be little impetus to change them. I can stand here and shout in the darkness for the rest of my natural life to no avail if that doesn't happen. But I know that I'm doing the right thing by looking for answers and speaking up when I think I have something to contribute.

I am often accused of being on the side of trying to break down horses because I realize that among other things, light racing schedules are associated with injury-shortened careers. Yes, that could be because physically troubled animals are raced less often, but it doesn't explain - if racing is inherently destructive to horses - why sounder horses that race more often are not necessarily compromised by their more strenuous campaigns. I've been studying this problem for over 15 years and I still don't have an answer. I am always working on studying various risk factors to refine what is, and isn't, likely to be part of the problem. (I just discovered last night, for example, that over a recent nine-year period, horses which are destined to break down in a race average about a month younger in age than the general population when they have their first start in a race at a distance more than a mile.) But what is definitely part of the problem is refusal to accept that there is a problem, that it's getting worse, and that it could possibly be associated with any of an endless list of changes that have occurred since there was less of a problem. When most people realize that they're on the wrong road, they turn around and go back to look for where they made a wrong turn. In horse racing, no one seems remotely interested in where the wrong turn was, or where the right road is now - they just keep on going, or even turn off in new, even more wrong, directions, while inventing new destinations as they go to justify their actions. It's astonishing how many people who do sincerely care for the welfare of the horse are so dead-set on persevering with methods that seem comparatively less successful at keeping racehorses safe and sound. And I'm the bad guy (er, girl). Go figure.

Theoretically, knowing that horses are perfectly capable of much more than we ask of them today, the fact that so many of them are too unsound to train or run indicates a problem. In a horse without predisposing physical issues, that problem very possibly lies in the training, racing and other preparation to which it was subjected before that unsoundness surfaced. Although I have come to some conclusions of what are good ideas and what aren't, I'm not a horse trainer and I'm not going to lecture on what training should be. However, the people who trained the horses on the lists above are horse trainers and while most of them are not alive today to tell us their views, ample records exist for us to inspect and theorize how these - and countless other horses of lesser repute - did just fine through campaigns some would have us believe are impossible.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Light exercise is good for a young horse. Running a 2 year old 10 times is not good.

Seabiscuit raced 35 times as a 2YO.

In his final two starts as a 7YO ... the 88th and 89th races of his career ... he won G1 stakes.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

There have been times that Todd Pletcher has said, "I hate to bring the horse back in 3 weeks. I wish I had more time." Why do you think he says this? Do you think he's just guessing that 3 weeks isn't enough time? He knows from experience.

Todd Pletcher has had hundreds of opportunities to develop some of the world's best-bred colts into champions ...

... and he has failed every single time.

He has never once developed a colt into a consisitent winner of G1 races at classic distances on dirt ... probably because he thinks that horses need 46 weeks between races.

His record is almost as embarrassing as the fact that you cited him as an example.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Seabiscuit raced 35 times as a 2YO.

In his final two starts as a 7YO ... the 88th and 89th races of his career ... he won G1 stakes.

Cy Young won 511 games,,,pitched 7000+ innings...last one as a 44 year old...were you there for it?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Todd Pletcher has had hundreds of opportunities to develop some of the world's best-bred colts into champions ...

... and he has failed every single time.

He has never once developed a colt into a consisitent winner of G1 races at classic distances on dirt ... probably because he thinks that horses need 46 weeks between races.

His record is almost as embarrassing as the fact that you cited him as an example.

I would like to take in Todd Pletchers yearly income on stallions seasons from horses he's trained.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Cy Young won 511 games,,,pitched 7000+ innings...last one as a 44 year old...were you there for it?

There?

He was catching.