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

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

In essense. Basically I'm suspicious in general, and the fact that we often see dramatic improvements in horses who subsequently hold that form for one, or maybe two races, and then often disappear for what may be quite a while, if not forever, makes me think that medications that improve performance also take a heavy toll on the horses. Thus I figure the spacing between races is somewhat related.

I'm probably just overly paranoid.

It is quite possible that unusually huge, out of character races will put a horse on the shelf for a bit longer than usual. It is possible that some of these efforts may be chemically induced. But I also think that trainers and owners are more aware of these efforts and are apt to give a bit more time as not to be criticized by the press and sheet guys.

There is nothing worse than talking an owner into doing something a little unconventional and having the DRF guy who writes the write up on the edge of the form flame you. Or run in a race because the owner wants to and the guy calls you an idiot for running in that spot.

People in this business especially owners are monkeysee/monkey do.

[blackthroatedwind]

" no comment " on some of the closer looks.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I understand that, thanks.

Let me rephrase myself. IF I had a nice, SOUND mare to breed, which stallion should I consider?

Depends on her breeding and physical type.

I think that there are lots of sound horses out there, thousands and thousands. However, most are SLOW.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Very, very naive.

All it takes is one big syndication deal ... and the trainer's share is enough to fix him up for life.

Sure it's nice to train winners of $1,000,000 and make $100,000 ... but it's a lot of hard work and you certainly can't be financially secure from it.

But get that $40,000,000 syndication deal ... and you make a few million in one swoop ... the equivalent of 25 years of toiling in the salt mines.

That's the main objective of today's trainers of G1-level horses ... win that one big one ... and start the negotiations.

What in the world are you talking about? When are there $40 million syndication deals? In the current decade(2000-2006), I think there was only one horse syndicated for more than $20 million. Smarty Jones was synidcated for something in the neighborhood of $40-50 million. I don't think there was one other horse that was even above $20 million. Even a BC Classic winner like Saint Liam only was sydicated for about $8 million. I don't think that trainers normally get more than 1-2 shares. I can check on this, but even if you are right and Dutrow got 4 shares in Saint Liam, that means the deal would have been worth around $300,000 for Dutrow. He made that in one day when the horse won the BC Classic. He would have been much better off if the horse kept running.

It's a 100,000-1 shot to get a horse that's worth $40 million. You act like it's a regular occurence. I think there's only been 1 in the last 10 years.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I wouldn't suggest this is the only reason, by any stretch of the imagination, but isn't there some concern that one reason many of these horses have such well spaced campaigns is often the recovery time from whatever medication they may be using is substantial?

I think the lasix alone knocks them out. It just completely dehydrates them. I would think the lasix alone probably makes it so it takes a few more days to recover, especially if it's a very hot day.

[Danzig]

hope you guys are wearing your sunday best, this thread is on equidaily......



>>> Internet racing fans debate modern techniques in forum thread titled: "Spaced" Races And "Fresh" Horses Are Killing The Sport


whatdya know!

[Rupert Pupkin]

By the way, even if horses had no value for breeding they would still be handled pretty much the same way. Look at horse like The Tin Man. He's a gelding so he has can't be bred. Do you seem him running every 3 weeks? Of course not. Even with a gelding like him, the connections will get the most money out him by spacing his races properly and only running in the big races. That's the best way to make the most money. By spacing his races properly, he is always relatively fresh and he always fires. Do you guys think he would be winning race after race if they ran him every 3 weeks? If you do, then you have a lot to learn.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

What in the world are you talking about? When are there $40 million syndication deals? In the current decade(2000-2006), I think there was only one horse syndicated for more than $20 million. Smarty Jones was synidcated for something in the neighborhood of $40-50 million. I don't think there was one other horse that was even above $20 million. Even a BC Classic winner like Saint Liam only was sydicated for about $8 million. I don't think that trainers normally get more than 1-2 shares. I can check on this, but even if you are right and Dutrow got 4 shares in Saint Liam, that means the deal would have been worth around $300,000 for Dutrow. He made that in one day when the horse won the BC Classic. He would have been much better off if the horse kept running.

It's a 100,000-1 shot to get a horse that's worth $40 million. You act like it's a regular occurence. I think there's only been 1 in the last 10 years.

They syndicated Fusaichi Pegasus for over 60 million in 2000

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

They syndicated Fusaichi Pegasus for over 60 million in 2000

Yes, you are right. I was thinking that was back in the 1990s. It was in fact in 2000. Alright so there have been two horses then, not one.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, you are right. I was thinking that was back in the 1990s. It was in fact in 2000. Alright so there have been two horses then, not one.

Yeah, but...

That is kind of deceiving dont you think? If Empire Makerr would have been syndicated, how much would his deal have been? How about Minehsaft? How about Giants Causeway? How about Ghostzapper?

The reason there arent more mega-syndication deals is because it is a rarity to see a little guy own a blue blooded champion.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

None of those trainers were involved with Alysheba, et al, nor were they examples of products of current training regimes. Not to put words in his mouth, but I pretty sure BB doesn't doubt that horses can be good at 2, 3 and 4 - the question is whether the current infatuation with racing horses as infrequently as possible has a track record of producing horses that can.

I ran a query and got the names of the horses who have won or placed at the G1 level at 2, 3 and 4 who were born over the last 10 years (picked arbitrarily to reflect a trend that is very recent). It's not a very long list and it's not full of horses who seemingly fit the "sparing" model of a couple of starts at 2 and distantly spaced, handful of starts thereafter. Perhaps you would have in mind a different set of criteria and if you do, I can run queries like that until the proverbial cows come home.

I brought up older data, in this case from the early 1960s, because it is pertinent, as much as you'd like to think otherwise. Apologists for the current situation are very fond of going on about how different everything is now, as if racing before last Tuesday might as well have been heat racing contested by offspring of Lexington out of Glencoe mares. Of course it's different - it's different because of accumulated changes in practice. We are merely seeing the latest development of four decades of unhealthy trends toward big money for bloodstock and reduced racing of horses. Do you think the horses you're betting on are the first-generation descendants of horses placed on this planet by aliens? No, they're the second, third and fourth generation descendants of horses of the 1960s who were perfectly capable of doing the things that BB and I are talking about. Despite the best efforts to breed horses that should be culled, a good number of today's horses could also do these things if they had been prepared properly to do them. The reason that they cannot is in large part because preparation, training and racing of horses has changed, not because the horses have changed. In 40 years, there has not been massive genetic drift from "horses that can" to "horses that can't." It doesn't happen that way.

The same physics that applied to thoroughbred racehorses of the 1960s apply to thoroughbred racehorses of 2006. If racing were inherently destructive, then it would've been just as destructive to those foals of the late 1950s as it is now. Why wasn't it? That's the question. There was nothing magical about those horses that made them impervious to injury, there was just a combination of factors that made them better able to withstand the job of being a racehorse.

Not all of those factors can be laid at the feet of training practices. As I said in an early post on this thread, perhaps those foals bred by breeder/owners left to play at pasture instead of stalled arrived at the track with stronger legs. Maybe the tracks were softer. There are different drugs in play today, but don't forget that bute was legal in some jurisdictions when the horses on those lists were running, and in those days, drug testing wasn't nearly as able to detect violations with the drugs that were available.

However, there are conspicuous differences in the way that well-intended horses were trained and raced and it is reasonable to investigate which, if any, of those changes are correlated to longer, more successful, more injury-free careers. To my eyes, these are glaring changes, and there are experimentally determined facts about horses which call into question the wisdom of some of these changes.

Your math is a little bit off. There are many horses being born right now that are 6th generation descendants of horses that were retired as recently as 1980. Many of the great horses retire after their 3 year old year. That means they begin standing at stud when they are 4 years old. That means that a horse who retired in 1980 may have some great, great, great, great grandchildren being born right now. When you have many horses breeding by the age of 4, that means that you have new generations every 5 years. Huge changes can take place over 40 years. Right now you have some horses being born that are 8 generations later from the horses of 40 years ago. It's not surprising that things are different now. There can be huge changes over 8 generations.

How old is the average human when they beging having kids, maybe 25? That's 6x as long of most stallions who beging at 4 . When you look at horses from 40 years ago, that's like looking at humans from 240 years ago. There have been huge changes when you go back 10 generations like that. I think they said the average height of the guys on the Mayflower was about 5"4.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Yeah, but...

That is kind of deceiving dont you think? If Empire Makerr would have been syndicated, how much would his deal have been? How about Minehsaft? How about Giants Causeway? How about Ghostzapper?

The reason there arent more mega-syndication deals is because it is a rarity to see a little guy own a blue blooded champion.

Yes, I guess that's true. I forgot about some of those horses. But still, there aren't many horses that are worth $30 or $40 million for breeding when they retire. I was thinking we get 1 every 10 years. Maybe we get 4-5 every 10 years. The point is there aren't a lot of them. BB was acting like there are plenty of horses that are worth $40 million when they retire. In reality, there are very few. Even a great horse like Saint Liam who won the BC classic was only worth about $8 million. Pleasantly Perfect won the Dubai World Cup and the BC Classic. I think his deal was only worth about $10 million. A trainer is only going to make about $100,000-$300,000 on a deal like that. The trainer would make much more if the horse kept running. The trainers aren't anxious to retire the horses.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You are right. I agree with your quote, "The fact that so many horses are too unsound to train or run indicates a problem." I agree with you 100%. I don't know what the problem is either. I don't know if it's the breed or the track surfaces or what. But I do know that there aren't very many sound horses out there. Many of these horses were horses who were trained really hard early in their two year old year at the two year old sales. So you can't say that they are unsound because of a lack of activity as a 2 year old.

.

Prepping a horse for a 2 year old sale and racing it as a 2 year old not only has a different goal, but a different approach. I don't think you can use the one to discredit the other.

[Phalaris1913]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Your math is a little bit off. There are many horses being born right now that are 6th generation descendants of horses that were retired as recently as 1980. Many of the great horses retire after their 3 year old year. That means they begin standing at stud when they are 4 years old. That means that a horse who retired in 1980 may have some great, great, great, great grandchildren being born right now. When you have many horses breeding by the age of 4, that means that you have new generations every 5 years. Huge changes can take place over 40 years. Right now you have some horses being born that are 8 generations later from the horses of 40 years ago. It's not surprising that things are different now. There can be huge changes over 8 generations.

How old is the average human when they beging having kids, maybe 25? That's 6x as long of most stallions who beging at 4 . When you look at horses from 40 years ago, that's like looking at humans from 240 years ago. There have been huge changes when you go back 10 generations like that. I think they said the average height of the guys on the Mayflower was about 5"4.

While thoroughbreds can and do have foals on the ground at age 5, it would be incorrect to imply that all, or even most, foals are the products of such youthful parents. In truth, at present, the average age of a thoroughbred's parents when he is born is about 11-12 years.

Of the thoroughbred foals of 2000 who raced at least once by 2005, on average, their sires were born in 1988 and their dams in 1990. On average, their sire's sires were born in 1977 and their dam's sires in 1978. I lose a small percentage of horses going back to the third generation, but on average, the sire's grandsires were born in 1966 and the damsire's sires were born in 1967. That's three generations. In fact, among foals of 2000, more than 10 percent of them have sire's sires and dam's sires - 2nd generation sires - born in the 1960s. That's not even considering the percentage of these horses whose 2nd generation dams were born in the 1960s.

You're making an assumption that because there can be a five-year span from birth of a horse to birth of his or her offsping that this is a norm, representing the majority of thoroughbred births, generation after generation. That's simply not true. There are not many prominent examples, at least in the sire-son relationships that necessarily account for the most resulting offspring, of several successive five- or six-year generations. I welcome you to produce a significant number of horses - enough to be worth a few percentage points in foal crops of 30,000+ - who are sixth-generation descendants of horses retired in 1980.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

None of those trainers were involved with Alysheba, et al, nor were they examples of products of current training regimes. Not to put words in his mouth, but I pretty sure BB doesn't doubt that horses can be good at 2, 3 and 4 - the question is whether the current infatuation with racing horses as infrequently as possible has a track record of producing horses that can.

I ran a query and got the names of the horses who have won or placed at the G1 level at 2, 3 and 4 who were born over the last 10 years (picked arbitrarily to reflect a trend that is very recent). It's not a very long list and it's not full of horses who seemingly fit the "sparing" model of a couple of starts at 2 and distantly spaced, handful of starts thereafter. Perhaps you would have in mind a different set of criteria and if you do, I can run queries like that until the proverbial cows come home.

I brought up older data, in this case from the early 1960s, because it is pertinent, as much as you'd like to think otherwise. Apologists for the current situation are very fond of going on about how different everything is now, as if racing before last Tuesday might as well have been heat racing contested by offspring of Lexington out of Glencoe mares. Of course it's different - it's different because of accumulated changes in practice. We are merely seeing the latest development of four decades of unhealthy trends toward big money for bloodstock and reduced racing of horses. Do you think the horses you're betting on are the first-generation descendants of horses placed on this planet by aliens? No, they're the second, third and fourth generation descendants of horses of the 1960s who were perfectly capable of doing the things that BB and I are talking about. Despite the best efforts to breed horses that should be culled, a good number of today's horses could also do these things if they had been prepared properly to do them. The reason that they cannot is in large part because preparation, training and racing of horses has changed, not because the horses have changed. In 40 years, there has not been massive genetic drift from "horses that can" to "horses that can't." It doesn't happen that way.

The same physics that applied to thoroughbred racehorses of the 1960s apply to thoroughbred racehorses of 2006. If racing were inherently destructive, then it would've been just as destructive to those foals of the late 1950s as it is now. Why wasn't it? That's the question. There was nothing magical about those horses that made them impervious to injury, there was just a combination of factors that made them better able to withstand the job of being a racehorse.

Not all of those factors can be laid at the feet of training practices. As I said in an early post on this thread, perhaps those foals bred by breeder/owners left to play at pasture instead of stalled arrived at the track with stronger legs. Maybe the tracks were softer. There are different drugs in play today, but don't forget that bute was legal in some jurisdictions when the horses on those lists were running, and in those days, drug testing wasn't nearly as able to detect violations with the drugs that were available.

However, there are conspicuous differences in the way that well-intended horses were trained and raced and it is reasonable to investigate which, if any, of those changes are correlated to longer, more successful, more injury-free careers. To my eyes, these are glaring changes, and there are experimentally determined facts about horses which call into question the wisdom of some of these changes.

I agree with this in that I don't think the breed is getting weaker either like many people think. The same problems in Thoroughbred racing exists in other breed racing too, and believe me, the Quarter Horse breed is a very strong breed overall. I think it is a combination of some of the things that you said (well some of these things I know that you said and some of these things I don't know if you said)...running sore horses, poor management and training techniques, two-year old in training sales, medications, not having proper turnout time as a young horse to allow the bones to grow and develop properly (proven in a study that young horses do better mentally and physically if they are turned out most of the time than if they stay in their stalls most of the time), not having proper turn out time when stabled at the tracks, running horses with faulty conformation=breakdowns, misteps...etc., etc., I think two of the biggest culprits for unsoundnesses are track surfaces and medication though. I think trainers resorted to different methods of training because, in the changing times, the old methods were no longer working to keep horses sound and from breaking down. Also, while many trainers truly love the horses and what they do, some only see the horses as money machines and business.

As far as races being spaced far apart, I personally don't care when and where a horse runs as long as the trainer is doing a good job of managing the horse and as long as he is keeping the horse sound and from breaking down.

My final words before departing on my secret mission ...

• We can agree that just about all trainers want to win the Kentucky Derby ... and eagerly seek to find and prepare a colt for that objective. And yet ... look at the absolute joke that most recent Kentucky Derbies have been. At best there has been one ... and if we realy stretch it, two ... horses out of fields of 20 ... who were fit enough to make a decent effort there. In several years ... none ... not a single one ... was fit enough to go 10f on the first Saturday in May. Can you say Giacomo? And how did utter mediocrities like Funny Cide, War Emblem, and Charismatic get into a position to win the Triple Crown? Where were all their superbly-conditioned opponents? What does this say about today's training methods?

• In any case ... the subject of this thread was how "spaced" races are killing the sport at the G1 level. And that, my friends, is undeniable. Here we all are waiting, and waiting, and waiting for something intersting to happen ... and this in fact is a rare year when there are several exceptionally talented colts and horses in training. Bernardini may well be the best colt since Spectacular Bid ... but go down to your local mall and ask ten people at random who Bernardini is.

Whether or not "spacing" is a good or bad way to condition race horses ... and I think the evidence is overwhelming that it's bad ... very bad ... it's affect on building a future fan base is undeniable ...

... it's a disaster.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

While thoroughbreds can and do have foals on the ground at age 5, it would be incorrect to imply that all, or even most, foals are the products of such youthful parents. In truth, at present, the average age of a thoroughbred's parents when he is born is about 11-12 years.

Of the thoroughbred foals of 2000 who raced at least once by 2005, on average, their sires were born in 1988 and their dams in 1990. On average, their sire's sires were born in 1977 and their dam's sires in 1978. I lose a small percentage of horses going back to the third generation, but on average, the sire's grandsires were born in 1966 and the damsire's sires were born in 1967. That's three generations. In fact, among foals of 2000, more than 10 percent of them have sire's sires and dam's sires - 2nd generation sires - born in the 1960s. That's not even considering the percentage of these horses whose 2nd generation dams were born in the 1960s.

You're making an assumption that because there can be a five-year span from birth of a horse to birth of his or her offsping that this is a norm, representing the majority of thoroughbred births, generation after generation. That's simply not true. There are not many prominent examples, at least in the sire-son relationships that necessarily account for the most resulting offspring, of several successive five- or six-year generations. I welcome you to produce a significant number of horses - enough to be worth a few percentage points in foal crops of 30,000+ - who are sixth-generation descendants of horses retired in 1980.

I'm not saying that most horses current yearlings are 8th generation descendants from 40 years ago. I'm just saying that some of them are. If a sire even has 1 stakes horse from his first crop that stands at stud, and then this horse has 1 stakes horse from his first crop that stans at stand, and so on, then you would have 8th generation descendants as soon as 40 years later. This may not be the norm, but every decent stallion will produce plenty of stakes horses that will stand at stud, and many of thse horses will be produced in the stallion's first few years standing, so there will be some new generations created every 5 years and certainly a lot of generation turn over every 5-8 years.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

hope you guys are wearing your sunday best, this thread is on equidaily......

>>> Internet racing fans debate modern techniques in forum thread titled: "Spaced" Races And "Fresh" Horses Are Killing The Sport

whatdya know!

For good reason! This has been a very good thread, IMO. We have knowledgeable people on both sides of the argument, and for the most part, the exchange has been civil, notwithstanding an egregious "idiot" or two thrown in.

We have 2 facts that are difficult to reconcile.

Fact 1. Top horses 20 years ago ran more races/year and ran with less time between races than horses today.

Fact 2. Virtually all top trainers today prefer to run with more time between races.

Several explanations have been offered, but IMO no single explanation can explain the difference.

I suspect (but am by no means certain) that Rupert is correct that the top horses today do need more time between races than the top horses even 20 years ago. But even if Rupert is correct, the question remains, why?

Can the breed have changed so much in 20 years? I don't think so. Rupert points out that you COULD have a new generation every 5 years. But you also have stallions producing offspring well into their teens and even longer. I'd estimate the average generation at 8-10 years. And I don't think you can make a big enough change in the genetic make-up of a species in 2-3 generations to account for the kind of shift we have seen in performance expectation. Still, natural selection (for faster, more fragile horses) and in-breeding could explain some part of the shift in racing frequency.

Phalaris suggests that much of the reason that horses today are more fragile is that they are handled incorrectly as 2-yr-olds. I suspect (but am by no means certain!) that Phalaris, too, is correct. Phalaris has compelling data to back up his/her arguments. Rupert, either here or in another thread, has astutely pointed out that part of the reason that well-run 2-yr-olds last longer and run more races than lightly run 2-yr-olds could be due to an inherent statistical bias; namely, some horses run more as 2-yr-olds simply BECAUSE they are sounder in the first place. Therefore, it would make sense that these horses would also run more often as 3- and 4-yr-olds. Still, the idea of building a good foundation at an early developing age makes sense to me. And at a minimum, Phalaris’ data suggests that running horses frequently for relatively short distances as 2-yr-olds does not hurt their later prospects.

Cannon Shell and BTW have suggested that the ever-greater use of drugs has an effect on the ability of top horses to recover after a race. That, too, makes good sense to me.

I don’t buy the “blame it on the Breeder’s Cup”, “blame it on racing surfaces”, or “blame it on syndication deals”, arguments. These may have some significant influence on a few horses or a minute influence on many horses, but those factors don’t appear to explain what’s happened to the whole top echelon of racing in N. America.

While I accept (reluctantly) Rupert’s contention that contemporary horses need more time than horses racing just 20 years ago, I don’t think it necessarily follows that the scheduling now in favor is the optimal one. It may no longer be optimal to bring horses back on 2-3 weeks rest, but it may be as good or better to bring them back on 4 weeks rest than to let them sit out for 5-8 weeks. I expect that the spacing will continue to be adjusted in the future, just as it has been adjusted over the last half-century.

My own conclusion from what’s been written thus far in this thread is that the change in racing frequency is primarily due to a mix of 3 factors: genetic selection of more fragile horses, poorer conditioning of young horses, and increased use of medications. I don’t have much feel for how those 3 factors are weighted, but I think all 3 are significant.

Other reasonable people could certainly draw different conclusions. But given that the popularity of racing is at lease somewhat correlated to how much and for how long its stars race, it seems important to try to figure out if anything can be done to get them to safely run more often.

--Dunbar

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

My final words before departing on my secret mission ...

• We can agree that just about all trainers want to win the Kentucky Derby ... and eagerly seek to find and prepare a colt for that objective. And yet ... look at the absolute joke that most recent Kentucky Derbies have been. At best there has been one ... and if we realy stretch it, two ... horses out of fields of 20 ... who were fit enough to make a decent effort there. In several years ... none ... not a single one ... was fit enough to go 10f on the first Saturday in May. Can you say Giacomo? And how did utter mediocrities like Funny Cide, War Emblem, and Charismatic get into a position to win the Triple Crown? Where were all their superbly-conditioned opponents? What does this say about today's training methods?

• In any case ... the subject of this thread was how "spaced" races are killing the sport at the G1 level. And that, my friends, is undeniable. Here we all are waiting, and waiting, and waiting for something intersting to happen ... and this in fact is a rare year when there are several exceptionally talented colts and horses in training. Bernardini may well be the best colt since Spectacular Bid ... but go down to your local mall and ask ten people at random who Bernardini is.

Whether or not "spacing" is a good or bad way to condition race horses ... and I think the evidence is overwhelming that it's bad ... very bad ... it's affect on building a future fan base is undeniable ...

... it's a disaster.

Most horseplayers are much more excited about when a horse on their "watch list" is going to run, than when Bernardini is going to run. I'm not going to make any money betting on a 2-5 shot. It's nice to have fans like you but the sport doesn't make money from fans like you since you are not a bettor. The sport needs more bettors, not fans who don't bet.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

For good reason! This has been a very good thread, IMO. We have knowledgeable people on both sides of the argument, and for the most part, the exchange has been civil, notwithstanding an egregious "idiot" or two thrown in.

We have 2 facts that are difficult to reconcile.

Fact 1. Top horses 20 years ago ran more races/year and ran with less time between races than horses today.

Fact 2. Virtually all top trainers today prefer to run with more time between races.

Several explanations have been offered, but IMO no single explanation can explain the difference.

I suspect (but am by no means certain) that Rupert is correct that the top horses today do need more time between races than the top horses even 20 years ago. But even if Rupert is correct, the question remains, why?

Can the breed have changed so much in 20 years? I don't think so. Rupert points out that you COULD have a new generation every 5 years. But you also have stallions producing offspring well into their teens and even longer. I'd estimate the average generation at 8-10 years. And I don't think you can make a big enough change in the genetic make-up of a species in 2-3 generations to account for the kind of shift we have seen in performance expectation. Still, natural selection (for faster, more fragile horses) and in-breeding could explain some part of the shift in racing frequency.

Phalaris suggests that much of the reason that horses today are more fragile is that they are handled incorrectly as 2-yr-olds. I suspect (but am by no means certain!) that Phalaris, too, is correct. Phalaris has compelling data to back up his/her arguments. Rupert, either here or in another thread, has astutely pointed out that part of the reason that well-run 2-yr-olds last longer and run more races than lightly run 2-yr-olds could be due to an inherent statistical bias; namely, some horses run more as 2-yr-olds simply BECAUSE they are sounder in the first place. Therefore, it would make sense that these horses would also run more often as 3- and 4-yr-olds. Still, the idea of building a good foundation at an early developing age makes sense to me. And at a minimum, Phalaris’ data suggests that running horses frequently for relatively short distances as 2-yr-olds does not hurt their later prospects.

Cannon Shell and BTW have suggested that the ever-greater use of drugs has an effect on the ability of top horses to recover after a race. That, too, makes good sense to me.

I don’t buy the “blame it on the Breeder’s Cup”, “blame it on racing surfaces”, or “blame it on syndication deals”, arguments. These may have some significant influence on a few horses or a minute influence on many horses, but those factors don’t appear to explain what’s happened to the whole top echelon of racing in N. America.

While I accept (reluctantly) Rupert’s contention that contemporary horses need more time than horses racing just 20 years ago, I don’t think it necessarily follows that the scheduling now in favor is the optimal one. It may no longer be optimal to bring horses back on 2-3 weeks rest, but it may be as good or better to bring them back on 4 weeks rest than to let them sit out for 5-8 weeks. I expect that the spacing will continue to be adjusted in the future, just as it has been adjusted over the last half-century.

My own conclusion from what’s been written thus far in this thread is that the change in racing frequency is primarily due to a mix of 3 factors: genetic selection of more fragile horses, poorer conditioning of young horses, and increased use of medications. I don’t have much feel for how those 3 factors are weighted, but I think all 3 are significant.

Other reasonable people could certainly draw different conclusions. But given that the popularity of racing is at lease somewhat correlated to how much and for how long its stars race, it seems important to try to figure out if anything can be done to get them to safely run more often.

--Dunbar

Phalaris said she had some evidence that 2 year olds that run often will have more races as older horses than their counterparts. That may be true with the average horse, but the average horse (when you count all the small tracks) is a $10,000 horse. As you pointed out, the obvious explanation for this is that horses who are sound at a young age are more likely to be sound as they get older.

But if you have a good horse and you want that horse to be around as a 3 and 4 year old, you don't want to run that horse a bunch of times as a 2 year old. If you look at the field in any good handicap race, you will rarely see horses that ran 9-10 times as a 2 year old.

I think you need to use the same logic that we use in saying that we know that if you want to win the Ky Derby, you don't want to enter the race with 2-3 lifetime races. Those horses are not successful in the Ky Derby. By the same token, horses who run 9-10 times as 2 year olds are rarely successful in the handicap division.