If we cut off drugs as Andrew Beyer says, we would have to cut down number of racing days by quite a bit to have enough horses to fill the races scheduled. This would have to go on till the sires that are around prove they can turn out sound horses. Studs that couldn't turn out horses that could race without drugs would lose patronage. Horses that started their racing careers without drugs and could compete at the top level for an extended time would be our sires of the future and after a number of years we would see thoroughbreds with stronger legs that could stand the riggers of racing.
Without doing this we will continue to have horses racing that don't have legs with enough bone to stand up to racing for extended periods without breaking down. The more breakdowns and tragidies the less popular the sport will be in this country.
One other way to produce sound horses is for the large farms with big money to buy top studs from countries that don't allow drugs like we do here in the states. A combination of stopping drugs here in the USA and importing top quality sires from non drug countries is about the fastest way to get our animals back where they should be.
We need the leaders in our industry to listen to us and make these hard decisions to turn things around for a bright future. We then wouldn't have to have synthetic and dirt tracks that are complicating the whole problem.
What if we cut off drugs?
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
What if we cut off drugs?
Charles Heath
The whole US system breeding, nurturing (raising young horses), the time tabled 2 yr old breeze up sales, the bullet works 2 times a week (madness)
The last mentioned cost very much horse flesh and in dooiing so it requires steroids and hefty medications what leads to much more difficulties.
The last derby winner Big Brown was administrated for steroids 1 a month
according his trainer. and what else more. I suppose bute and lasix fits the other part of the bill.
A complete re organisation from the breed raising and racing.
There is no way out in time because the public ( the costumers) are interfering.
The last mentioned cost very much horse flesh and in dooiing so it requires steroids and hefty medications what leads to much more difficulties.
The last derby winner Big Brown was administrated for steroids 1 a month
according his trainer. and what else more. I suppose bute and lasix fits the other part of the bill.
A complete re organisation from the breed raising and racing.
There is no way out in time because the public ( the costumers) are interfering.
In this context I found the following quote interesting:
“I saw very, very few breakdowns in Dubai, and there was only
one fatality other than heart attacks that I saw. I feel the reason
for so few is because there is no medication. When you give a
horse [Butazolidin], it takes away inflammation and reduces pain.
If you don’t give a horse Bute, he’ll feel the pain and the trainer
will notice the inflammation and the heat and not race him.”
-Kevin Greely in the Chicago Tribune. Greely worked as racing
secretary of the Emirates Racing Association before becoming Arlington
Park’s director of racing and racing secretary in 2005
Anyone know if this observation of Dubai having very few breakdowns and fatal breakdowns has been confirmed and/or made by other people familar with racing in Dubai?
-llbean
“I saw very, very few breakdowns in Dubai, and there was only
one fatality other than heart attacks that I saw. I feel the reason
for so few is because there is no medication. When you give a
horse [Butazolidin], it takes away inflammation and reduces pain.
If you don’t give a horse Bute, he’ll feel the pain and the trainer
will notice the inflammation and the heat and not race him.”
-Kevin Greely in the Chicago Tribune. Greely worked as racing
secretary of the Emirates Racing Association before becoming Arlington
Park’s director of racing and racing secretary in 2005
Anyone know if this observation of Dubai having very few breakdowns and fatal breakdowns has been confirmed and/or made by other people familar with racing in Dubai?
-llbean
"What happened is merely a sample of what might have happened, weighted by probability."
http://www.venturageoscore.com/
http://www.venturageoscore.com/
The three most successful sires in the world, Danehill, Sadlers Wells and Sunday Silence were bred in the U.S., why people continue to say that breeding is responsible for the state of the thoroughbred and racing is beyond me. Drugs, training methods and the possibility of a quick return are the reasons for the decline in number of starts per year and early retirements. Do away with race day medications and the training methods will change for the good.
DDT
DDT
Perception is quite often very different from reality.
All this talk about loss of bone in the breed, can ANYONE prove that statement or is it going to be another 'shoot from the hip' belief that becomes fact through repetition? Has anyone done a comprehensive bone density study?
When was the last time you (collectively speaking since most people can't tell the difference between a collective "you" and a specific "you") saw a sales yearling that looked like a yearling? Were the time taken, I'm willing to bet there's been no substantial decrease in bone density or strength but the appearance of smaller bones has taken off because of the increase in "hot-housed" yearlings and 2yos pumped full of steroids.
STOP BLAMING THE GENETICS. Unless you are a genetic scientist, I seriously doubt ANYONE here has the background to be making those statements. It's incredibly stupid to continue to claim the breed is unsound (all the while neglecting to even define the word) when steeplechasers come from the very same gene pool.
How about we stop trying to take the blame off the humans? How about humans take more responsibility for the conditions of the horses they manage? I'm not saying drugs don't need to be more rigorously controlled, but damnit, stop acting like it's the ONLY thing wrong with the industry.
How about the fact that there is no consistency from one dirt track to another? That some are highways of death because they are packed down to concrete. How about investigating some of the practices of so-called trainers who will knowingly run a sore horse?
And really, get off the idea that the decrease in starts has to do with unsoundness because it blatantly ignores all the other factors that go into why it is no longer fiscally responsible to keep a horse in training who hasn't placed in 25 starts or why a horse like Curlin will never again run more than 8 races a year because every race he runs is a race he could lose -- thereby losing tens of thousands in potential stud fees.
Purses in the US are now higher than they ever were. 30 years ago, it took 15 races to make what some horses can make in 2 now. Why burn your horse out on multiple starts? If you have the G1 horse (or even a state-bred stake horse like Pepper's Pride), it's wiser to cherry-pick the starts for maximum ROI. That means run less for more money.
All this talk about loss of bone in the breed, can ANYONE prove that statement or is it going to be another 'shoot from the hip' belief that becomes fact through repetition? Has anyone done a comprehensive bone density study?
When was the last time you (collectively speaking since most people can't tell the difference between a collective "you" and a specific "you") saw a sales yearling that looked like a yearling? Were the time taken, I'm willing to bet there's been no substantial decrease in bone density or strength but the appearance of smaller bones has taken off because of the increase in "hot-housed" yearlings and 2yos pumped full of steroids.
STOP BLAMING THE GENETICS. Unless you are a genetic scientist, I seriously doubt ANYONE here has the background to be making those statements. It's incredibly stupid to continue to claim the breed is unsound (all the while neglecting to even define the word) when steeplechasers come from the very same gene pool.
How about we stop trying to take the blame off the humans? How about humans take more responsibility for the conditions of the horses they manage? I'm not saying drugs don't need to be more rigorously controlled, but damnit, stop acting like it's the ONLY thing wrong with the industry.
How about the fact that there is no consistency from one dirt track to another? That some are highways of death because they are packed down to concrete. How about investigating some of the practices of so-called trainers who will knowingly run a sore horse?
And really, get off the idea that the decrease in starts has to do with unsoundness because it blatantly ignores all the other factors that go into why it is no longer fiscally responsible to keep a horse in training who hasn't placed in 25 starts or why a horse like Curlin will never again run more than 8 races a year because every race he runs is a race he could lose -- thereby losing tens of thousands in potential stud fees.
Purses in the US are now higher than they ever were. 30 years ago, it took 15 races to make what some horses can make in 2 now. Why burn your horse out on multiple starts? If you have the G1 horse (or even a state-bred stake horse like Pepper's Pride), it's wiser to cherry-pick the starts for maximum ROI. That means run less for more money.
Heredity must be part of the problem. If heredity did not matter then all sires would have equally well made hard boned offspring with correct conformation or they would all throw offspring with offset knees like Storm Cat's or straight shoulders,straight pasterns,crooked legs,etc. The gene pool is not the same as a swimming pool where everything is mixed together. Each individual horse has his or her own genetic makeup which is at least slightly different from other horses. A soundly made horse is called "correct" by some people. A totally correct horse does not have any conformation faults or any hereditary defects that would cause him to go lame,bleed,roar,etc. My soundness lists show that there is a wide difference between sires in the number of lifetime starts per runner even when they are standing in the same state and some of them are considered to be commercial. Seattle Slew sons A P Indy and Slew City Slew are very different in lifetime starts per runner. A P Indy's average 12 while Slew City Slew's average 21. They do not share the same genetic makeup even with the same sire. Heredity matters as it always has and breeding for soundness means trying to produce offspring that will have excellent conformation,strong bones,and everything that helps a horse to have a long and useful life and hopefully a happy one also. My stallion who is a SW of over $228K had 53 starts all of them on Lasix. I do not know if he was given any other drugs. His sire's offspring average 23 starts and his dam's offspring average more than that. He inherited soundness from both his sire and his dam.
DDT wrote:The three most successful sires in the world, Danehill, Sadlers Wells and Sunday Silence were bred in the U.S., why people continue to say that breeding is responsible for the state of the thoroughbred and racing is beyond me. Drugs, training methods and the possibility of a quick return are the reasons for the decline in number of starts per year and early retirements. Do away with race day medications and the training methods will change for the good.
DDT
Agreed. The breeding issue is one thing, because of the focus on speed favoring sires that throw "precocious" get. When in hell did thoroughbreds become quarterhorses? But also do away with too many long concurrent meets in neighboring jurisdictions. It's the backside mentality driving this bus...too many racing days, too few horses, too much need to "get a horse back quickly" in order to fill cards. Imagine if racing were actually special again, an event or destination, because it became more scarce as a live 'thing'?
There is a lot of talk about racehorses being unsound but very little data to support that opinion. In my part of NA, as through much of western NA, we have chuckwagon racing. The chucks regularly come through the backstretch buying big strong geldings that are too unsound to race. They give these horses some time off and some proper care, train them to harness, and then race them every day of a chuckwagon meet (usually 4 or 5 days but in the case of the Calgary Stampede 10 straight days). They don't even need drugs to keep these horses sound because the trainer/driver is putting his own life on the line if one of these 'unsound' horses breaks down during a race; he's darn sure there is nothing wrong with the horse before it goes to the track. Suddenly all those unsound genes become recessive again I guess.
Too many trainers on the track give their horses 'blanket' drug treatments because they don't want to take the time, or lack the skill to identify what is bothering the horse. If a horse isn't travelling quite right, call the vet and cortisone all the joints, then send him out for a work or a race in a couple of days; no point making a diagnosis that might result in a short layup. If the horse breaks down, no big deal, there's plenty more where it came from, and plenty more money from the owner to buy the new and hopefully better one.
If you get rid of the crutches you will quickly find out which trainers are horsemen and which are pharmacists. When the pharmacists can't make a living anymore they open up spaces for real horsemen, who have trained in equestrian events that follow international drug protocols, to move over to flat racing. Keeping an elite jumper sound without the aid of drugs takes real skill, and those people who have trained in that arena would enjoy great success in a drug free racing world. JMHO (Not my most articulate post, but I'm tired, it's been a long day)
Too many trainers on the track give their horses 'blanket' drug treatments because they don't want to take the time, or lack the skill to identify what is bothering the horse. If a horse isn't travelling quite right, call the vet and cortisone all the joints, then send him out for a work or a race in a couple of days; no point making a diagnosis that might result in a short layup. If the horse breaks down, no big deal, there's plenty more where it came from, and plenty more money from the owner to buy the new and hopefully better one.
If you get rid of the crutches you will quickly find out which trainers are horsemen and which are pharmacists. When the pharmacists can't make a living anymore they open up spaces for real horsemen, who have trained in equestrian events that follow international drug protocols, to move over to flat racing. Keeping an elite jumper sound without the aid of drugs takes real skill, and those people who have trained in that arena would enjoy great success in a drug free racing world. JMHO (Not my most articulate post, but I'm tired, it's been a long day)
Yes chuckwagon horses do run 10 days in a row but the key is no weight on their backs the same as Standardbreds who make up to 50 starts a year. horses were not meant to carry the weight on their backs way back in evelution. I have seen bowed on both front chuckwagon horses run sound into their 20's but they could noit have been raced that long.
Then how do you explain steeplechasers, hunters and timber horses (many of whom are former flat racehorses), who routinely carry 155 - 185 pounds going 2-3 miles?
It's not the impost weight; it's the SPEED they're being asked to run with it.
Thoroughbreds are supposed to be able to rate "brilliance" over a distance of ground. It's inherent in their DNA.
The cycle starts with the stupidity of two year old in training sales and frenzied single furlong breezes. How does scooting an 1/8th of a mile translate to being able to run classic distances a year later? It doesn't.
It's not the impost weight; it's the SPEED they're being asked to run with it.
Thoroughbreds are supposed to be able to rate "brilliance" over a distance of ground. It's inherent in their DNA.
The cycle starts with the stupidity of two year old in training sales and frenzied single furlong breezes. How does scooting an 1/8th of a mile translate to being able to run classic distances a year later? It doesn't.
Soundfast
Nobody is saying that heredity has nothing to do with it, what I am saying is that training methods and the availability of large purses contirbute more to declining average starts per horse than breeding. Most experts agree that the ratio going to performance is 25% genetic and 75% environment. We could even assume that it is 50/50, but preformance is certainly not overly influenced by genes. Performance wise, Slew City Slew was no A.P. Indy, and when you consider the fact that the majority of runners sired by Slew City Slew are bred by breeders who breed to race, comparing his average lifetime starts to that of A.P. Indy, at least in my opinion, has little to do with soundness or the lack of it. A $5,000.00 stud fee does not equate to a $1,000,000.00 yearling. Breeders who breed to race can and do exercise patience and if racing is the only means of generating income, they will race as long as the horse can perform. On the other hand, a $300,000.00 stud fee dictates a very different set of circumstances as to how to profit from that investment.
DDT
Nobody is saying that heredity has nothing to do with it, what I am saying is that training methods and the availability of large purses contirbute more to declining average starts per horse than breeding. Most experts agree that the ratio going to performance is 25% genetic and 75% environment. We could even assume that it is 50/50, but preformance is certainly not overly influenced by genes. Performance wise, Slew City Slew was no A.P. Indy, and when you consider the fact that the majority of runners sired by Slew City Slew are bred by breeders who breed to race, comparing his average lifetime starts to that of A.P. Indy, at least in my opinion, has little to do with soundness or the lack of it. A $5,000.00 stud fee does not equate to a $1,000,000.00 yearling. Breeders who breed to race can and do exercise patience and if racing is the only means of generating income, they will race as long as the horse can perform. On the other hand, a $300,000.00 stud fee dictates a very different set of circumstances as to how to profit from that investment.
DDT
Both Slew City Slew and A P Indy were Grade 1 Stakes Winners. A P Indy had only 11 starts. Slew City Slew had 42 starts. Slew City Slew has owners who are not super greedy people unconcerned with anything but their own profit. He sired the great Lava Man,Win City (Horse Of The Year in Canda), G1 Sis City + many other graded Stakes Winners. He is a better sire and deserves the better mares. There are many people who are being suckered into breeding to or buying offspring of stallions who are producing inferior offspring especially compared to their stud fees. A P Indy's offspring average $140K while his stud fee is $300K. Slew City Slew was not inferior as a race horse and is not inferior as a stallion either. He is a sounder horse who produces sounder horses. P. T. Barnum supposedly said there is a sucker born every minute and if he were alive he would say they breed to the stallions with the high stud fees or buy their offspring at ridiculous prices. The most ridiculous being The Green Monkey whose sire Forestry's offspring average only 9 starts. The Green Monkey cost $16M had 3 starts and could not win even once. There is no way they are likely to ever turn a profit.
Soundfast
I am not going to argue with you concerning who was the better race horse or who is the better sire, and I agree that breeders and buyers make some really stupid moves, but I disagree with you on your statement that Slew City Slew stands for a low fee because his owners are not greedy, his fee is determined by his production record and the demand for his services. Lava Man may well indeed be considered great by you and others, to me he is a California horse with very limited success out of state, he also is blessed with a trainer that knows a little something about placing his horse where it can do the best.
You can continue to believe that breeding is the reason for the decline in averge starts per horse, breakdowns and unsoundness and I can continue to believe that training methods and drugs are the main reasons.
DDT
I am not going to argue with you concerning who was the better race horse or who is the better sire, and I agree that breeders and buyers make some really stupid moves, but I disagree with you on your statement that Slew City Slew stands for a low fee because his owners are not greedy, his fee is determined by his production record and the demand for his services. Lava Man may well indeed be considered great by you and others, to me he is a California horse with very limited success out of state, he also is blessed with a trainer that knows a little something about placing his horse where it can do the best.
You can continue to believe that breeding is the reason for the decline in averge starts per horse, breakdowns and unsoundness and I can continue to believe that training methods and drugs are the main reasons.
DDT
Soundfast
On second thought I will take issue with who is the better sire, A.P. Indy or Slew City Slew. A.P. Indy is far and away the better sire in leading sire by earnings, he led the list twice, 2003 and 2006, Slew City Slew has never led the list, number and percent of stakes winners, 110 at about 13% for A.P. Indy, 41 at 6% for Slew City Slew, in 2007 alone, 18 A.P. Indy runners won stakes while only 5 for Slew City Slew. The only statistic that Slew City Slew leads in is average number of starts, and as I said before, the primary reason for this is the majority of breeders using Slew City Slew are breeders who breed to race. I would point out and agree that A.P. Indy has had much better mares, but that alone cannot bridge the gap between them and the AEI for each indicates that A.P. Indy is at least twice the sire as Slew City Slew.
DDT
On second thought I will take issue with who is the better sire, A.P. Indy or Slew City Slew. A.P. Indy is far and away the better sire in leading sire by earnings, he led the list twice, 2003 and 2006, Slew City Slew has never led the list, number and percent of stakes winners, 110 at about 13% for A.P. Indy, 41 at 6% for Slew City Slew, in 2007 alone, 18 A.P. Indy runners won stakes while only 5 for Slew City Slew. The only statistic that Slew City Slew leads in is average number of starts, and as I said before, the primary reason for this is the majority of breeders using Slew City Slew are breeders who breed to race. I would point out and agree that A.P. Indy has had much better mares, but that alone cannot bridge the gap between them and the AEI for each indicates that A.P. Indy is at least twice the sire as Slew City Slew.
DDT