Size of Field and Starts Per Horse

[ratherrapid]

[quote="louis finochio"]If Sunny Jim Fitzsimmons was a pedigree man, he would have seen that Seabiscuit had a stamina pedigree, that reads a late maturing Individual. The older they get the better they get.

A loaded gun is dangerous in anybody's hands, trainer Jack VanBerg.[/quote

Oopps. not that. this. "The older they get, the better they get."

[Shammy Davis]

Sadly, this is another thread that Louis' fashion bred poor Phalaris theory has been introduced. Whirlaway states that no research evidence is available that proves that breeding for speed has caused a lower start ratio and that he is apparently "out of here" for lack of insightful conversation on the subject. Finally, not to my surprise, Ratherrapid apparently concurs.

As for Whirlaway's claim, there is published research. You have to dig for it, but it is available.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewc ... lscifacpub

Whirlaway's statement that Larry Bramlage believes breeding is at fault is not true, but the industry does believe that breeding for speed has consequences.

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/horse- ... 12-06.aspx

As for Louis' claim that Sunny Jim was a pedigree man, well, it is highly unlikely with the number of horses he trained for the likes of the Woodwards and the Phipps. He was given horses to train and it is unlikely that he had much involvement in the breeding or the pedigree analysis. I'm a firm believer in the statement that great trainers make great horses, not the other way around. Sunny Jim, despite Louis' imagination, had his hands full at the racing barn. Louis, in Sunny Jim's most successful years as a trainer, he couldn't lift his head enough to see beyond the toes of his shoes.

As for what Jack Van Berg may or may not think, Ratherrapid needs to do more research.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/horses/2 ... 9678_x.htm

There is a great deal to consider when looking at the problems facing the industry, particularly considering the obstacles faced by trainers and owners to keep horses running. Anyone who believes that Louis is on to something needs to get outside and take a deep breath. His narrow anecdotal view of the state of the Thoroughbred breed is as worthless as a penny flatened by a railroad train in Death Valley.

As I look over the JC fact sheets, it appears Louis may have fudged his numbers slightly. No surprise.

[Sysonby]

And no one addresses my list of actual horses racing in 2010 who have earned over $100,000, started at least 10 times and are all trained by a single trainer.

Update:

Lilly Fa Pootz (12 starts)
U R All That I Am (10 starts)--11th start this weekend
You Lift Me Up (10 starts)
Dakota Phone (10 starts)

not to mention

Dance To My Tune (9 starts)
City to City (8 starts)
Blind Luck (8 starts)

Here's some more trained by different people and the number of starts in 2010

Unusual Suspect --12 starts
Go Ask Alex--10 starts
Musical Romance-10 starts

The connection between all of these disparate horses (other than they are not cheap claimers): the trainers own all of some of most of them and therefore there is an incentive to race them.

[louis finochio]

The following tb are all FB that were unraced, all are by those Euro Stallions Danehill Dancer, Galileo, Rock of Gibraltar.

2003 Armory Lane by Galileo unraced---3 X 5 ND---4 X 5 RAN---3 X 4 Mr. P.---4 X 5 Gold Digger mare by Nashua---5 X 5 Native Dancer.

2003 All For One by Rock of Gibraltar---4 X 5 Nearctic---3 x 4 X 4 ND---5 X 5 Bold Ruler---4 x 5 X 5 X 5 Natalma.

2004 Beautiful Dancer by Danehill Dancer unraced---3 X 4 ND---4 X 5 X 5 Natalma---5 X 5 Native Dancer.

to continue.

[diomed]

Louis, can you please keep your male line only ramblings on the thread you created to do so? K? Thanks much in advance.

As to the current topic of this thread. Thanks Shammy for the links. Oh, and thanks for the other opinions here. It opens up a lively discussion.

[louis finochio]

I always ask those farriers to give me the names of those tb that are tough as nails, that dance every dance, and come back fresh for their training & races.

Two of those tbs are on Sysonby's list. City to city & Blind Luck, both are NFB. I have more names that the farriers will give me later. I will post them when the tbs come back to SA.

[Sysonby]

So louis you think it's by chance that Hollendorfer just happened to get all of these horses that can run start after start? These horses that are doing in 2010 what you say TBs can't do any more?

I didn't even include the numerous horses that have started many times this year but have earned less than $100,000 or were either claimed away from or by Hollendorfer for part of the year.

These are horses like

Light of a Star -- 12 starts
Yodelady O-- 12 starts
Lady Schnapps--11 starts
Taxi Fleet--13 starts
Foxy Bailey--11 starts
Only Top Money-11 starts
Form a Posse-11 starts
Anzisong-13 starts

and I could go on and on.

[louis finochio]

JH is an old school conformtion trainer, he will bid on those tb tht have robust conformation, thats means NFB, that have strength of bone. We can see how sound these NFB are by their 2010 starts. I am going thru your list u posted. I will post back what i find. All the Best Louis.

[Sysonby]

Just Hollendorfer?

Here are some Bill Morey horses (another trainer who owns a big chunk of what he races)

Trainspotting -- 12 starts (30 lifetime)
Phantom Ali --9 starts (39 lifetime)
For Sure For Sure--8 starts (22 lifetime)
Fire Break --11 starts (28 lifetime)
Sports Edition --12 starts (38 lifetime)

My point is that if all you look at is the stallion making going on in the top races, it will seem like TBs are china dolls. There are reasons for that beyond "soundness". But if you then look at where the real racing happens by horses who are owned in part by their trainers and whose value is tied to the purses that they pursue, suddenly it looks like 1978 all over again. Hollendorfer is unique because he's adapted this program to the highest levels. As one horseman I know remarked admiringly "Jerry is not afraid to run them."

Unfortunately plenty of top horsemen have gotten into the habit of not running their top horses to the detriment of the sport.

[Shammy Davis]

Louis wrote:

I always ask those farriers to give me the names of those tb that are tough as nails, that dance every dance, and come back fresh for their training & races.

Louis, what is this all about? What have you got in CA, a farrier to every stall. Since when is the farrier more up to date on racehorses than the trainers and grooms. You'll take information from anyone apparently. A good farrier keeps track of his/her horses, but you don't have be one to know that horse isn't right after a race. First lesson in horsemanship is "clean feed bucket" equals healthly horse.

Diomed is right. Take your masculine equine it's all Phalaris' fault mania back to your thread until you figure out what Parlo means when he says; "if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle."

[Whirlaway]

Shammy D,

I did read both articles.

The first article discusses "the tools available from animal breeding theory for the utilization of genetic variability within horse populations for genetic improvement. " I did not find any mention of "breeding for speed has caused a lower start ratio."

The second article discusses what may be a relationship between breeding for speed and infertility. "McCarthy believes the predominant cause of fertility problems in stallions (and mares) is that the trait they are selectively bred to achieve is speed, not fertility . . . So, occasionally, you'll get a horse that's a superior athlete but he's missing some of the qualities you'd like to see in terms of reproductive performance. When those two spheres collide, you get problems with reduced fertility." I did not find any mention of Dr. Bramlage.

The questions still exists: Why the decline in fields and starts per horse?

Taking a look at the Jockey Club Graph, what took place between 1960 and 1970 to begin the decline? Some think "it is the track, the trainers, the medications, the size of available purses and some breeding practices that are responsible." The racetrack today is in much better condition than prior the the beginning of the decline. I haven't seen the stats but aren't horses breaking down as frequently on the synthetic surface? Most trainers have the best interest of the horse in mind. What training practices would have started this decline? Why would you give medications to a horse? Is it because they are unsound to begin with? And according to the Jockey Club, the size of available purses has shown a trend line of steady increase with a slight decrease from 08' to 09'.

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

[kimberley mine]

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

No, you have NOT eliminated the impossible, nor the improbable. You haven't even acknowledged the elephant in the room. Nobody has, aside from Sysonby.

Here's a quick hop through Canter PA's website:

*"He's an owner/trainer homebred, so all the history comes with him. NO STARTS - he doesn't show the speed so owner says there's no point in racing him. "

*"His trainer is beyond in love with this horse, unfortunately she can not afford to keep him any longer and wants to find someone who will fuss over and adore him as much as she does."

*"An unraced model, she's not even tattooed. She's been with her current trainer for a year and has absolutely no issues at all; she's just not showing the speed to be competitive on the track. "

*"She was in training but really doesn't have the desire to be a racehorse, so rather than push her at something she does not want to do, the owner wants to find her a new career."

*"He is completely sound - he's a turf horse who is not competitive at Philadelphia Park and Penn National's turf is done for the year."

*"A very nice mover, we expect she’ll excel in ANY discipline! Unfortunately, she is not particularly speedy, so rather than put a lot of miles on this girl, her trainer decided it best to find her a more suitable career. "

*"Better One just isn't showing much promise and seems too quiet to run well .... Never raced, this girl has no issues other than a superficial bucked shin."

*"On top of that, this guy only has six starts, so next to no wear or tear; he’s just too slow to make racing a career. "

*"100% SOUND, her trainer has had this horse for two years and assures us she’s never had an issue; she’s just not competitive at Penn and he’d like to find her a more suitable career. "

So....slow, economic hardship, slow, mentally unsuited, slow, slow and mentally unsuited, slow, slow. I chose these from horses five and under, where the reason for retirement was given. Many times it was not.

If it is cost prohibitive to keep a horse in training, the horse who is not paying its bills (slow) will find a new career MUCH more quickly than the one who is winning enough money to offset the cost....either before the first start, or after only a few starts.

If it is cost prohibitive to buy or breed a racehorse, the horse who is not paying its bills will find a new career MUCH more quickly than the one who is winning enough money to stop the bleeding. I've met a million dollar yearling bred like royalty (and I mean ROYALTY, he was a Danehill for heaven's sake) who didn't even race because he was so slow, and was packing a 12-year-old around a pony club course.

Sysonby's point about Hollendorfer is bang-on...the trainer who has a direct economic incentive to run his horses more often runs his horses as often as is reasonable (e.g. when they are fit and healthy and have a really good chance of winning). If a trainer makes more money by keeping the horses in the barn, aka a strong financial incentive to NOT run, then horses won't run. Those horses will find new careers more quickly than horses who race and pay their bills.

So.....track back over the last five years. Cost of entry became very, very high (stud fees, sale prices, pinhooking) so the break-even point got a lot higher. Folks are cutting back on luxuries, of which keeping a race horse is one. Extraneous costs--fuel, anybody? hay a couple of years back?--got higher, pushing that break-even point even higher. And horses who had no possibility of ever getting there, ever, dropped out of the game earlier because they would only make the overhead cost worse.

Chase the mythical genetic soundness fairy or the medication fairy or the track condition fairy all you want...the answer is, and always has been, money.

[kimberley mine]

As a postscript, I should note that the wrapped-in-cotton-wool stallion making of the last decade is also about money, and is directly responsible for making both fewer starts (Bernardini, anybody?) and to an extent retiring early for soundness reasons.

Smarty and Big Brown could have continued racing, after a long rest. Instead, the money of stud fees plus the prohibitive cost of insurance (especially Smarty) plus the risk of poor future returns on the track (meaning possibly lower fees) meant they went off to the shed.

On the distaff side of the high-money horses, you'll find purple-pedigreed sister-of-track-pulchritude slowpokes dueling it out in maidens and allowances at Belmont or Saratoga or Churchill, trying to get a "winner at Belmont" on her page before mercifully retiring to stud. They could probably make a darn fine living at Hastings or Delta Downs or Prairie Meadows, but "10 wins at PM" doesn't have the prestige.

Money, money, money.

[diomed]

How about the rampant use of Steroids? Not only for the treatment of certain conditions, but for the use of early growth, etc. Performance and sales factors.

Anabolic steroids affect a horse in much the same way they affect a human. They promote rapid muscle growth. But artificially enhanced muscle growth can literally overpower the skeletal structure that supports it — something that is especially problematic in very young horses that are given steroids to prepare them for the major horse sales. Racehorses are also given steroids to keep them racing.

I have a friend who has to take steroids for her Chron's disease. Due to the use over the years, she broke her hip just walking. Her bones are awfully brittle and she will also need a knee replacement soon.

The use of anabolic steroids by athletes is relatively new. Testosterone was first synthesized in the 1930's and was introduced into the sporting arena in the 1940's and 1950's.

When the Russian weight lifting team thanks, in part, to synthetic testosterone-walked off with a pile of medals at the 1952 Olympics, an American physician determined that U. S. competitors should have the same advantage.

By 1958 a U.S. pharmaceutical firm had developed anabolic steroids. Although the physician soon realized the drug had unwanted side effects, it was too late to halt its spread into the sports world.

Early users were mainly bodybuilders, weight lifters, football players, and discus, shot put, or javelin throwers-competitors who relied heavily on bulk and strength.

During the 1970's demand grew as athletes in other sports sought the competitive edge that anabolic steroids seemed to provide.

By the 1980's, as non athletes also discovered the body-enhancing properties of steroids, a black market began to flourish for the illegal production and sale of the drugs for nonmedical purposes.

If you ask me, this is a MAJOR factor with unsoundness. It has nothing to do with breeding either. Think about it. If you follow the patterns of breeding from the beginning of the breed, you will see that a dominant sire line has happened before and the breed was just fine. Also, horses were much more inbred in the past then they are now.
Enter steriods....
Just sayin'.

[louis finochio]

Go over to my thread, & you will find those tbs on your list, Thanks Louis.