What relationship does racing young horses have to the rate of breakdowns?
Clearly some horses do well racing as two year olds. Others need more time. Does early racing predispose slow maturing horses to breakdowns later in their racing life?
Would Zenyatta be the amazing racing machine if she's been raced at two, rather than starting at 3? The same can be said for Curlin. (Poster children for not racing two year olds)
Natalma is blamed for the "weak bones" on the Northern Dancer line of horses. Does anyone know if she was early or late maturing?
Breakdowns and Maturity
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
-
xfactor fan
- Breeder's Cup Winner
- Posts: 2212
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:46 pm
Re: Breakdowns and Maturity
xfactor fan wrote:What relationship does racing young horses have to the rate of breakdowns?
Clearly some horses do well racing as two year olds. Others need more time. Does early racing predispose slow maturing horses to breakdowns later in their racing life?
Would Zenyatta be the amazing racing machine if she's been raced at two, rather than starting at 3? The same can be said for Curlin. (Poster children for not racing two year olds)
Natalma is blamed for the "weak bones" on the Northern Dancer line of horses. Does anyone know if she was early or late maturing?
I wish we had information about how horses were raised. I don't have numbers, but only a gut feeling that horses raised outside as much as possible, allowed to run and hell-raise with other young horses, preferably uphill and down, would be more athletic than those raised in small pastures.
I also don't have numbers for this gut feeling--that first breaking a TB thoroughly before ever asking him to run quickly makes them more reliable under saddle and less likely to make a quick, unasked for, career ending step. In Europe, their young stock is expected to be managable in conditions most US horses rately must cope with.
-
louis finochio
- Darley line
- Posts: 9181
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:21 am
- Location: Alhambra-Calif.
- Contact:
Soundness begins when you plan a mating. If you are breeding for fashion, u will not hold back your tbs till they mature. If u are breeding for soundness, & late maturing you will not race at 2. Thats where a pedigree adviser comes into the picture. He will tell u to go on with your tbs or wait.
Those without sin cast the first stone.
Louis Finochio
Louis Finochio
-
louis finochio
- Darley line
- Posts: 9181
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:21 am
- Location: Alhambra-Calif.
- Contact:
-
Hold Your Peace
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 495
- Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:12 am
Dr. Larry Bramlage's comments on behalf of The Jockey Club's Thoroughbred Safety Committee regarding soundness issues -
Dr. Larry Bramlage: Thanks, Stuart. In light of recent events in Thoroughbred racing, charges concerning soundness have been leveled by supporters and detractors of the sport. The Thoroughbred Safety Committee felt these charges had to be examined where possible and the facts established. Statements have been made in the popular press, read, re-quoted and in some instances misquoted to the point that they began to be regarded as fact.
We believe that the charges must be addressed based upon data not opinion. Therefore, for the information that we examined our conclusions are rooted in the pragmatic "the data shows" rather than the dubious "we believe."
Charge number one: The training and racing of 2-year-old Thoroughbreds is predisposing these horses to accelerated rates of injury and prematurely shortened careers.
This charge is leveled by some people in and out of the horse industry, especially people outside of racing. It is a very popular theme with animal welfare organizations that are ill informed on the topic of racing and the horse; it is also parroted frequently in the popular press.
To examine these data The Jockey Club Information Systems extracted one-year windows at five-year intervals, using the years 1975 through 2000 as data sets. Horses were divided into the categories "raced as two-year-olds" and "raced, but not as two-year-olds." The data shows a definitive answer to this charge.
The first category of data examined was average starts per starter lifetime. The data shows that horses that raced as 2-year-olds raced many more times in their lifetime in each of the years examined when compared to horses that did not race until after their 2-year-old season. Some of these starts were made in the 2-year-old year for the horses that raced at 2, but the difference was more marked than the 2-year-old year alone would account for.
Average lifetime earnings per starter for horses that raced as 2-year-olds are almost twice the amount earned by horses that did not race as 2-year-olds.
Career average earnings per start for horses that raced as 2-year-olds exceeded average earnings per start for horses that did not race as 2-year-olds in every one of the years from 1975 to 2000 examined.
Lastly, the percent stakes winners in horses that raced as 2-year-olds is nearly three times higher than in horses that did not race until their 3-year-old year or later.
This data is definitive. It shows that horses that began racing as 2-year-olds are much more successful, have much longer careers, and, by extrapolation, show less predisposition to injury than horses that did not begin racing until their 3-year-old year. It is absolute on all the data sets that the training and racing of 2-year-old Thoroughbreds has no ill effect on the horses' race-career longevity or quality. In fact, the data would indicate that the ability to make at least one start as a 2-year-old has a very strong positive affect on the longevity and success of a racehorse. This strong positive effect on the quality and quantity of performance would make it impossible to argue that these horses that race as 2-year-olds are compromised.
These data strongly support the physiologic premise that it is easier for a horse to adapt to training when training begins at the end of skeletal growth. Initiation of training at the end of growth takes advantage of the established blood supply and cell populations that are then converted from growth to the adaptation to training. It is much more difficult for a horse to adapt to training after the musculoskeletal system is allowed to atrophy at the end of growth because the bone formation support system that is still present in the adolescent horse must be re-created in the skeletally mature horse that initiates training.
Charge number two: The Thoroughbred industry is raising horses only to sell, not to race. This is weakening the breed to the point they are unable to race.
This accusation is leveled at breeders for choosing matings poorly, at commercial horse operations for raising what some call "hot house" horses and not athletes, at pinhookers for abusing the 2-year-old in training concept and at veterinarians for performing surgery to correct angular limb deformities and remove fragments from juvenile joints.
The data examined was sampled again in one-year windows at five-year intervals over the last 25 years. The data shows that preparation for sales did not compromise the horse's ability to race when compared to the breed average. Over the 25-year period the breed average to reach the races was approximately 70% in each year examined, the probability to race for horses entered in yearling sales was approximately 80%, and for horses in 2-year-old sales the probability of racing rose to the upper 80% range. In no instance did the preparation for sale drop a group of horses below the average for the breed, or therefore, below the horses not prepared for sale. Some horses in the breed average are not intended for racing, but the data shows that a very high percentage of sale horses reach their intended purposes and there is no indication of harm for these horses.
Dr. Larry Bramlage: Thanks, Stuart. In light of recent events in Thoroughbred racing, charges concerning soundness have been leveled by supporters and detractors of the sport. The Thoroughbred Safety Committee felt these charges had to be examined where possible and the facts established. Statements have been made in the popular press, read, re-quoted and in some instances misquoted to the point that they began to be regarded as fact.
We believe that the charges must be addressed based upon data not opinion. Therefore, for the information that we examined our conclusions are rooted in the pragmatic "the data shows" rather than the dubious "we believe."
Charge number one: The training and racing of 2-year-old Thoroughbreds is predisposing these horses to accelerated rates of injury and prematurely shortened careers.
This charge is leveled by some people in and out of the horse industry, especially people outside of racing. It is a very popular theme with animal welfare organizations that are ill informed on the topic of racing and the horse; it is also parroted frequently in the popular press.
To examine these data The Jockey Club Information Systems extracted one-year windows at five-year intervals, using the years 1975 through 2000 as data sets. Horses were divided into the categories "raced as two-year-olds" and "raced, but not as two-year-olds." The data shows a definitive answer to this charge.
The first category of data examined was average starts per starter lifetime. The data shows that horses that raced as 2-year-olds raced many more times in their lifetime in each of the years examined when compared to horses that did not race until after their 2-year-old season. Some of these starts were made in the 2-year-old year for the horses that raced at 2, but the difference was more marked than the 2-year-old year alone would account for.
Average lifetime earnings per starter for horses that raced as 2-year-olds are almost twice the amount earned by horses that did not race as 2-year-olds.
Career average earnings per start for horses that raced as 2-year-olds exceeded average earnings per start for horses that did not race as 2-year-olds in every one of the years from 1975 to 2000 examined.
Lastly, the percent stakes winners in horses that raced as 2-year-olds is nearly three times higher than in horses that did not race until their 3-year-old year or later.
This data is definitive. It shows that horses that began racing as 2-year-olds are much more successful, have much longer careers, and, by extrapolation, show less predisposition to injury than horses that did not begin racing until their 3-year-old year. It is absolute on all the data sets that the training and racing of 2-year-old Thoroughbreds has no ill effect on the horses' race-career longevity or quality. In fact, the data would indicate that the ability to make at least one start as a 2-year-old has a very strong positive affect on the longevity and success of a racehorse. This strong positive effect on the quality and quantity of performance would make it impossible to argue that these horses that race as 2-year-olds are compromised.
These data strongly support the physiologic premise that it is easier for a horse to adapt to training when training begins at the end of skeletal growth. Initiation of training at the end of growth takes advantage of the established blood supply and cell populations that are then converted from growth to the adaptation to training. It is much more difficult for a horse to adapt to training after the musculoskeletal system is allowed to atrophy at the end of growth because the bone formation support system that is still present in the adolescent horse must be re-created in the skeletally mature horse that initiates training.
Charge number two: The Thoroughbred industry is raising horses only to sell, not to race. This is weakening the breed to the point they are unable to race.
This accusation is leveled at breeders for choosing matings poorly, at commercial horse operations for raising what some call "hot house" horses and not athletes, at pinhookers for abusing the 2-year-old in training concept and at veterinarians for performing surgery to correct angular limb deformities and remove fragments from juvenile joints.
The data examined was sampled again in one-year windows at five-year intervals over the last 25 years. The data shows that preparation for sales did not compromise the horse's ability to race when compared to the breed average. Over the 25-year period the breed average to reach the races was approximately 70% in each year examined, the probability to race for horses entered in yearling sales was approximately 80%, and for horses in 2-year-old sales the probability of racing rose to the upper 80% range. In no instance did the preparation for sale drop a group of horses below the average for the breed, or therefore, below the horses not prepared for sale. Some horses in the breed average are not intended for racing, but the data shows that a very high percentage of sale horses reach their intended purposes and there is no indication of harm for these horses.
-
xfactor fan
- Breeder's Cup Winner
- Posts: 2212
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:46 pm
Thanks for the Jockey Club report Hold Your Peace. However if I'm correct the statistics aren't broken down to answer the main question. Without looking at the data --which is a good study by the way--All 2 year olds not two year olds broken down by rate of maturity.
Maybe divide the 2 year olds by height?? Starting with the assumption that really big horse take more time to grow and mature than smaller horses?
Anyone else want to weigh in about Natalma?
Maybe divide the 2 year olds by height?? Starting with the assumption that really big horse take more time to grow and mature than smaller horses?
Anyone else want to weigh in about Natalma?
-
Shammy Davis
- Chef de Race: Classic
- Posts: 4451
- Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 8:23 am
-
louis finochio
- Darley line
- Posts: 9181
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:21 am
- Location: Alhambra-Calif.
- Contact:
I didnt say take to take those late maturing 2 yr. olds out of training, they must be kept in trainong to develop their strength of bone.
Seabuscuit started 36 times at 2, came back from a bow later in his career, & went on to make history. These FB of today are averaging single digit starts, with tons of them becoming unraced.
The Shieks are weeding out their bloodstock, because everything they are breeding out of has become related. Their FB have been firing blanks.
They better hire a pedigree adviser that will see the handwriting on the wall.
When you break down those FB & NFB at 2, one will see the high injury rate of those FB.
Seabuscuit started 36 times at 2, came back from a bow later in his career, & went on to make history. These FB of today are averaging single digit starts, with tons of them becoming unraced.
The Shieks are weeding out their bloodstock, because everything they are breeding out of has become related. Their FB have been firing blanks.
They better hire a pedigree adviser that will see the handwriting on the wall.
When you break down those FB & NFB at 2, one will see the high injury rate of those FB.
Those without sin cast the first stone.
Louis Finochio
Louis Finochio
Now I haven't read the study that Dr. Bramlage's comments are based on, but I'm afraid there is a major misinterpretation happening here. He says:
So the data show that horses who start as 2yos are more successful. Fine. Can't argue with the data. But it's the interpretation (italicized) that really bugs me. Just because they are more successful does not mean that the early training doesn't have a negative impact.
A much simpler explanation is that any rational trainer/owner wants to start their horse ASAP to maximize earnings, and only the soundest/sturdiest/fastest of these horses will make it to the races at 2, whereas the unsound/fragile/slow ones will get hurt in training or not be competitive, and by default have to wait until they are older to start (if they start at all). So there is a clear selection bias in the population of horses that start as 2yos and those who start later. Therefore the conclusion that the difference in success of the two populations is due to early training being beneficial is not at all justified by the data.
In order to actually show that, you would have to randomly select a bunch of TBs and randomly assign them to 2 groups, one where the training begins early with the goal of racing at 2, and the other where the training begins later with the goal of waiting until 3. Compare the success of these two populations and then you have a dataset you can actually draw conclusions from.
... horses that began racing as 2-year-olds are much more successful, have much longer careers, and, by extrapolation, show less predisposition to injury than horses that did not begin racing until their 3-year-old year. It is absolute on all the data sets that the training and racing of 2-year-old Thoroughbreds has no ill effect on the horses' race-career longevity or quality.
So the data show that horses who start as 2yos are more successful. Fine. Can't argue with the data. But it's the interpretation (italicized) that really bugs me. Just because they are more successful does not mean that the early training doesn't have a negative impact.
A much simpler explanation is that any rational trainer/owner wants to start their horse ASAP to maximize earnings, and only the soundest/sturdiest/fastest of these horses will make it to the races at 2, whereas the unsound/fragile/slow ones will get hurt in training or not be competitive, and by default have to wait until they are older to start (if they start at all). So there is a clear selection bias in the population of horses that start as 2yos and those who start later. Therefore the conclusion that the difference in success of the two populations is due to early training being beneficial is not at all justified by the data.
In order to actually show that, you would have to randomly select a bunch of TBs and randomly assign them to 2 groups, one where the training begins early with the goal of racing at 2, and the other where the training begins later with the goal of waiting until 3. Compare the success of these two populations and then you have a dataset you can actually draw conclusions from.
Nerd wrote:Now I haven't read the study that Dr. Bramlage's comments are based on, but I'm afraid there is a major misinterpretation happening here. He says:... horses that began racing as 2-year-olds are much more successful, have much longer careers, and, by extrapolation, show less predisposition to injury than horses that did not begin racing until their 3-year-old year. It is absolute on all the data sets that the training and racing of 2-year-old Thoroughbreds has no ill effect on the horses' race-career longevity or quality.
So the data show that horses who start as 2yos are more successful. Fine. Can't argue with the data. But it's the interpretation (italicized) that really bugs me. Just because they are more successful does not mean that the early training doesn't have a negative impact.
The thing to do is not push on blindly, either by NOT doing anything with 2 y os or by pushing them until they fall apart, but to train them gradually while monitoring their status objectively, and to actually DO something with them as opposed to locking them in stalls.
-
ratherrapid
- Grade II Winner
- Posts: 1276
- Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:04 pm
- Location: kansas city, missouri
- Contact:
yet to read the thread--
1. too few 2 year olds survive to older age to be able to answer the Q.
2. the best stats we have on 2 year old racing come from Bill O'Gorman's book. O'Gorman specialized in racing 2 year old. His permanent injury rate was about 33% per year. these stats appear near the front of his book which is on line.
As to Natalma, weak bones. lol. there have already been substantial studies in Europe (4000 horses) that soundness is 95% environmental instead of genetic. Horse bones have developed over the last 25 million years. what has occurred in the last 50 is irrelevant. There may be some instances where breeding due to body size makes a difference. The bone material however, is the same. It's what's done with the bones that counts.
1. too few 2 year olds survive to older age to be able to answer the Q.
2. the best stats we have on 2 year old racing come from Bill O'Gorman's book. O'Gorman specialized in racing 2 year old. His permanent injury rate was about 33% per year. these stats appear near the front of his book which is on line.
As to Natalma, weak bones. lol. there have already been substantial studies in Europe (4000 horses) that soundness is 95% environmental instead of genetic. Horse bones have developed over the last 25 million years. what has occurred in the last 50 is irrelevant. There may be some instances where breeding due to body size makes a difference. The bone material however, is the same. It's what's done with the bones that counts.