Lifetime starts by decade and medicine

[Jorge]

With so many 21st century horses being sidelined with early injuries and/or being finally retired with 15 or less starts overall I wonder what is the difference between the number of starts that a Thoroughbred from the 50s and 60s achieved vis-a-vis today's equines.

This is my specific question which I would like to have your candid opinion:

Did the racehorses from the 50s and the 60s raced their overall careers with a lot of overlooked "chips" and other subjacent injuries that today, with our more sophisticated medicine, procedures and medication, they have to be halted for operations etc, reason why today's horses are perceived as more fragile than the oltimers but both are esentially the same in terms of durability?

Thanks for your participation.

[reenci]

I think you have to look at what type of drug testing was done back then ........looking for an edge in racing has been going on since the inception of racing.i for one cant imagine horses running in multiple heats during the day were not given a little something.

[Sysonby]

I think you have to look at what type of drug testing was done back then ........looking for an edge in racing has been going on since the inception of racing.i for one cant imagine horses running in multiple heats during the day were not given a little something.

Not to mention the history of the nickname "horse" for heroin. Its pretty naive to think that racing was pure as snow clean before testing and drugs are just an invention of the current crop of trainers. There are all kinds of rumors that percolated about the superstars of yesteryear and their superstar trainers.

[Sysonby]

To address your question more directly, I personally think they are the same and economic forces have taken over from the top down. Trainers now are worried about their stats and "bounces" and it is typical for horses in many barns to have starts two months apart. Horses don't get beat in workouts. That is a management issue IMO.

And its not like injuries didn't happen back then but cheap horses were raced rather than worked and so they looked like they had longer careers and more starts.

[TJ]

With so many 21st century horses being sidelined with early injuries and/or being finally retired with 15 or less starts overall I wonder what is the difference between the number of starts that a Thoroughbred from the 50s and 60s achieved vis-a-vis today's equines.

This is my specific question which I would like to have your candid opinion:

Did the racehorses from the 50s and the 60s raced their overall careers with a lot of overlooked "chips" and other subjacent injuries that today, with our more sophisticated medicine, procedures and medication, they have to be halted for operations etc, reason why today's horses are perceived as more fragile than the oltimers but both are esentially the same in terms of durability?

Thanks for your participation.

Hi Jorge,
You are correct in thinking many horses ran with chips, spurs and fractures in the early days possibly increasing yearly starts. They patched them up after each race and usually gave them lots of "help" prior to running back in the form of undetectable drugs and nerve blocking agents. It wasn't uncommon (back in the day) to see horses limping around the barn after a race for days. Then race day came and they were suddenly sound while racing and winning right out of the stall 2 or 3 times a month. Today those methods won't fly due to super sensitive drug testing, so today's horses can't be patched up and loaded up with pain killing drugs for their next start. Today they have to take the time to get them "right" before running back. Also today's sophisticated testing equipment allows for early detection of fractures, spurs, chips, tendon problems etc. allowing the option to intervene early and prevent further deterioration of the problem. Obviously this takes these horses out of competition to heal, effecting yearly starts. This didn't happen in the early days of racing. These horses usually went undiagnosed and would race till they broke down. Drug testing wasn't really perfected till late 1980's, they more or less worked on the honor system in the 1900's. As you guessed that didn't work...and by the 30's drugs were out of control. Once they started using narcotics the FBI got involved and arrested many owners and trainers, prompting a call to the industry to do something about it. They began with saliva testing and afterwards urine testing (first done at Hialeah, then spread to many other racing juristictions) which helped slow the drugs....but they were usually testing for drugs that were quickly outdated and the tracks just couldn't keep up with what the new drug would be from week to week. Testing improved through the years, but still couldn't keep up with the real cheaters who kept in front of the tracks testing procedures. Then in the late 80's came a new drug testing procedure, ELISA (Enzyme Linked Immuno Sorbant Assay) which finally met the needs of drug testing in horseracing. In reality drug testing is still new and they are getting more sophiticated all the time and possibly too sensitive. Many trainers who are being banned for drug use today, would be considered amateurs by the standards of early racing. TJ

[Bill from WA]

Hi TJ

I think you hit the nail on the head. I started racing horses in the early 1960's and a lot has changed since then.

Bill

[ratherrapid]

reason why today's horses are perceived as more fragile.

Thanks for your participation.

perceived? are or aren't?

[Jorge]

Wow, when I ponder on all of your well brought comments, the cases of the once convalescents, Dancer's Image (24 starts) and High Echelon (32 starts) comes to mind. According to articles from that period both were revived just in time for various of their greatest and improbable victories.

At the end of the analysis I ask myself if today's average top-notch Thoroughbreds are still capable of, on a regular basis, achieving those amounts of starts.