Breeding, Unsoundness and speed

[Tucumcari]

Too slowly. Just do it, imo.

There's horse I know of, that ran 2 weeks ago. He couldn't walk, literally for 3 or 4 days afterward.
He was in yesterday again, and this morning, in his stall, he was in so much pain he would actually pant for a while after he made any attempt to move.
Because too many in this business have no more sense, or class, then the a**h***s that fight dogs, drugs need to go, and now.

Claimed a mare at Del Mar that is in the same situation. She won today. I bet she was tough to cool out. Poor bitch.

[bdw0617]

tiz, I missed it in the slew of posts. I apologize. and youa re right and I apologize. but that doesn't discreit my posts about times from 1900 to 1920 and races from 1987 to 2007

[spex4me]

with the dosages, 4 AAAA nicks and inbreeding to superior individuals of the past, why are we not breeding the same thoroughbreds of the past like the Dr. Fagers and spectacular bid's?

and this is why I love louis

[Tucumcari]

We all love Louis... just not Phalaris and for differnt reasons than he has..LOL

[bdw0617]

i'm not a big fan of pee drinking myself either but louis offers great insights and I try to read all his posts.. even the ones about pee

[going4stamina]

"There's horse I know of, that ran 2 weeks ago. He couldn't walk, literally for 3 or 4 days afterward.
He was in yesterday again, and this morning, in his stall, he was in so much pain he would actually pant for a while after he made any attempt to move.
Because too many in this business have no more sense, or class, then the a**h***s that fight dogs, drugs need to go, and now."

This is a case someone needs to try to step in if any way possible--for the horse and for the sport. Lower level claimer? Gelding? Can't we get the poor guy to a retirement center? This horse's inevitable breakdown on TV is one of the things that is hurting this sport. Jeez, as much as I love racing, this makes me sick.

[ratherrapid]

interesting thread! same old questions. my own observations (now that i can get the races on the computer), the horses i'm seeing running in 2007 certainly appear to be a different physical specimen than what I saw running when i first went to the races in 1983(e.g. tune in to Alysheba's 1988 BC Classic, and compare to the past few winners). that's hardly scientific, but, for me, it "seems"--these days--we're seeing a much higher number of very good looking fast horses. and, i'm thinking that when training techniques catch up to what they're doing in the breeding shed(and they will), you will see discernable faster times.

bdw--intesting point on the :12 sec furlongs. a trainer with a bigger sample than me could answer better. but, i've yet to have a horse unable to run a :12, and I've yet to have a horse carry that much farther than 6f regardless of training techniques. i'm going to try to get to the bottom of that with my coming set. speculate a combo of things stop the horse at some point--breathing, moving weight over distance, building fatigue in the suspensory system that has little to do with latic acid build up, etc.

[Tucumcari]

This is a case someone needs to try to step in if any way possible--for the horse and for the sport. Lower level claimer? Gelding? Can't we get the poor guy to a retirement center? This horse's inevitable breakdown on TV is one of the things that is hurting this sport. Jeez, as much as I love racing, this makes me sick.[/quote]

... unfortunate but true. Sometimes we just have to search for the most honest or forthright we can find... and might be few and far between.

[UmmYeah]

tiz, I missed it in the slew of posts. I apologize. and youa re right and I apologize. but that doesn't discreit my posts about times from 1900 to 1920 and races from 1987 to 2007

OK, let's try this again...

Here are the average winning times for the Kentucky Derby, broken down by decade (with fastest and slowest times in parens):
1900s - 2:09 1/5 (2:06 to 2:15 1/5)
1910s - 2:06 1/5 (2:03 2/5 to 2:10 4/5)
1920s - 2:06 3/5 (2:03 4/5 to 2:10 4/5)
1930s - 2:04 2/5 (2:01 4/5 to 2:07 3/5)
1940s - 2:04 4/5 (2:01 2/5 to 2:07)
1950s - 2:02 2/5 (2:01 3/5 to 2:05)
1960s - 2:01 3/5 (2:00 to 2:04)
1970s - 2:02 (1:59 2/5 to 2:04)
1980s - 2:02 2/5 (2:00 1/5 to 2:05)
1990s - 2:02 (2:01 to 2:03 3/5)
2000s - 2:01 4/5 (1:59 4/5 to 2:04)

Based on these numbers, it seems to me that the average time has stayed relatively stable since the 1950s. If you want to take these numbers really seriously, I guess you could even make a case that the horses in the 1960s were faster than any other decade.

[bdw0617]

okay first off, let's get something straight. IN my opening thread I siad "It is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" which is a quote I stole from Aristotle. Truth be told, I don't KNOW.. it's a theory. However as a grown adult, I figured we, here on pedigreequery forum could talk about something like this from both perspective points of view wtihout getting our emotions rilled up. And at the very least, learn something by challenging a widly regarded common point of view.

There is no right or wrong, at least yet.

getting back to Ummyeah's point.. i want to know what happened in that time period that caused that drastic spike... is it a particualr blod line? advances in medicine? training methods?

[UmmYeah]

getting back to Ummyeah's point.. i want to know what happened in that time period that caused that drastic spike... is it a particualr blod line? advances in medicine? training methods?

Do you mean the spike between the 1940s and 1950s? Dunno, but I would guess that a number of factors were at play. In my opinion, a major one was the track conditions. There were five Derbies run on off tracks in the '40s, and only one on an off track in the '50s. There were two Derbies run on good tracks in 1960 and '61, and the rest of the decade they were all fast tracks. 1970 was run on a good track, and then there was a string of fast track Derbies until 1989 (which is, uncoincidentally, Unbridled's plodding 2:05, the slowest Derby in the last 50 years).

I'm sure other factors may have come into play, such as number of foals bred each year, number of horses nominated to the Derby, advances in medicine, training techniques, etc. But, in general, the sport of horse racing has changed very little in the past 100 years, especially compared to many other sports. The DH in baseball, the extra point in football, titanium drivers in golf, you name it--every major sport has changed more in the past 50 years than horse racing has. Sure there's the illegal drugs, but the same could certainly be said for other sports, and I'm not naive enough to think that illegal drugs in racing is anything new.

[bdw0617]

getting back to Ummyeah's point.. i want to know what happened in that time period that caused that drastic spike... is it a particualr blod line? advances in medicine? training methods?

Do you mean the spike between the 1940s and 1950s? Dunno, but I would guess that a number of factors were at play. In my opinion, a major one was the track conditions. There were five Derbies run on off tracks in the '40s, and only one on an off track in the '50s. There were two Derbies run on good tracks in 1960 and '61, and the rest of the decade they were all fast tracks. 1970 was run on a good track, and then there was a string of fast track Derbies until 1989 (which is, uncoincidentally, Unbridled's plodding 2:05, the slowest Derby in the last 50 years).

I'm sure other factors may have come into play, such as number of foals bred each year, number of horses nominated to the Derby, advances in medicine, training techniques, etc. But, in general, the sport of horse racing has changed very little in the past 100 years, especially compared to many other sports. The DH in baseball, the extra point in football, titanium drivers in golf, you name it--every major sport has changed more in the past 50 years than horse racing has. Sure there's the illegal drugs, but the same could certainly be said for other sports, and I'm not naive enough to think that illegal drugs in racing is anything new.

yes but that 1989 derby is one of the few moments in horse racing or really life in general that has ever brought me to tears, when CN was describing the race to his owner, that was soo touching.

[Rokeby Forever]

Chile must know something about keeping horses sound that we don't.

A friend sent me a link to a racecard from Santiago, Chile on December 2, 2007. Look at these horses that were entered:

http://www.pedigreequery.com/malandrino4

http://www.pedigreequery.com/like+snow

http://www.pedigreequery.com/lionel+richie

http://www.pedigreequery.com/ricky+martin

http://www.pedigreequery.com/well+be+long

I had no way to pull these names out of thin air - this stuff is true, folks. How do you explain it?

[Ryeno]

Another thing i forgot to mention in an earlier response is "back in the day" the horses ran for much less money and trainers gave their charges practise races and conditioning events. It wasnt uncommon to see a horse with 20-26 starts a year. Nowadays if someone seen a horse with that many starts there would be 7 threads on 6 different websites on how the horse is being run into the ground. WIth the amount of money available and the costs of keeping horses in training you see more and more horses debuting with lasix and bute and racing earlier in their careers than in the past. Everyone is cracking .....the nature of the sport.

Ryeno

[dray33]

Hey roke: right off the bat, first thing i notice is that the dam side is predominately European or South American. Especially the very bottom line. Also, the top side (sire side) is predominately US horses. Only other thing to mention is that these horses are not racing on US tracks, under US rules and regulations.