Intersting Article

General racing discussion.

Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster

User avatar
diomed
Grade III Winner
Posts: 1142
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 4:16 pm

Intersting Article

Postby diomed » Mon May 12, 2008 8:46 am

Thoughts?

From Philly.com

By Mike Jensen

Could this country's thoroughbred breeding industry produce more durable horses?
"It would be possible - I don't think it's going to happen," said Alan Porter, a pedigree consultant with clients in the United States, Europe and Australia. "What happens usually in the industry, everybody thinks that we should do this that or the other, but that doesn't necessarily apply to I."

The conundrum the American industry faces is balancing the need for speed with the desire for durability, Porter said, since speed is required of a great racehorse. Despite that truth, industry leaders announced their awareness that steps need to be taken to satisfy the public.

"It's not publicly acceptable to have their stars dying in the big races," Porter said.

The horse industry has been thinking more about the issue - has been forced to think more about it - since Eight Belles broke down and was euthanized right after finishing second in last weekend's Kentucky Derby. This was the second catastrophic breakdown in three years in a Triple Crown race, after Barbaro in the 2006 Preakness, and two more horses have been euthanized on the track during the last two Breeders' Cups.

"The true story is nowhere near the popular one. There couldn't have been anything wrong with that horse going into the race," Porter said about Eight Belles. "That's like saying a guy who came in second in the Olympics was doing it on a broken leg."

The irony here, Porter said, is that this incident has brought up important issues. After the breakdown of Delaware Park-based Eight Belles, the Jockey Club, run by the heavy hitters of the industry, announced on Thursday that it has commissioned a seven-member Thoroughbred Safety Committee. Ogden Mills Phipps, the chairman of the Jockey Club, said the committee would be asked to review every facet of equine health, including "breeding practices, medication, the rules of racing and track surfaces," and would recommend actions to be taken by the industry to improve the health and safety of thoroughbreds.

Breeding issues have come up more especially since the Derby.

"The fact, is we have weakened our breed," said Headley Bell, president of Nicoma Bloodstock and a fifth-generation Kentucky horseman. "It started when everybody started racing on Lasix and [Phenylbutazone], when it became customary, 15 or 20 years ago."

Bell said he was talking about the industry in general. He made a point of calling Eight Belles a "brilliant" racehorse. But he said he believes that horses have been retired to the breeding shed who "normally wouldn't have qualified" if drugs hadn't hidden problems during their racing careers.

"They cover up a weakness," Bell said. "Whether it be the bleeding - Lasix is used to prevent bleeding - or other problems, and those weaknesses are now going into the mass herd of thoroughbreds. Horses that might have been unsound are now racing, and then breeding, and then put into the herd."

That's just an outgrowth of wider changes, Bell said.

"You have to realize that the whole breeding industry has changed in the last 24 years ... it changed from being the sport of those successful in business, to being a business," Bell said. "The costs are so exorbitant, and there's so much money out there. I don't care who you are - if you're not a seller, you become a seller."

Bell said of the current climate in the breeding industry after the Derby: "We care more about our horses than anybody. At the same time, there's nothing like public pressure to push you to do something that you might have delayed."

In March, a Welfare and Safety of the Racehorse Summit was held in Lexington, Ky. Breeding was clearly down the list of priorities. But it was on the list: Recommendation Eight was titled "Genetic Diversity of the Thoroughbred." The primary objective was to "address large book size of stallions to determine if they can be detrimental either to the welfare of individual animals, to the breed in general, or to the economics of the industry."

Along with evaluating all this, the task was to research the legal, economic and practical implications of influencing the number of breeding sessions for each stallion in a given year, which had grown in recent decades. Statistics kept by the Jockey Club indicate that the number of stallions that have produced offspring has dropped more than half since 1992. Even in Kentucky, the breeding capital of the thoroughbred industry, the number has dropped from 467 stallions in 1992 to 356 in 2007, with the average book size climbing from 31.1 to 60.5.

And there is no telling when a great one will appear. Bell is the bloodstock adviser to Roy and Gretchen Jackson, the owners of Barbaro. He doesn't claim to have all the answers. His notes from 2001 show that he recommended three stallions for their mare named La Ville Rouge. It was the No. 3 choice, Dynaformer, who ultimately mated with the mare and produced the ill-fated 2006 Kentucky Derby winner.

If breeders don't know when they are going to produce a great racehorse - figuring out how genetics plays into horses breaking down can't be achieved with simple DNA analysis.

This year, special attention has been given to the genes produced by Native Dancer, since Eight Belles had his genes running all through her, from three different lines going back six generations. In fact, all 20 of this year's Derby runners had Native Dancer genes. While producing brilliant racehorses, Native Dancer also has passed on soundness issues. Native Dancer himself retired early from leg injuries, although he still raced 22 times, 18 as a 2- and 3-year-old.

Nobody knows why Eight Belles broke both front feet while galloping out after the Derby. If that hadn't happened, she obviously would have been celebrated for the great genetic makeup that allowed her to beat all the boys except Big Brown. And there was plenty of stability in her genes. Her mother, Away, raced 24 times. Going back three more generations, there is a mare named Straight Deal, who raced 99 times, and won stakes races at the age of 3, 4 and 5, and was stakes-placed at age 6. However, it is the sire lines that produced most of a horse's genetic makeup.

Porter, the pedigree consultant, (and his no relation to Rick Porter, the owner of Eight Belles), said he has looked closely at the pedigree of Eight Belles and characterized it in breeding terms as "a good proven cross ... high quality." He mentioned that Big Brown was extremely closely inbred, "a lot more so than average." But Porter pointed out, "inbreeding is neither good nor bad; it depends to who you're inbreeding, and through which sources you're breeding."

Porter, who made the point that top thoroughbreds are "probably right at the functional limit ... the peak of them running as fast as they can," also said that characterizing the soundness of horses based on how many times they race is difficult.

"The Jockey Club did a study and I analyzed it," Porter said. "The stallions who were getting the most starters, they were the cheapest. The fact that horses were at one point running more frequently doesn't mean that was a good thing."

Porter was not suggesting that studies shouldn't be done on these breakdowns or that safety isn't a primary objective. He just knows what would happen if he suggested to a client with a top mare that they should use a "second-class stallion" who is very durable.

"He's going to use the sire of Eight Belles," Porter said, even if there is a greater risk of injury. "The one he gets who can run is going to be very, very good."


The one thing about this that I totally agree on is the use of drugs.
It does "mask" certain things that would normally would keep a horse from racing.
Also, I enjoyed reading Alan Porter's input on this.
This guy is an incredible mating planner and he knows the TB gene pool probably as good if not better than anyone in the game.

Strategic Maneuver
Starters Handicap
Posts: 608
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Location: Texas

Postby Strategic Maneuver » Mon May 12, 2008 11:06 am

Very good article. Thanks for passing it on and I don't see much in it that I don't agree with as far as the reality of today's breeding market.

Sam
Chef de Race: Intermediate
Posts: 4194
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 12:51 pm

Postby Sam » Mon May 12, 2008 11:52 am


User avatar
diomed
Grade III Winner
Posts: 1142
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 4:16 pm

Postby diomed » Mon May 12, 2008 12:20 pm


Sam
Chef de Race: Intermediate
Posts: 4194
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 12:51 pm

Re: Intersting Article

Postby Sam » Mon May 12, 2008 1:02 pm

However, it is the sire lines that produced most of a horse's genetic makeup.

He lost me right there. No, the sire DOES NOT produce "most of a horse' genetic makeup" and if he's going to make those pronouncements, then he need to go back and take a remedial biology class.

Beyond that, it's more hyperbolic BS about how the breed is unsound (and still lacking a clear definition of the word 'unsound') and blaming the breed instead of the humans behind it. It's people blaming genetics who don't know what they are talking about and ignoring the economic factors that play an increasing part in the number of starts a horse makes.

Horses like Curlin and Big Brown don't make 15 starts a year anymore. They just don't. Whether or not they have bad wheels is irrelevant. It's about MONEY and the money dictates you only run as often as you have to to insure a high stud fee and you DON'T run unless you have a more than reasonable chance at winning. Trainers (and owners) nowadays are afraid to lose. A single loss at this level can cost you thousands in stud fees. To look at the decreasing number of starts and blame it on unsoundness is asinine.

The flipside is that bottom level claimers who can and do run 10-20 times a year come from the same stock as those high-priced but incorrectly assumed to be fragile superstars... however, they aren't likely to be breeding stock AND they are earning a check on a fairly consistent basis. Trainers are still hesitant to run even the lower level horses more often than they have to because it affects their percentages. Low percentage trainers don't keep owners around for very long.

The perceptible number of career maidens had decreased dramatically in just the 18 years I've been following racing. It's no longer fiscally responsible to keep an 0-for-20 in training -- not when there are over 35k foals born each year. There's always a replacement. If the horse doesn't show a modicum of talent in the first 10 starts, ditch it. You don't burn good money on bad horses. There's no reason to take the time to figure out what level a horse should be raced at because you can always get rid of it for a new one.

I've actually started to wonder if the death of the private trainer has played a hand in this as well. I would think if you were drawing a steady paycheck and getting a consistent level of stock, you'd be a little more inclined to take your time with the horses, but also run them a little more often because your livelihood wasn't solely dependent on whether or not the horse won.

At any rate, IMO the 'decline in the breed' has less to do with the breed becoming 'unsound' (whatever the hell that means) and more to do with the rise of commercial breeders in the 70s, the greater emphasis put on these monstrous 2yo-I-T sales, and a dramatic increase in the use of steroids in yearlings in hopes of producing a bulky sales horse. I wouldn't go so far as to call for a complete ban on steroids, but there is NO reason for a horse who isn't in training to be on them.

User avatar
Equipoise28
Maiden Special Weight
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 1:41 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Intersting Article

Postby Equipoise28 » Mon May 12, 2008 2:08 pm

Sam wrote:I've actually started to wonder if the death of the private trainer has played a hand in this as well.


Very interesting point. IMHO that would correlate somewhat with the decline in the big breed to race stables (Greentree, Calumet, etc). Big commercial trainers + big commercial breeders + drugs = where we are today?

Bill from WA
Breeder's Cup Contender
Posts: 1936
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:20 am
Location: Mountlake Terrace, WA

Postby Bill from WA » Mon May 12, 2008 2:10 pm

Thank you Sam for a very intelligent and insightful post.

Bill
Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, life is like a broken winged bird that cannot fly.

Langston Hughes

horsenuts
Restricted Stakes Winner
Posts: 844
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 11:13 pm

soundness

Postby horsenuts » Mon May 12, 2008 3:30 pm

Breeding to stallions and mares that make fewer starts then their predecessors is not the way to breed durability and soundness. Their is a reason for the fewer starts and it's not just about money though that does play a part. Nearly every top horse of the past 5-10 years has "retired" with a handful or two of starts because of unsoundness and usually serious soundness issues including: Empire Maker / Smarty Jones / Afleet Alex / Ghostzapper are among the more prominent race horses that failed to remain sound for more then 12 starts. EM started 8 times.. SJ 9 times.... AA 12 times(and who I regard as the soundest of these 4) and GZ ran 11 times. Yes, money was involved with the aformentioned but if you followed their careers closely they were stopped from further racing after sustaining serious physical problems.


To breed to such animals and think you are going to get a horse of soundness and durabilty is wishful thinking. If you had a tough, hardy mare that made 30+ starts you might have a chance but most of today's mares are like the studs they are bred too and why so many horses have such a short racing shelf life.


Today's breeders are "dollar concsious" and everything else is secondary. And so long as buyers will pay 7 figures for the Storm Cat's of racing expect more of the same. When breeders raced their own stock in decades past they were far more selective in their matings regarding soundness and durability but not today... and so long as the market has no problem buying offspring of lightly raced horses this dubious trend will continue.

xfactor fan
Breeder's Cup Winner
Posts: 2212
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:46 pm

Postby xfactor fan » Fri May 23, 2008 9:24 am

I'd like to bring this up again.

Flipper feet--the long toe short heel that track farriers are so fond of.


Bone density--This is directly related to training, sports physiology now knows that the bone must be stressed in short intervals to create micro cracks that fill in with new stronger bone. Think of wind sprints for a human runner. This process takes about 60 days. How many trainers are taking the time to provide this very inportant step?

Also if there are late maturing lines that are raced early and with insufficient conditioning, this could lead to the conclusion that some lines are unsound.

louis finochio
Darley line
Posts: 9181
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:21 am
Location: Alhambra-Calif.
Contact:

Postby louis finochio » Fri May 23, 2008 5:40 pm

I dont agree on Porter's comments on the fashion bred Eight Belles or his comment on Big Brown. For those that have read my posts on both of those Tbs, you will understand why I a made this statement.

Let Porter research all the past TC winners, & he will find they all have the same thing in common, as did Pebbles, Quijia Board, Curlin, Big Brown, Dr. Fager, Spectacular Bid, Native Diver, Swaps, John Henry, Lava Man, Citation.
Those without sin cast the first stone.
Louis Finochio