Quite a coincidence re: 5 year old first time starters

[Toccet02]

So I dutifully watch my Aqueduct replays as often as I can..and very few horses have caught my eye lately...until Befudeled (sp?) a week or so ago, and more recently, a mare called Shikilu. Both started their careers this season at 5. Both won the races I saw them in, even though they caught my eye early in their races. Befudeled caught my eye with her gliding post parade walk, very unusual, and Shikilu was very eager early on and hard to handle.

What a coincidence! There have to be very few horses who start that late. What was I seeing? Maturity? Running on injured legs??

[Rick]

Hollycombe was a pretty good horse that didn't start until he was 5. Won his first race going 6 furlongs in 1:09 flat.

[DDT]

Toccet02

I think that both of these races were for NY breds, and as I remember I think it was Shikilu's second start, but Befuddeled is by Tiznow so you would think they took their time with her, and it is not unusual for statebred races to have 5 and even 6 year old first time starters. Racing is usually the only way these horses can make money for their owners.

When I see these older first time starters I usually look at the breeding, the connections and recent workouts to see if there might be a hint of ability to justify keeping an older horse in training. Good breeding, good connections and recent good works often turn into a winning effort.

DDT

[Roguelet]

We raise late maturing stock; we don't usually even start to break them until they're three. Often they don't start until they're 4; but in those cases they haven't actually been in training any longer than a 2YO starter... they just had a lot more time to run around in the field, be horses, and mature before they were asked to do anything.

We sent 4 horses to a "trainer" who ended up causing two of them to not race until they were 5 (LATE 5, at the end of last year,) one not to be able race at all (just got this news; he's been at the track in training and is a 5YO now,) and one who is on her way to the track today after being RE-broke. We'll see what she does this year... yep, as a 5YO.

All of these had no mental or physical issues, none were injured, none were sore, none were conformationally challenged... they just ended up with the wrong person. It happens a lot more often than you'd think, unfortunately.

[ageecee]

99% of 5 yr old Maiden 1st time starters are running on 3 legs.

[reenci]

99% of 5 yr old Maiden 1st time starters are running on 3 legs.

yup

[Roguelet]

99% of 5 yr old Maiden 1st time starters are running on 3 legs.

Where does THAT percentage come from??? Seriously, is there some study that I am not aware of? Please provide your source.

There's one owner/trainer out here that I've noticed running 5YO first time starters recently; they have been doing VERY well. Not everyone agrees with or even partakes in 2YO racing... or even 2YO breaking/training. I have known several people to start their horses as 4YOs and 5YOs... for MANY different reasons, one of which is NOT soundness issues.

There's not many people out here who start horses as 2YOs. As a matter of fact, one of our two tracks out here doesn't even allow 2YO racing, and unless their rules have changed, they also don't even allow 2YOs onto the track for training!

I'm just sayin', maybe that would be the only reason that you might have a 5YO first time starter, but to make such a sweeping, generalized, across the board statement like that is pretty ridiculous, in my opinion.

[pfrsue]

I wonder if Louis would have nearly as much to write about in his thread if more people gave their horses the time to fully mature before they started them.

[zinn21]

99% of 5 yr old Maiden 1st time starters are running on 3 legs.

I would say in general that is correct but there are a few outfits/owners/horses that allow for or are given time to overcome nagging injuries. The trick is identifying those entities if you're looking to claim a maiden. I've seen some very good older maidens go on to very productive careers.

[Tonno100]

Maybe they just couldn't catch them until they were four

[Hold Your Peace]

Hollycombe was a pretty good horse that didn't start until he was 5. Won his first race going 6 furlongs in 1:09 flat.

Yet he managed only 15 lifetime starts while his stakes winning half-sisters who raced at two made 23 lifetime starts (Yolanda) and 21 lifetime starts (Saratoga Sizzle).

If a horse is genetically or conformationally predisposed to injury or breakdwown a couple of extra years running around a field isn't going to change anything and is just a waste of time and money. The sooner you can find out if a horse can stand up to training and find out if it has any ability the better.

A horse who has setbacks, but seems like it could be something useful, who doesn't start until they're four or whatever is one thing. Some of those are a success.

But for most of the people I've seen who purposely wait to get a horse to the track until it's four, the result is usually that they find out what they could have found out two years ago, and that's that the horse has very little ability and is a waste of money to keep in training.

People harp on the 2yo sales for pushing horses early, yet OBS has compiled some interesting figues on graduates of 2yo sales (versus horses who only sold as yearlings or horses who never sold at auction). More of the 2yo sales graduates become starters and they have more lifetime starts per starter. Additionally a higher percentage of the 2yo sales horses are winners, a higher percentage are stakes winners, and a higher percentage are graded stakes winner, and they have higer average earnings per starter.

[Roguelet]

If a horse is genetically or conformationally predisposed to injury or breakdwown a couple of extra years running around a field isn't going to change anything and is just a waste of time and money. The sooner you can find out if a horse can stand up to training and find out if it has any ability the better.

Just to be very clear... we let our horses run around in the field for an extra couple of years for reasons that have absolutely NOTHING to do with them being "genetically or conformationally predisposed to injury or breakdown."

If those predispositions were present in one of our horses, we would not put that horse into race training AT ALL. The horse would be pointed toward serving an alternate purpose from the very beginning.

[DDT]

Hold Your Peace

Comparing the overall numbers of horses that were only sold as yearlings and horses that were never offered at auction to the number of 2 year olds sold each year, it does not come as a shock that the far less number of 2 year olds would have higher percentages in all aspects. Just another way to promote the sale using percentages that are misleading to say the least.

DDT

[Toccet02]

getting back to my original point though--both these late-starting mares really had presence and "star quality" and won.
I wonder what it is that shines through. Are they more coordinated than youngsters?

[Roger]

This is a good thread. I have a 5 yr. old that I've been trying to run since she was 3. She was giant as a 2 so I waited, she got white line so I waited. I had to put my money in another horse and she waited. We had her going to gates in Dec. and she shin bucked. We will soon start back on her again looking for Lone Star wondering what will come up next. She can run and she wants to run, (puts away work mates)

If we generalize we have to look at the facts and all the studies indicate that horses that start as 2s last longer than horses that don't. Maybe they are sounder to start with. 2's need more time between races if they are to remain sound. I don't have references, Dr. Bamledge (sp) stated these facts.

Its important like someone said earlier. You have to know the individual and its connections.