Size of Field and Starts Per Horse: The New Data

[Whirlaway]

I emailed them a couple of times and they finally got the stats posted.

This chart has always intrigued me because I have never read a cogent reason as to the why and continuing decline of the starts per horse. I figure in another decade or so, the average starts per horse will be less than four.

Are we hading for an implosion?

The link:

http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=10

[LB]

This chart has always intrigued me because I have never read a cogent reason as to the why and continuing decline of the starts per horse. I figure in another decade or so, the average starts per horse will be less than four.

It seems to me that it's pretty easy to see why the average starts per horse keeps dropping. The cost of keeping a horse in training has risen exponentially--and continues to rise--while purses haven't come anywhere near to keeping up. Racing for many owners is a business; even hobby owners can afford to lose only so much. It costs us approx. $50,000 a year per horse to race. Any horse that isn't making that much money, or showing the potential to increase its earnings, is retired. Sure, if I had all the money in the world, I'd keep trying; but I don't so I cut my losses and move on. I suspect that many, if not most, owners do the same.

[Dave C]

I agree with LB. It's purely economics driving the average down. We're primarily breed to race and if a horse isn't paying it's bills after 5 starts, or at least showing that it has the potential to pay its' bills, it is retired. I feel 5 starts is more than ample opportunity for a horse to show its' talent. If it doesn't have racing talent then it's time to look for some other talent.

[Thoroughbred]

This chart has always intrigued me because I have never read a cogent reason as to the why and continuing decline of the starts per horse. I figure in another decade or so, the average starts per horse will be less than four.

It seems to me that it's pretty easy to see why the average starts per horse keeps dropping. The cost of keeping a horse in training has risen exponentially--and continues to rise--while purses haven't come anywhere near to keeping up. Racing for many owners is a business; even hobby owners can afford to lose only so much. It costs us approx. $50,000 a year per horse to race. Any horse that isn't making that much money, or showing the potential to increase its earnings, is retired. Sure, if I had all the money in the world, I'd keep trying; but I don't so I cut my losses and move on. I suspect that many, if not most, owners do the same.

It's all relative in my opinion but you are right. It costs me about $25K a year per horse and I can ship to many tracks within the Mid-Atlantic with allowance purses of $36K+ at CT and Penn plus over $40K at others. Is it worth it? Money wise no but heart wise YES. Do you remember your first win? Every win I have I try to repeat that feeling no matter what the purse and it's a GREAT feeling.

[Whirlaway]

This chart has always intrigued me because I have never read a cogent reason as to the why and continuing decline of the starts per horse. I figure in another decade or so, the average starts per horse will be less than four.

It seems to me that it's pretty easy to see why the average starts per horse keeps dropping. The cost of keeping a horse in training has risen exponentially--and continues to rise--while purses haven't come anywhere near to keeping up. Racing for many owners is a business; even hobby owners can afford to lose only so much. It costs us approx. $50,000 a year per horse to race. Any horse that isn't making that much money, or showing the potential to increase its earnings, is retired. Sure, if I had all the money in the world, I'd keep trying; but I don't so I cut my losses and move on. I suspect that many, if not most, owners do the same.

Jockey Club Online Fact Book: Trends in US Races, Purses and Foal Crops

"Gross purses have increased 28.9 % from 1998-2008, accompanied by marginal gains in the registered foal crop and a moderate decline in the number of races run. Accordingly, the average purse money available per race and per starter has increased 43.7% and 22.6% respectively, during the same period."

Jockey Club Online Fact Book: Racing Statistics for Foaling Area

" ... Among foaling areas that produced at least 500 distinct starters in 2008, Ontario-breds once again had the highest earnings per starter with $24,675. Completing the top five were Kentucky, $22,607; New Jersey $ 22,568; New York, $20,486; and Pennsylvania, $19,503."


Pay special note to the earnings per start for Kentucky. And gentlemen, what about the low level claimer, the ten thousand, fifteen thousand dollar claimer, hell, they may never earn the fifty-thousand in their entire racing career. Are they "retired" before they start? And with respect to the five starts . . . how many times do you race em' as a two-year-old? Two, three times, maybe four? That leaves two, maybe three races as a three-year-old before you make the determination to cut your losses. That means the horse has to earn $10,000 per start.

Please explain

















[url][/url]

[Fair Play]

I agree with LB. It's purely economics driving the average down. We're primarily breed to race and if a horse isn't paying it's bills after 5 starts, or at least showing that it has the potential to pay its' bills, it is retired. I feel 5 starts is more than ample opportunity for a horse to show its' talent. If it doesn't have racing talent then it's time to look for some other talent.

I agree. If in those 5 starts he has not won or is running so low he has no where to go, we see if he can jump. If he has broken his maiden at a low level, he will likely cost us more money to get his second win than he will earn. Sometimes these horses get sold to an owner/trainer we like who can get that second win more economically than we can at a smaller track, but if the end of the meet is nearing, many sound, healthy horses go on to do something else.

[LB]

Jockey Club Online Fact Book: Trends in US Races, Purses and Foal Crops

"Gross purses have increased 28.9 % from 1998-2008, accompanied by marginal gains in the registered foal crop and a moderate decline in the number of races run. Accordingly, the average purse money available per race and per starter has increased 43.7% and 22.6% respectively, during the same period."

Averages are a great tool for providing misleading statistics. Yup, if I had a horse on the Derby trail or running in the Breeders Cup, I'd be running for more money than I was 10 years ago. Fact is though, at my local tracks in KY--Churchill, Keeneland, Turfway Park, and Ellis Park--aside from a few high profile stakes races, purses have either remained flat or dropped during that same time period.

Let me try an analogy: suppose you look at the average earnings for a stallion that has 10 offspring running. 1 of those horses has earned 750K, the other 9 have earned 100K between them. Average earnings per runner: $85,000. And yet there's still a 90% chance that I'm losing my shirt.

[dray33]

It's all a part of the big picture. Medication and drug abuse? Bigger purses? Quicker retirements? Mashed together, its shorter running, shorter distance, shorter career horses.

They are all straws. Which one will break the camel's back is guesswork.

[Fair Play]

It's all a part of the big picture. Medication and drug abuse? Bigger purses? Quicker retirements? Mashed together, its shorter running, shorter distance, shorter career horses.

They are all straws. Which one will break the camel's back is guesswork.

I'll just comment on one part: I don't know the answer to the shorter distances. Who among us hasn't had a horse stand in the barn week in week out seeing his mile and a sixteenth race shortened to 6f so it will fill? Try explaining it to a client after he has paid his money to hand it to someone's "cheap speed" that his router is in against. It is great if your horses are higher quality, but for those who aren't, it is hard to get the longer races to go. I have been hearing that song since I have had anything to do with TBs.

[dray33]

Agreed fairplay. How many of these bleeders we're breeding can get a mile, anyway? We're hopeful, but most of our stock is no longer middle distance. They don't write the races, they don't get the distance. Unfortunately, were more likely to see 4.5 furlong as we are to see a mile and 70. Maybe one day, when we can get a clearer picture of our gene pool, we can breed for the real thoroughbred.

[Roger]

I don't know about your circuit, but here in the Southwest, the Seattle Slew and A P Indy influence has done a great deal for increasing our stock's stamina and we have a fair number of 8 and 8 1/2 furlong races now. Dr. Bramledge (sp) wrote an article and he blamed the super stables for the decrease in the number of starts. Those stables are looking for wins and once a horse has run through its conditions, they send it home if it can't win more races. Its an effective business model, but it does limit the number of starts for an individual. Maybe we as an industry think too much in terms of the bottom line and not enough in terms of Sport. The IRS is our problem, they are why we have fewer starts.

[tbrace]

LB,

Just curious, in what region does it cost $50k to race a horse, per year?

[Whirlaway]

Thanks for the reply guys. Good to hear from those in field, the people who really know.

So, if I wanted to get into the business and had a couple hundred K set aside bought two or three head and employed a reputable trainer, if none of my stock were winners or proved to earn, I'm out of business. Tough game. It is so horribly bad?

I do understand how stats can skew. That wasn't my intention when I posted the numbers, do remember we are talking about averages here, and there are fewer stakes races than claiming races. Nevertheless, the average purse money available per race and per starter has increased and Kentucky is second highest.

Lets take a closer look at not the overall averages but the, "Size of field and Starts by State or Province", it is the link just below the chart found here:

http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook/races_pass.asp?whatyr=2008

In California, the average starts per runner is 4.8; Florida, 3.9; God forbid should I be running in the Blue Grass State of Kentucky, where the average starts per runner is a paltry 3.0. Only one state shows more than 5 starts per runner, and that state is Massachusetts, I didn't they ran there.

Few horses make the five starts. The numbers suggest the problem is more than a problem of economics.

[pokeyman]

Yeah, I am a Massachusetts breeder and owner. I am not shocked to see we have the highest starts per runner. Our state has been a breed to race state since the beginning of time!! LOL

When your focus is on breeding to race than you value things (like soundness, correct movement-no interfering or forging, correct wind, good feet, etc) over the type of bling that commercial breeders focus on.

We have ZERO sales/commercial market in our state so we all race. Period.

Most serious breeders breed out but still stay local (NY, NJ, MD,PA). Ky sired horses are rare. Some may bring home an in foal mare sired by a FL stallion as Suffolk trainers tend to ship to Tampa for the winter....

However, if you want a hard knockin' racehorse than look for a Mass-bred!!

[LB]

LB,
Just curious, in what region does it cost $50k to race a horse, per year?

The 50K amount I used includes pretty much everything--trainer, vet, blacksmith, vanning (or flying), nomination fees, etc. I don't think the costs are specific to a region necessarily, but we race in KY, IL, and CA. Actually we're planning to branch out to the mid-Atlantic states next. If our costs turn out to be lower there, that would be a big plus.