Size of Field and Starts Per Horse: The New Data

[pokeyman]

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.

Wow! That's high!! I think we are around $20,000 to 30,000 depending upon location. We run in MA, NY, NJ, PA, and KY right now but did run in FL as well..... Of course, we have never had the quality of horse that would "fly"!

Our highest day rate was $85 (Saratoga) but we smartened up and didn't do that again!! Now, we average about $50 a day per horse and train at training centers.

[DDT]

There are several things that should be taken into consideration when evaluating average starts per year. Two year old stats are included even though two year olds as a group have always had the lowest average starts per year and this will bring the overall average down. Superior runners are not counted as a group but are included in the overall average. This factor is also misleading because as a group, superior runners average less starts per year than the overall population.

Using a median figure would probably give a better number, however, if the point of the argument is to somehow link average starts per year with soundness, meaning, the lower the average starts per year the less sound the breed, all aspects of the statistics should be taken into consideration before making this assumption. In my opinion, each group, 2 year olds, 3 year olds and 4 year olds and up should be examined independent of the others. In addition, superior runners should also be examined as a group.

DDT

[Barn 31 T-breds]

What is normally left out of discussions about "lifetime starts" is the fact that those who do have substantial careers don't race nearly as often.

It was not uncommon for a horse to race every 10 days or so forty years ago. A horse that raced early in the month sometimes would race 4 times within that calendar month.

Anybody who thinks that the breed is not weaker nowadays should try doing that. Let's see if you can race 30 times in 10 or 11 months, which is what many horses did back then.

Let's see you race a two year old 13-15 times before he turns three. Don't see much of that anymore, either. It was not infrequent four decades ago.

I happen to have a unique perspective on where the breed is now compared to years ago.

I raced back then and took 30 years off from training. I could see a difference right away between the horses of yesteryear and those of today. In 1975 I raced a horse 5 times in 37 days. Not one single horse that I've had since coming back could do that. I wouldn't even consider it.

Economics may have something to do with why people give up on horses so quickly now.

But it doesn't explain why those who are racing regularly can't equal the number of starts or the frequency of starts of the typical racehorse of 30-40 years ago. If anything, an owner would want his horse to race more often in an effort to earn his keep.

They simply can't do it.

They just aren't as sturdy or sound nowadays as they were back then.

[ratherrapid]

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.

[Barn 31 T-breds]

I'm a little confused. This isn't in response to my post, is it?

[Dave C]

Forty years ago you didn't have to worry about positive tests from herbal remedies. If your horse runs on lasix today, it has zero chance of racing back well on short notice. Since most horses race on lasix there is little point to trying to run them back quickly. Take your horses that don't bleed off lasix, and you will find they recover from races much faster. Don't blame the genetics because the Aussies using NA and Euro shuttle stallions have no trouble running horses in multiple G1 races in a single week (take a look at the pp's for the Melbourne Cup when it comes up this fall). It's not the horses it's the people.

[DDT]

Barn 31


40 years ago horses had to run often to earn their keep, with purses today the trainers can and do take a different approach, and I am not saying that that approach is good or better, what I am saying is the game is much different today and it could be that horses are not as sound, but I believe, for the most part, we have not lost much soundness overall. If trainers today had to keep their horses running they would train much different. Medications have also altered the manner in which horses are trained. If we did go to hay, oats and water the bad blood would be weeded out and one of the advantages would be more starts, however, this would take time and the powers that be are not willing to change.

It is really funny how trainers and some owners go crazy when we talk about banning race day medications because it would keep too many horses out of racing but nobody looks at how many horses have their careers shortened by the continued use of the same medications.

No doubt we have bred some soundness out, but average starts per year is not a reliable indicator as to soundness.

DDT

[Barn 31 T-breds]

I'm not sure which herbal remedies you're referring to, but I didn't use any except maybe bucchu leaves.

The horse I raced every 9 days did get lasix before every race, and a jug the day after.

I wouldn't say that a horse has zero chance racing back that soon after getting lasix because that one did, and he hit the board 4 of those 5 races with an excuse in the one he didn't.

A horse has to be sound enough and sturdy enough to do it. There aren't any that can do it today.

Here are some horses that raced around the same time and got lasix:

http://www.pedigreequery.com/port+conway+lane

http://www.pedigreequery.com/dots+imp

http://www.pedigreequery.com/lexington+park

All were allowance / stakes / high claimer types that raced often.

I didn't have to scour the country to find these examples. They raced against each other all the time in Maryland and NJ.

This kind of "iron horse" doesn't exist today.

And if you want to make the argument that lasix is virtually a requirement for horses to be able to race, that in itself is a weakening of the breed.

[Whirlaway]

Barn 31 T-breds,

Your experience speaks for itself.

Always good to hear from the old timers, and I say that respectfully. Good to hear from those that were actually there when the thoroughbred was a true stout beast like runner . . . It is my opinion that the best days of the thoroughbred race horse are behind us, those times are gone, so for me it is always important to read from and listen to someone that was actually there when the thoroughbred was at its greatest.

What was that horse really like? Other than its ability to run for days and quickly recover, what other qualities and characteristics make that horse different from the thoroughbred we find today?

What is your opinion as to why the thoroughbred has changed so much?

[Mickey the Marcher]

Forty years ago you didn't have to worry about positive tests from herbal remedies. If your horse runs on lasix today, it has zero chance of racing back well on short notice. Since most horses race on lasix there is little point to trying to run them back quickly. Take your horses that don't bleed off lasix, and you will find they recover from races much faster. Don't blame the genetics because the Aussies using NA and Euro shuttle stallions have no trouble running horses in multiple G1 races in a single week (take a look at the pp's for the Melbourne Cup when it comes up this fall). It's not the horses it's the people.

That's right.
The horse that won the Melbourne Cup (one of the richest races in the world at $4m odd) this last Nov, Viewed, ran in a G1 three days prior to winning the Melbourne Cup. He ran in another G1 two weeks prior to that.
Makybe Diva when she won her last of three MC's, won the the Cox Plate, 10 days prior. That's the two richest races in Australia in 10 days.
Last year's winner, Efficient, also ran in the Cox Plate 10 days before winning the MC. Keep in mind we are not talking sprinting here, the MC is a 2 mile race and the Mackinnon, Caulfield Cup and Cox Plate are 10 and 12f races.

The year before last, Finsceal Beo won the English 1000 Guineas, then a week later was pipped on the line in the French 1000 Guineas, then came out and won the Irish 1000 Guineas 14 days after that. That's three G1s in 21 days.
In that same Irish 1000 Guineas, the filly that finished 3rd, Peeping Fawn, came out 4 days later and finished a ½ a length 2nd in the Oaks at Epsom over 12f. She then went on to win 4 G1's in 7 weeks. In all, she ran 10 times in the space of four and a half months, on average once every two weeks against the best fillies around.

Now if you look at the pedigree of all those horses, they have plenty of American bloodlines in there, and they all did it without Lasix.

[Barn 31 T-breds]

Whirlaway & Mickey,

I will try to address both of your posts in one response.

Mickey, I don't think using horses who won G1 races in Europe and Australia to prove a point about the sturdiness and soundness of the typical American horse really holds water. Here's why:

The horses in your example are particular to high class foreign runners. They are trained differently, to run different races, and their pedigrees (despite having some American bloodlines within) are heavily biased towards distance.

VIEWED (AUS) b. H, 2003 DP = 8-1-9-4-0 (22) DI = 1.59 CD = 0.59
FINSCEAL BEO (IRE) ch. F, 2004 DP = 8-2-8-2-0 (20) DI = 2.33 CD = 0.80
MAKYBE DIVA (GB) b. M, 1999 DP = 7-8-23-0-0 [38] DI = 2.30 CD = 0.58

Now, I'm no expert on dosage, but I've seen enough of them that I can say categorically that these pedigrees are not typical of those that race in America today.

Maybe the fact that these horses are bred for marathon distances, turf, and are trained for same, have an effect on their ability to race more often. Whatever the reason, American horses are bred for speed, not distance, and therein lies the problem, in my opinion.

For decades, American breeders have eschewed distance in favor of speed. The result has been weaker horses, unable to either race long distances or with any degree of frequency.

That is the TYPICAL American racehorse. I'm sure if you want to pore over PPs from all around the country you can find exceptions. If you want to point to foreign breds, that's comparing apples to oranges. They don't race the type of races we do here, train the way we do here, or breed the type of horses we do here.

Maybe those foreign horses are more like those of yesteryear that I remember. Don't forget, at one time distance getting ability was the measure of a good horse in this country, too. Many years ago, T-breds would race 2 miles or more, and even heats. As recently as 30 years ago, almost every track had a "starter handicap series" which would start at a mile and culminate in a series finale at 2 miles, with every marathon distance in between. Show me which tracks still do that today. I'd be surprised if there are any left. There aren't enough horses capable of running long distances to fill the series.

At any rate, my observations are restricted to American horses. So, if you want to refute them, kindly use examples of American horses. And if lasix is going to be the dividing point, I don't think holds water either. If American owners and trainers thought their horses could race better and more often without lasix, I'm sure they would.

Whirlaway,

One thing I can say I believe is different today from years ago is the amount of wind trouble in horses. Back then, occasionally horses were considered "windy" or had "broken wind".

Today, it seems much more common. Now, I know people are going to say that "it was just as common then, but nobody could diagnose it." All I can tell you is, probably a third of horses I've trained in the past few years have had some sort of wind problem - and that is a much, much higher percentage that 35 years ago. Some have hemiplegia, others displace, others have had excessive mucous (easier to fix, but still more prevalent than before).

Again, I blame breeders for giving us these increasing problems. So many horses are being retired earlier, probably even before signs of hemiplegia show up. Combine that with the fact that they race so few times before being retired and you wind up with a "perfect storm". We don't know how many of our American stallions have wind trouble or soundness problems, because they are retired before they can be established.

Compare T-breds to the standardbred industry. NO stallion, no matter how well bred, will be bred if he doesn't have an exemplary race record, and most of those stallions race until they are 5, 6, or 7 before being retired. Breeding an unraced stallion is NEVER done. Throw in the fact that they allow AI, and you have a situation where most anyone can afford to breed to an accomplished racehorse with a good pedigree plus a great expectation of soundness and good wind.

Some have pointed out that the thickness of bone - particularly cannon bone - has diminished in T-breds over the years.

I can tell you one instance when I found that to be the case. A couple of years ago, I trained a 4 year old who was very well bred. He was about as muscular and correct as a horse could be, but was light in the cannons. Long story short, I trained him for months and when he got into serious breezing, he cracked a cannon bone. Is that typical? I can't say that it is for sure, but it was in this case.

And that horse was an $800k yearling.

[dray33]

Thank you for your exceptional post/insight Barn 31.

I have said it before, but the idea that breathing issues are only obvious today because we can detect them more readily is purely subterfuge. Fact is, the increase has been obvious and increasing even over the past 10 years. Everyone has opinions, but one of my trainers told me that back in the day, breathing issues were far and few between... 1, maybe 2 horses in the stable a year. Today, the number is nearly 50% and growing. No one cares any more. Many of the racing operations in America routinely perform tie-backs and a myectomy on every single horse in the barn.

About two years ago in Bloodhorse, Cot Campbell wrote: "The American racehorse of today races less, has more ailments than ever before, and the bills for veterinary treatment to keep him in action are growing more alarming by the day. This combination of facts causes a racehorse generally to be less pleasurable to own.

Interesting observation: Dogwood has one trainer who is 78 years of age, another who is 70 years of age, one who is a middle-aged European, and three who are relatively young. The vet bills of the first three are light and very reasonable. The bills of the latter three—who came up in an age when trainers were more reliant on veterinary care—are often out of sight. "

No doubt the financial reasons expressed on this thread are relevant. But to ignore/deny the abuses of medications in the sport as a major part of the problem is irresponsible.

[madelyn]

These posts have really hit home with the core of my beliefs. I believe in breeding a sound, well formed horse who can do the work (race) without thousands of dollars worth of medical interference.

Breathing problems are hereditary. Light bone CAN be hereditary - it can also be environmental. Barn 31's $800K yearling that cracked his cannon at four might have been a hothouse sale baby who never had his bones challenged at all as a baby, or he could have been from something like that deadly Unbridled line of fragile-boned, brittle horses - and before I get flamed, there are always exceptions and there are some very sound horses that have Unbridled as their sire line. I believe soundness probably came from their dams.

But the Big Stallion Business machines that own these movie star horses are making a star, and have no interest in disclosing the flaws in the star. They want the stud fees, quality be damned.

I won't send a mare to a stallion I have not inspected. I won't send a mare to a stallion who had to have his airway surgically altered to breathe, his bones aligned with plates and screws, etc. etc. And I won't breed a mare with any of those issues.

I want a stallion like mine, who raced until he was 7 and retired sound after 30 starts.

[Whirlaway]

Your responses have proved to be most interesting.

Every once in a great while there is a thread where therein you know some important writings and learnings can be found, where those posting offer what they truly know, free of confounding statistics and political correctness. In my opinion, this is one of those threads.

I found a somewhat dated but interesting and relatively short article addressing some of the issues raised in this thread. Take a look at what some of the top trainers and owners had to say on the topics we are discussing.

The link:

http://www.grayson-jockeyclub.org/newsimages/bh_10_17_06.pdf

[Venusian]

It was not uncommon for a horse to race every 10 days or so forty years ago. A horse that raced early in the month sometimes would race 4 times within that calendar month.

Anybody who thinks that the breed is not weaker nowadays should try doing that. Let's see if you can race 30 times in 10 or 11 months, which is what many horses did back then.

I raced back then and took 30 years off from training. I could see a difference right away between the horses of yesteryear and those of today. In 1975 I raced a horse 5 times in 37 days. Not one single horse that I've had since coming back could do that. I wouldn't even consider it.
...
They simply can't do it.

They just aren't as sturdy or sound nowadays as they were back then.

Have a look at the career of Chaplin's Club, a UK-based but American-bred (!) horse who was a frequent runner and prolific winner only 20 years ago.

He won 7 races in 19 days in 1988 (admittedly sprints), and in all, 24 out of 160-odd lifetime starts.