Size of Field and Starts Per Horse

[Whirlaway]

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

" . . . the bones of the modern thoroughbred are not as dense as its counterpart of the early 20th century. Consequently and unfortunately lighter bones snap and fracture more readily and with more frequency . . ."

[xfactor fan]

Since bone density is directly related to exercise, I'd love to see miles trained vs hours stalled on the chart. Bet there is a direct correlation between those factors and number of starts.

[Bast]

" . . . the bones of the modern thoroughbred are not as dense as its counterpart of the early 20th century. Consequently and unfortunately lighter bones snap and fracture more readily and with more frequency . . ."

Could you please list a reference for this?

[LB]

To think that the average numbers of starts is driven by the general soundness of the breed is simplistic to say the least.

It seems to me that the biggest factor causing the averages to drop is the cost of keeping a horse in training, combined with the lowered liklihood that horses can earn their way. Ten, twenty, thirty years ago when expenses were lower, horses were given many more chances to show some talent and find their niche. Now the costs of ownership are too high to allow for that kind of luxury. If an owner is paying 4-5K a month to keep a horse in training, that horse needs to show some talent in its first few starts to make continuing to absorb that kind of expense viable. Drop the horse down in class and the purses drop with him while your expenses remain the same. It's no wonder that so many TBs are retired with only a few starts--and bone density has nothing to do with it.

[DDT]

Do you think horses like Zenyatta, Gio Ponte, Blame and Lookin At Lucky have a bone density problem? All of these horses average 6 or less starts per year during their racing careers thus far. Bone density is not the problem when it comes to average starts per year. When we have 2 year olds earning a million it comes down to the availability of large purses. Why would any trainer or owner race a horse more when they do not have to? To please the fans? To prove to so called experts that the breed is what it was in the past when it comes to durability? Using average starts per year or average starts per career is not a reliable statistic to use when assessing bone density.

DDT

[da hossman]

There are quite a few knowledgeable folks that believe the use of Lasix/Salix has quite a bit to do with the reduced number of starts. Think about it, Lasix dehydrates the horse prior to running a race, which further dehydrates a horse. What human athlete dehydrates themselves prior to competition?

There is talk of a Lasix "hangover" which horses in Europe do not have to contend with, thus they have horses that are able to successfully race twice in the highest level of competition during one week at Royal Ascot.

It is argued that "jugging" horses after races solves the problem, but I don't believe "jugging" adequately replaces what is lost. I would substantiate this belief with the fact that even with "jugging" trainers feel they need 4+ weeks between races schedule for horses to recover from the race - they need more time between races to replenish their systems. Granted there is also a "style" difference between today's trainers and those of yesteryear, but the style change may well have been forced by the symptoms of increased Lasix use.

Another style change is that only a few current trainers (Nafzger, Wilkes, Mott, maybe Clemente...) give their horses a "prep" race or an "educational" race in their first start or first start after a layoff. In the past "giving them a race" was a fairly common practice for first-time starters or horses coming off a lay-off. It is a safe way for a horse to get very fit, or educated, and sets them up better for the 2nd race than going in "to win" first time out. Then again, this style change could also be related to the use of Lasix....

[xfactor fan]

The practice of giving a horse a start, may have been dropped because it lowers the statistics of the trainer/barn. Computers do many wonderful things, but making it easy to pull statistics may not be one of them.

If your business depends on getting good numbers (so you can attract good owners and horses) why on earth would anyone run a horse unless there is a good chance of winning?

[ratherrapid]

is bone density affected by exercise? since modern racing TBs get less exercise than in days of old, and less racing, possibly the OP quote is true. implication of the quote is that this caused by genetics, untrue, possibly?

[ratherrapid]

The practice of giving a horse a start, may have been dropped because it lowers the statistics of the trainer/barn. Computers do many wonderful things, but making it easy to pull statistics may not be one of them.

If your business depends on getting good numbers (so you can attract good owners and horses) why on earth would anyone run a horse unless there is a good chance of winning?

you mean they manipulate their stats?

[xfactor fan]

I'm not accusing anyone of fraud. But that this weighs in decisions on where and how to run the horses. Not that the trainers care less about winning than trainers of the past, but they care more about not loosing.

If you want to look at how activity affects bone mass, try looking at archeology and paleontology. Some of the findings of the Egyptian royal houses are really amazing. There are some mummies with very fragile bones, an indication that these folks never lifted anything, never had any exercise, every thing was done for them..

On the other extreme the Neanderthals show major bone development, indicating that they lead very physical lives. And given the pattern of damage, they match bull riders, and other rodeo types. Which seems to indicate that they were getting up close with their dinners.

Again looking at human athletes take a good look at tennis players. There is a huge difference in the development of the tennis racket hand vs the other hand. This goes beyond the increase in musculature to the underlying bone.

[Shammy Davis]

FUROSEMIDE SIDE EFFECTS/TOXICITY
The major side effect of all diuretics is the danger of dehydration and electrolyte imbalance. Of particular importance is potassium, which is lost in increased amounts in the urine. Furosemide may also cause decreased levels of blood calcium. Both of these electrolytes are important in normal functioning of heart and skeletal (body) musculature.

Rapid intravenous injection, particularly at high dosages, has been reported to cause a temporary hearing loss in experimental cats.

Furosemide should be used with great caution, if at all, in cases where renal (kidney) function may be impaired; with preexisting dehydration and known, or suspected electrolyte imbalance; and, in horses with liver disease or suspected tumors of the pituitary gland. (In the latter. furosemide may cause a worsening of the centrally induced diabetes.)

DRUG INTERACTIONS
The concurrent use of corticosteroids in horses treated with furosemide can result in worsening of potassium and calcium loss.

The concurrent use of furosemide and aminoglycoside (the -mycin group antibiotics may result in increased risk of damage to the kidneys or deafness.

Furosemide may decrease the response to drugs such as epinephrine used to maintain blood pressure during general anesthesia. Furosemide can also decrease sensitivity to commonly used paralyzing agents (e.g., curare! a horse may receive during general anesthesia. Furosemide may increase the sensitivity to other paralyzing agents (e.g., succinylcholine). Therefore, furosemide should not be given for at least one day prior to general anesthesia. THE SURGEON AND ANESTHETIST SHOULD BOTH BE INFORMED IF THE HORSE HAS A HISTORY OF RECEIVING FUROSEMIDE AND REQUIRES EMERGENCY SURGERY.

Concurrent use of furosemide and trimethoprim may result in increased likelihood of the development of low platelet Counts.

http://www.stablemade.com/hproducts/drugs/lasix.htm

Whirlaway quoted:

" . . . the bones of the modern thoroughbred are not as dense as its counterpart of the early 20th century. Consequently and unfortunately lighter bones snap and fracture more readily and with more frequency . . ."

To whom may we attribute the above quote?

[louis finochio]

Inbreeding to the max Into one sire line ala FB, breeds weedy fragile conformation. When a FB breeder changes the FB mating to a NFB thru ouitcrossing the robust conformation returns.

Seabiscut started 36 times at 2, he had no FB Inbreeding to 1 sireline. 40 years ago there was 3 vets taking care of 1500 tbs. Today there is over 25 vets taken care of 1500 tbs.

If your old enough to remember those tbs that started 50-80 starts, look at their pedigrees. You wont find all of their Inbreeding to one sire line.

[DDT]

Louis

40 years ago would be 1970 and I am pretty sure there were more than 3 vets taking care of 1,500 horses in 1970. Now in the era of Seabiscuit there might have been just 3 vets working on 1,500 but I'm pretty sure that was because the need to administer legal medications was not a problem, and any trainer back then would take care of his/her horses and administer the illegal juice him/herself.

Seabiscuit was inbred 3X4 to Rock Sand, 4X5 to St. Simon and 5X5 to Hindoo, inbreeding is inbreeding and to most people it means within the first 4 generations so technically the 5X5 to Hindoo should not count as inbreeding, and this inbreeding could be the reason Seabiscuit was not a sound horse and I am pretty sure all of his starts as a 2 year old did not help him avoid physical problems later on in his career.

DDT

[Sysonby]

Louis

40 years ago would be 1970 and I am pretty sure there were more than 3 vets taking care of 1,500 horses in 1970. Now in the era of Seabiscuit there might have been just 3 vets working on 1,500 but I'm pretty sure that was because the need to administer legal medications was not a problem, and any trainer back then would take care of his/her horses and administer the illegal juice him/herself.

Seabiscuit was inbred 3X4 to Rock Sand, 4X5 to St. Simon and 5X5 to Hindoo, inbreeding is inbreeding and to most people it means within the first 4 generations so technically the 5X5 to Hindoo should not count as inbreeding, and this inbreeding could be the reason Seabiscuit was not a sound horse and I am pretty sure all of his starts as a 2 year old did not help him avoid physical problems later on in his career.

DDT

I think louis is talking about the single backstretch he's familiar with ie Santa Anita. Of course, in the broader scheme of things, 1970 was also the heyday of Dr Harthill and others.

[Sysonby]

It's the trainers... how else do you explain a trainer like Jerry Hollendorfer who runs a large stable, buys a lot from the same pool everyone else does at Keeneland or claims his horses and regularly gets 9-10 starts a year from all of his horses from the graded stakes winners to maiden eight.

Maybe I should dust this list off again:

Lilly Fa Pootz (12 starts)
U R All That I Am (10 starts)
You Lift Me Up (10 starts)
Dakota Phone (10 starts)

not to mention

Dance To My Tune (9 starts)
City to City (8 starts)
Blind Luck (8 starts)

and those are only the ones who have earned over $100,000.