Beyer - Myth of the Short Layoff

[classhandicapper]

http://www.drf.com/news/beyer-racing-suffers-myth-short-layoff

[andtheyreoff]

Great article, as usual by Beyer.

Surprised he didn't bring up Will Take Charge, who won the Travers, Pennsylvania Derby, and Clark, plus finished second in the Jim Dandy and the Breeders' Cup Classic, after running in all three Triple Crown races.

[Overlay]

I remember reading The Compleat Horseplayer by Tom Ainslie when I first started out with handicapping in the 1960's. His condition criteria at that time called for eliminating any horse that had not had two races, or two workouts, or one of each, within the past seventeen days. Quirin (in the late 1970's) found that horses that had not run a "good race" (finishing third or better, or else within two lengths of the winner in a sprint, or within three lengths of the winner in a route) within the past thirty days were poor betting risks. Now it seems that horses that have raced at all (regardless of how they ran) within that same timeframe are the exception rather than the rule, especially at higher class levels.

[Light]

Beyer does not go into the subject of not having a TC winner since 1978. Maybe he should consider that before criticizing why trainers are not running their horses back.

[1st time lasix]

I remember reading The Compleat Horseplayer by Tom Ainslie when I first started out with handicapping in the 1960's. His condition criteria at that time called for eliminating any horse that had not had two races, or two workouts, or one of each, within the past seventeen days. Quirin (in the late 1970's) found that horses that had not run a "good race" (finishing third or better, or else within two lengths of the winner in a sprint, or within three lengths of the winner in a route) within the past thirty days were poor betting risks. Now it seems that horses that have raced at all (regardless of how they ran) within that same timeframe are the exception rather than the rule, especially at higher class levels. Wow....I have no life at all because i read that positive form information just last night from one of my library texts. Monday is my reading night.

[Tom]

Beyer does not go into the subject of not having a TC winner since 1978. Maybe he should consider that before criticizing why trainers are not running their horses back.

Last time we had one, there were two horses who could have been, and neither one of them were coming of two races a 3 yos.

This year's KD winner certainly had some foundation under his belt.

[cj]

Beyer does not go into the subject of not having a TC winner since 1978. Maybe he should consider that before criticizing why trainers are not running their horses back.

Wasn't there a similar gap before Secretariat won? And that was back when horses raced a lot more often. The Triple Crown is a very hard thing to do, and racing horses lightly just makes it harder.

[Light]

I'd also like to point out that even if CC wins the TC, it does nothing to disprove what the TC series have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt: That the bounce factor is real and AB is wrong.

A horse that wins the KD usually produces a new "top". It's not uncommon for a horse to equal or surpass that top in its next race, especially a developing 3yo. But after 2 tops its almost a guarantee that the horse will regress. Most regress after 1 top. So if you went to Vegas with that theory in mind, you could have been 35 for 35 (since 1978), betting against the KD winner winning the TC.

This angle proven by the TC series goes for all race horses. From cheap claimers and expensive MSW horses. This is the reason why they say "horses are not machines". This is the reason we are not all self employed from wagering on this sport.

[classhandicapper]

I have a handful of thoughts on this subject, but Beyer covered most of them.

1. Every study I have seen or done myself suggested that sharp horses (using either speed figures or winners as the criteria for sharp) do better when they came back quicker.

2. My handicapping experience over decades suggests that hard campaigns (tough races, lots of shipping, not much spacing) tend to eventually wear a horse down or cause minor injuries to accumulate. I have also seen what I believe to be an occasional legitimate bounces from a single very tough effort.

3. Given the modern game of pointing to the BC, I think the best strategy is probably to space or give the horse a mid season break if you are trying to remain at a peak for the BC.

4. IMO, if the connections get overly cautious, they risk leaving money on the table, blowing year end awards, and not having a battled tested horse for the really big dances.

5. I'm not a vet or trainer, but I read in multiple places that the use of Lasix causes horses to need more time to recover from races.

6. Not all horses are the same. So IMO you have to at least put some trust in a trainer's ability to know what his horse needs. You would think that over the very long term trainers that keep over-running or under-running their horses will get poorer results and get weeded out from training the best horses.

There's probably some balance in all this between the way horses used to run and the way they run now that IMO indicates we have moved too far towards spacing and conservatism and need to shift back a little.

[Stillriledup]

I have a handful of thoughts on this subject, but Beyer covered most of them.

1. Every study I have seen or done myself suggested that sharp horses (using either speed figures or winners as the criteria for sharp) do better when they came back quicker.

2. My handicapping experience over decades suggests that hard campaigns (tough races, lots of shipping, not much spacing) tend to eventually wear a horse down or cause minor injuries to accumulate. I have also seen what I believe to be an occasional legitimate bounces from a single very tough effort.

3. Given the modern game of pointing to the BC, I think the best strategy is probably to space or give the horse a mid season break if you are trying to remain at a peak for the BC.

4. IMO, if the connections get overly cautious, they risk leaving money on the table, blowing year end awards, and not having a battled tested horse for the really big dances.

5. I'm not a vet or trainer, but I read in multiple places that the use of Lasix causes horses to need more time to recover from races.

6. Not all horses are the same. So IMO you have to at least put some trust in a trainer's ability to know what his horse needs. You would think that over the very long term trainers that keep over-running or under-running their horses will get poorer results and get weeded out from training the best horses.

There's probably some balance in all this between the way horses used to run and the way they run now that IMO indicates we have moved too far towards spacing and conservatism and need to shift back a little.

I want to touch on point 4 you made. Leaving money on the table. I'm not sure how much it costs to "Care" for a horse in a calendar year, but if a horse is running for huge money, like a horse named Wise Dan for example, they need to race only a few times a year to make major bank. So, there's really no economic reason to "rush" a horse back to the races when you can make massive money with a horse by racing less than 10 times per year.

[classhandicapper]

I want to touch on point 4 you made. Leaving money on the table. I'm not sure how much it costs to "Care" for a horse in a calendar year, but if a horse is running for huge money, like a horse named Wise Dan for example, they need to race only a few times a year to make major bank. So, there's really no economic reason to "rush" a horse back to the races when you can make massive money with a horse by racing less than 10 times per year.

Let's leave Wise Dan out of it because he's getting up there in age. Perhaps he should be handled differently from some other horses.

I understand your point, but let's just say we could prove that there are no ill effects from racing a top horse 10-12 times in a year instead of 6-8. Even if you made a pile of money on 6-8 races, you could make a bigger pile racing 10-12 times and help make up for some of the other horses you own that turned out to be mediocre or get injured. The problem is that it's either hard to prove or no one has undertaken a detailed study like that and then released the results. So everyone speculates based on their experience.

[Stillriledup]

I think that each horse needs to be analyzed as an individual, some horses are just more rugged than others, so the blanket statement about rest only matters for some horses, while other horses can handle a higher work load.

If an owner CAN be conservative and race sparingly, than who's to say that's the wrong way?

There are no "free strides" which means that every stride a horse takes in a workout or a race, means he's one stride closer to the end of his or her career. The more you race and workout, the closer you get to the end. If you rest, you essentially delay that inevitable retirement party, but at least you can expend all your "Strides" at points when the horse is rested and strong physically.

Some horses are just more frail than others, so unless you work inside the particular barn and know the horse up close and what that horse is going thru, its hard to judge from afar who should come back in 2 weeks and who should get more rest.

[Stillriledup]

Let's leave Wise Dan out of it because he's getting up there in age. Perhaps he should be handled differently from some other horses.

I understand your point, but let's just say we could prove that there are no ill effects from racing a top horse 10-12 times in a year instead of 6-8. Even if you made a pile of money on 6-8 races, you could make a bigger pile racing 10-12 times and help make up for some of the other horses you own that turned out to be mediocre or get injured. The problem is that it's either hard to prove or no one has undertaken a detailed study like that and then released the results. So everyone speculates based on their experience.

I think its up to each individual barn to decide how many races their star horse can handle.

As far as "ill effects" for racing 3 or 4 more times per year, i think there are no "Free strides" every stride in a race a horse takes, its one less race he will have in his or her career.

Look at it this way.

Leaving poor training and bad management out of the equasion for a second, lets say that the moment each horse drops on the ground, on day 1 of that horse's life, he or she only has "so many" lifetime races in the tank. At some point, they all have to retire. So, you have to ask yourself, by racing "more" can you lengthen the horse's career by racing MORE often?

Or, if a horse is hypothetically destined to have 89 career races, will the career end at "89" or can you essentially "Force" more starts out of the horse?

If each stride gets any individual horse one stride closer to retirement, what's the difference when those strides take place?

Now, i guess its different with star horses who are going to prematurely retire due to breeding purposes, but those horses are so valuable, you have to err on the side of caution and race less.

[Tom]

I think the horses used to be lot tougher and healthier because they were trained by trainers, not vets. Great horses run fast and often.
Sagely, at FL, won 50 races in over 100 races. He only retired because he reached 15 and was forced to. Come to think of it, he didn't race every two weeks, though. He usually raced every week. And won.

[andtheyreoff]

I think its up to each individual barn to decide how many races their star horse can handle.

As far as "ill effects" for racing 3 or 4 more times per year, i think there are no "Free strides" every stride in a race a horse takes, its one less race he will have in his or her career.

Look at it this way.

Leaving poor training and bad management out of the equasion for a second, lets say that the moment each horse drops on the ground, on day 1 of that horse's life, he or she only has "so many" lifetime races in the tank. At some point, they all have to retire. So, you have to ask yourself, by racing "more" can you lengthen the horse's career by racing MORE often?

Or, if a horse is hypothetically destined to have 89 career races, will the career end at "89" or can you essentially "Force" more starts out of the horse?

If each stride gets any individual horse one stride closer to retirement, what's the difference when those strides take place?

Now, i guess its different with star horses who are going to prematurely retire due to breeding purposes, but those horses are so valuable, you have to err on the side of caution and race less.

While of course each horse is an individual, I would figure that there are many horses who could handle racing 10+ times a year just fine.

800 posts! :ThmbUp:

[Stillriledup]

While of course each horse is an individual, I would figure that there are many horses who could handle racing 10+ times a year just fine.

800 posts! :ThmbUp:

Congrats on 800!

This to "race" or not to race is a very tricky subject because it really is all about horse and jockey safety and if horses get "Extra rest" i don't see how that could be a bad thing.

There's no doubt that there are some horses who could theoretically race a few more times a year, but that's why trainers make the big bucks, to decide when to race and when not to race.

[DeltaLover]

I completely agree with the Patriarch of American handicapping.

Bounce theory and form cycle detection are just a bunch of BS ; only useful as an excuse to failing favorites and nothing more.

Top horses need to run often and against each other and connections should give their horses the chance to prove how good they are... I find it difficult to believe that the super fillie is not running against them!

[dannyhill]

I find it difficult to believe that the super fillie is not running against them!
How she came out of her last race could answer that. Unfortunately i am not privy to that.

[pandy]

Great column by Beyer. The decision on Commanding Curve is the most puzzling to me. He finishes strong into a headwind off a modest pace to be less than 2 lengths behind the winner and they pass the Preakness?

[nijinski]

There are horses who have won the Belmont with short rest over the
years , one I recall was about a week after their last races .So I agree
it could be done .
This is always the connections decision and honestly we don't know how
Untapable feels right after her races . If they feel she does better
spacing her races , that could be the case .
Some horses lose weight , they don't clean out the feed buckets or they
may be body sore . As pointed out earlier , it's the individual horses's well
being that needs to be considered .

[pandy]

I'm glad he mentioned lasix, which I do believe is a big part of the problem. Another thing that is killing the sport, the horses simply don't race enough. The average is 8 starts a year. Who in their right mind would buy a thoroughbred? If you don't have owners, you don't have any horses, and you don't have a sport.

[lamboguy]

There are horses who have won the Belmont with short rest over the
years , one I recall was about a week after their last races .So I agree
it could be done .
This is always the connections decision and honestly we don't know how
Untapable feels right after her races . If they feel she does better
spacing her races , that could be the case .
Some horses lose weight , they don't clean out the feed buckets or they
may be body sore . As pointed out earlier , it's the individual horses's well
being that needs to be considered .that was CONQUISTADOR CIELO, he won the Metropolitan Mile a week earlier, then he won the Belmont by 40 miles in the slop and it actually was 6 days between races.

i will never forget that day in the pouring rain

[cj]

I'm glad he mentioned lasix, which I do believe is a big part of the problem. Another thing that is killing the sport, the horses simply don't race enough. The average is 8 starts a year. Who in their right mind would buy a thoroughbred? If you don't have owners, you don't have any horses, and you don't have a sport.

I agree with both. The data is there about Lasix for those that want to find it. It is a big reason horses don't race as often.

I also would never want to own a horse that races 6 to 8 times a year. It kind of takes the fun out of it I would think.

[Tall One]

There are horses who have won the Belmont with short rest over the
years , one I recall was about a week after their last races .So I agree
it could be done.



Excellent point, Nijinski.

Woody Stevens wheeled Conquistador Cielo right back after beating older horses in the Met Mile. Told de Kwiatkowski to have the champagne chilled.

[ronsmac]

that was CONQUISTADOR CIELO, he won the Metropolitan Mile a week earlier, then he won the Belmont by 40 miles in the slop and it actually was 6 days between races.

i will never forget that day in the pouring rain He actually won the Belmont 5 days after the Met Mile,I'll never forget that day, My Dad loved him and 1 year later I got my biggest payoff ever on the DD that led with Caveat .

[JustRalph]

Great column by Beyer. The decision on Commanding Curve is the most puzzling to me. He finishes strong into a headwind off a modest pace to be less than 2 lengths behind the winner and they pass the Preakness?

I think the Preakness is the perfect distance for CChrome, and CCurve connections know it.

Why not sit back and be the spoiler in New York.........?

[Robert Fischer]

Horses are individuals w/ inherent differences in their ability to bounce back, and the races themselves can have a relatively wide range of different demands.

That said, I like to see the stars run against each other.

[nijinski]

Excellent point, Nijinski.

Woody Stevens wheeled Conquistador Cielo right back after beating older horses in the Met Mile. Told de Kwiatkowski to have the champagne chilled.

Amazing trainer , he was

Danzig Connection - Jersey Derby 5/25 , Belmont 6/7
Crème Fraiche - Peter Pan 5/25 , Belmont 6/7
Caveat - Allowance 5-30 , Belmont , 6-11
and the beloved Swale - after the Preakness loss .

Note that the Peter Pan was later in the month and several other runners
won the Belmont after that race too .

A lot has changed . Now back to the Preakness :)

[highnote]

A horse that wins the KD usually produces a new "top". It's not uncommon for a horse to equal or surpass that top in its next race, especially a developing 3yo.

If BSF 97 is to be believed we don't have to worry about a double-top.

CC should easily be able to surpass 97 in the Preakness and Belmont.

So if he gets a double-top it would be in the Preakness/Belmont combo, not the KD/Preakness.

[CryingForTheHorses]

http://www.drf.com/news/beyer-racing-suffers-myth-short-layoff

I dont have stakes horses but I am a big believer that if your horse is eating well,training well and kicking down the barn,He should run,Doesnt matter if its 7 or 8 days later,I just ran a horse that I claimed off a win,Ran him 8 days later on the rise and had his lifetime high beyer winnning by 10 .Problem is lots of horseman tell the horse when HE can run and not the HORSE telling the trainer when he wants!! When I enter a horse 8 to 9 days later,Im always the fittest horse.Running your horse where he belongs or a notch below will allow your horse to maintain good beyers providing he is ready!

[nijinski]

that was CONQUISTADOR CIELO, he won the Metropolitan Mile a week earlier, then he won the Belmont by 40 miles in the slop and it actually was 6 days between races.

i will never forget that day in the pouring rain

I loved that one , all heart . He ended up with an ankle problem by the
time Travers came around . Still was very brave . Big shares of him
sold at Saratoga prior to the race .

[thaskalos]

I can't say that I can blame any trainer for refusing to run their horse in all three legs of the TC. The person who selected the distances for these three races could not have made the task of a sweep any more difficult for these horses. The best thing to do for the physical welfare of these horses would have been to make each race progressively longer than the race before...to allow the horses to slowly get acclimated to the longer distances. Make the Derby a mile and 3/16ths...the Preakness a mile and a quarter, and the Belmont a mile and a half. After all...this gradual increase in distance is what the horses are used to experiencing during their racing careers.

Another decent alternative would have been to have the DERBY be the mile and a half race...and then progressively DECREASE the distances in the other two legs. This option would give these young horses the benefit of having to negotiate lesser distances, as they get progressively more exhausted from their rigorous campaigns.

But to start with the mile and a quarter race...then switch to the shorter race, thus giving the horses a much-needed breather...only to send them next on a marathon journey -- when they are most exhausted? Ridiculous, IMO...and a virtually impossible task for today's fragile breed.

I doubt that we will EVER see another TC winner.

[PaceAdvantage]

Excellent point, Nijinski.

Woody Stevens wheeled Conquistador Cielo right back after beating older horses in the Met Mile. Told de Kwiatkowski to have the champagne chilled.Lo and behold...no Lasix in NY back in those days...maybe we're onto something here...

[cj]

Amazing trainer , he was

Danzig Connection - Jersey Derby 5/25 , Belmont 6/7
Crème Fraiche - Peter Pan 5/25 , Belmont 6/7
Caveat - Allowance 5-30 , Belmont , 6-11
and the beloved Swale - after the Preakness loss .

Note that the Peter Pan was later in the month and several other runners
won the Belmont after that race too .

A lot has changed . Now back to the Preakness :)

Peter Pan used to be run on Preakness day if I am remembering right.

[nijinski]

Peter Pan used to be run on Preakness day if I am remembering right.

Belmont winners Coastal won it on the 5/27 and AP Indy 5/24 .
Figuring the Preakness was the the 15 th or 16th of May .

Looks like they moved it earlier in the month after 2006 .
Interesting to see all the horses mentioned , prior ones also
that came out of this race so close to the Belmont , go on to win it .

[nijinski]

Add Lemon Drop Kid to the Peter Pan starters to Belmont winner in less than two weeks .

[Tall One]

Lo and behold...no Lasix in NY back in those days...maybe we're onto something here...



Wanted to add that exact thought to my post, PA. I think this issue is past due for an overhaul, and maybe why 6-7 horse fields are more common. Unbridled going w/out Lasix in the summer Belmont garnered just as much press than the race itself. He didn't run his race that day, but as we all know, Nafzger turned around in the fall and won the Classic with him.

Going back twenty plus years, but seems like one reason--or the main one-- NYRA lifted the ban was to still be considered a host for the BC races?

[mountainman]

I think one reason for mass defections as the triple crown progresses is that legs 2 and 3 have diminished in prestige-especially the Belmont, which has become an anachronism irrelevant to stud value. And though it seems counterintuitive, crazy optimism also cuts into field size. It's my belief that even the connections of hopeless bombs-and certainly those of any contender-enter the derby with an unspoken belief that they can sweep the triple, thus after the derby loss, they pout, pick up their toys and go home.

And I'm a bit skeptical when trainer motives are attributed to sheets or possible bounce patterns. Prominent runners are hardly immune from infirmity, and my guess is plenty of them are simply too sore to run back in two weeks. And that's something few outfits will publicize.

[clocker7]

I can't say that I can blame any trainer for refusing to run their horse in all three legs of the TC. The person who selected the distances for these three races could not have made the task of a sweep any more difficult for these horses. The best thing to do for the physical welfare of these horses would have been to make each race progressively longer than the race before...to allow the horses to slowly get acclimated to the longer distances. Make the Derby a mile and 3/16ths...the Preakness a mile and a quarter, and the Belmont a mile and a half. After all...this gradual increase in distance is what the horses are used to experiencing during their racing careers.

Another decent alternative would have been to have the DERBY be the mile and a half race...and then progressively DECREASE the distances in the other two legs. This option would give these young horses the benefit of having to negotiate lesser distances, as they get progressively more exhausted from their rigorous campaigns.

But to start with the mile and a quarter race...then switch to the shorter race, thus giving the horses a much-needed breather...only to send them next on a marathon journey -- when they are most exhausted? Ridiculous, IMO...and a virtually impossible task for today's fragile breed.I doubt that we will EVER see another TC winner.

The American Triple Crown was not a designed affair; it came about through accident over time. It was a reporter's semi-invention around 1930, after these races had already gone through many metamorphoses, with calendar placement and distance manipulations; and after Sir Barton became one ex post facto. Sometimes the P and the KD were run closely together, so that the horses never overlapped. Sometimes they reversed the order they were in.

Even two decades after the TC first emerged, the calendar changed periodically. In 1948 Citation had an intervening stakes race (Jersey Derby), when there was a four week gap between the P and the Belmont. In 1951, Count Turf and Bold ran in a simple allowance race on June 5th after each had won one of the first two legs, because of a similar calendar issue.

It is for those many reasons why I am not a "traditionalist" who is locked into a 5-week stretch as a future requirement, since the "tradition" only appeared after a majority of the Triple Crowns winners had been decided anyway.

[highnote]

It is for those many reasons why I am not a "traditionalist" who is locked into a 5-week stretch as a future requirement, since the "tradition" only appeared after a majority of the Triple Crowns winners had been decided anyway.

I am not a traditionalist typically, but I do like the idea of the TC and that it should be hard to win. Each year that passes without a winner makes the TC that much more prized.

Like the saying goes... "The harder to get, the better to have."

[JohnGalt1]

I dont have stakes horses but I am a big believer that if your horse is eating well,training well and kicking down the barn,He should run,Doesnt matter if its 7 or 8 days later,I just ran a horse that I claimed off a win,Ran him 8 days later on the rise and had his lifetime high beyer winnning by 10 .Problem is lots of horseman tell the horse when HE can run and not the HORSE telling the trainer when he wants!! When I enter a horse 8 to 9 days later,Im always the fittest horse.Running your horse where he belongs or a notch below will allow your horse to maintain good beyers providing he is ready!

If I ever own a horse, this is the thought process I want my trainer to have.

[cnollfan]

I am not a traditionalist typically, but I do like the idea of the TC and that it should be hard to win. Each year that passes without a winner makes the TC that much more prized.

Like the saying goes... "The harder to get, the better to have."

:ThmbUp:

[pandy]

The three horses that have won it in my lifetime, Secretariat, Slew, Affirmed, were monsters. I was at Belmont for Secretariat and Slew, and people weren't saying, "I hope he wins," they were saying, "I wonder who's going to finish second?" Affirmed would have been a lock, too, if not for Alydar.

So the reason why there hasn't been a triple crown winner since '78 is because there has been only two great horses since then, Cigar and Zenyatta, and Cigar was a late bloomer, Zenyatta started her 3yo season in November. Ghostzapper may have had a shot, but he hardly ever raced, and didn't make his first start as a three year old until June.

And, of course, there have been countless other horses that may have been good enough but they broke down -- I'll Have Another, Barbaro, and who knows how many others would have had a shot if they had been sound.

Some great horse will win it again.

[Stillriledup]

The three horses that have won it in my lifetime, Secretariat, Slew, Affirmed, were monsters. I was at Belmont for Secretariat and Slew, and people weren't saying, "I hope he wins," they were saying, "I wonder who's going to finish second?" Affirmed would have been a lock, too, if not for Alydar.

So the reason why there hasn't been a triple crown winner since '78 is because there has been only two great horses since then, Cigar and Zenyatta, and Cigar was a late bloomer, Zenyatta started her 3yo season in November. Ghostzapper may have had a shot, but he hardly ever raced, and didn't make his first start as a three year old until June.

And, of course, there have been countless other horses that may have been good enough but they broke down -- I'll Have Another, Barbaro, and who knows how many others would have had a shot if they had been sound.

Some great horse will win it again.

But if Real Quiet gets a head bob, he wins it. If Birdstone doesn't make that run, Smarty Jones wins by daylight and is "annointed" the next great superstar. I think we WANT to think that only a truly great horse can win it, but even a horse like Funny Cide might have won it if the track was fast and Empire Maker's foot prevented him from running.

Its a romantic thought that only a great one *should* be able to win it, but greatness and durability are not one in the same, nor is greatness and the ability to get the mile and a quarter.

In a way, its worked out well for racing that only great horses have won it, "racing" dodged a bullet by not having Real Quiet win it in the modern era, that would have tainted the idea that you need to be great to win.

[RunForTheRoses]

Peter Pan used to be run on Preakness day if I am remembering right.

It was actually run one week after the Preakness and two before the Belmont.

[burnsy]

They don't run the horses back and many complain about the two week turn around. The public record is a break line after every or every other race. Look how many horses that don't even make the prep season. Most of those had already missed training, races or both.

The Preakness and Belmont are still very prestigious but there is definitely "derby fever". If you don't win the derby, why come back in two weeks? Horseman have already admitted that most of them don't want to race after two weeks. People don't really have to "publicize" anything. The actions are louder than the words and more reliable too.

There is something going on with the stamina and stoutness of the racing breed. Its not the surface, poly and all the other garbage was doomed from the outset. I called that shit day 1. Horses have been running on grass and dirt since before we were around. I'm no biologist or doctor but the breeding and drug side effects have to be studied. I remember when 3 yo's ran in the Met then the Belmont.......now that's crazy talk. It would be questioned, why? It may be a myth for some horses. But the trainers must see some beat up, tuckered out and dehydrated horses because they don't run that much, leave a lot of money and black type on the table. There seems to be more to this. I doubt it's a myth because behavior by the people making these decisions is most likely well grounded. Now every freakin year the spacing and distances are debated. Because people can see what's going on. Winning the Triple Crown aside, people are pretty much admitting their horses can't handle it and they don't have publicly say anything.

[BettinBilly]

This is undoubtedly more of a question for a Trainer, or better yet, an Equine Vet that has experience with Equine Physiology as it relates to stamina and recovery time in Thoroughbred Horses.

I've been around Endurance Athletes all of my adult life. I can tell you that as far as Humans are concerned, the endurance is amazing. I've seen Professional Ironman competitors come back from a grueling Iron distance Triathlon in two or three weeks and compete in a 1/2 iron, or a Marathon or Century bike ride. At the minimum, Pro Endurance Athletes continue training a mere days after a full Iron Class Triathlon. Yes, I know, that's Humans and we are talking Horses.

Still, the SIX WEEKS that I've read that it takes Thoroughbreds to fully recover from ONE Route race sounds excessively long to me. I'd think two or three weeks would be sufficient, but again, that's a question for an expert. As far as the "Myth" of this thread, I'd think a recovery period of a few weeks would be highly beneficial, but that's obviously my opinion.