Trend in Racing

[lamboguy]

not that long ago most tracks ran 9 races or more per program 5 days a week. the 5 days a week in some places went to 4 days and the 9 race programs went to 8 for a few of them. there are now tracks that are running 7 race programs like Sufolk Downs and Golden Gate. there are some tracks that are now only running 2 or 3 times a week.

of course the main reason for this is the shortage of horses in many of these places. one of the main reason's why lasix was allowed was because it sold as a way to guarantee that more horses will be able to run due to bleeding conditions. the foal population's had been going up until a few years ago and the field sizes were always going down.

i brought this up because i truly don't believe the lasix experiment has done anything good for racing and didn't accomplish what proponents promised.

[Moto Pete]

I agree Lambo. It seems more and more horses never make it to the track. Reliance on drugs and breeding for speed, not a combination of speed and stamina are 2 big reasons why.

[Big Russ]

I don't really feel that I have enough knowledge to comment fairly on the use of lasix. What I can say is that when I look at the opening day card for Del Park this Saturday, it breaks my heart. That beautiful paddock and picnic area, great views from the grandstand, excellent simulcast areas, etc. Are there too many tracks running right now? Apparently so. But I've already seen too many go bye-bye for my liking. We need more people that want to be horse owners. Do I think that will happen in time to save DEL, MTH, etc? I do not. So, I will try and get to as many real racetracks as I can while they still exist, but the current state of affairs is quite depressing to me.

[lamboguy]

above poster makes a great point as far as owners go. in New York there has been a few good steps that have been taken lately, the first one is limiting stall space to any 1 trainer to 36. and the second one is the 14 day rule in clen beuterol. those are 2 big key moves to bring more interest to the sport.

its true that the way racing is structured here, we need lots of different owner's. the bettor and owner are the 2 key components of the sport here. without bettors you don't have owners and without owners you don't have bettors.

[JohnGalt1]

Does anybody have data comparing starts of horses per race pre and post Lasix in New York?

[Jeff P]

From the Jockey Club website...

SIZE OF FIELD AND STARTS PER HORSE (US AND CANADA):
http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=FB&area=10

Avg. Avg.
Year Starters Races Starts Field Sts/Runner
1950 22,388 26,932 244,343 9.07 10.91
1955 25,924 31,757 287,775 9.06 11.10
1960 29,798 37,661 337,060 8.95 11.31
1965 37,386 47,335 406,646 8.59 10.88
1970 47,778 56,676 488,326 8.62 10.22
1975 58,816 68,210 601,780 8.82 10.23
1980 64,506 68,243 593,849 8.70 9.21
1985 82,548 75,687 683,667 9.03 8.28
1990 89,716 79,971 712,494 8.91 7.94
1991 86,937 79,303 693,614 8.75 7.98
1992 83,404 77,712 669,967 8.62 8.03
1993 78,740 72,342 618,974 8.56 7.86
1994 74,955 70,699 587,404 8.31 7.84
1995 72,399 68,248 559,669 8.20 7.73
1996 70,450 64,388 534,861 8.31 7.59
1997 69,056 63,487 520,880 8.20 7.54
1998 68,697 61,293 500,710 8.17 7.29
1999 68,678 60,182 493,926 8.21 7.19
2000 69,569 60,872 493,682 8.11 7.10
2001 71,278 60,738 496,604 8.18 6.97
2002 72,825 59,896 495,228 8.27 6.80
2003 73,918 59,001 489,503 8.30 6.62
2004 74,206 58,858 487,428 8.28 6.57
2005 72,780 57,495 469,644 8.17 6.45
2006 72,729 56,902 462,937 8.14 6.37
2007 72,966 56,361 460,492 8.17 6.31
2008 72,638 55,069 450,095 8.17 6.20
2009 71,662 54,121 446,196 8.24 6.23
2010 68,235 50,918 417,192 8.19 6.11
2011 64,625 49,794 400,408 8.04 6.20
2012 61,863 49,381 389,568 7.89 6.30
2013 58,138 46,814 367,567 7.85 6.32

The Jockey Club stats aren't NY specific. That said, industry-wide, it looks like we went from 11.31 avg starts per year per runner in 1960 to 6.32 in 2013.


-jp

.

[chadk66]

My lasix horses ran just as frequently as my non lasix horses. two to three week intervals. One mare I ran on lasix ran every twelve days pretty much like clock work. Hit the board damn near every time. you have to do some more work with them to keep them hydrated but it's not that big a deal. I don't think lasix has anything to do with this trend. I think numbers of horses being down drastically is the main issue. then you add in this latest trend to run horses with much more time between races and it compounds the problem. The last thing I think contributes, and it's only an opinion I don't have facts to back it up, is that the overall quality of horsemanship has dropped off. And along with it the eagerness to run two year olds before they're ready and haven't been conditioned and brought up properly have led to less horses available for racing. just an opinion.

[Stillriledup]

Wow, almost 80,000 races in 1990 and now, 46,000 in 2013.

Thats incredible.

[andtheyreoff]

Does anybody have data comparing starts of horses per race pre and post Lasix in New York?

If there is anything positive that can be taken out of JeffP's chart, it's that the average starts per horse last year was at its highest since 2006 last year.

Anyway, while there are no NYRA-specific stats, it's worth noting that they were running six days a week year-round before they legalized Lasix in 1995-96.
Just looking at a random week during that time (June 17-22 1992), there were 457 runners over 54 races: making for 8.46 horses per race. Pretty solid.

[whodoyoulike]

Just for my clarification, what does starters and start mean?

Thanks.

[trifecta]

Just for my clarification, what does starters and start mean?

Thanks.

Starters means the number of horses that raced in a given year.

Starts means the number of races that those horses ran in that given year.

If you divide the starts by the starters, you get the average number of races that each horse ran that year.

For example, in 1950 there were 22,388 starters (horses that raced) that ran a total of 244,343 times.

244,343 starts divided by 22,388 starters = 10.91 average starts per horse that year.

[Tom]

Amazing stats!

[magwell]

Its the evolution of the game, eventually we will have about 10 tracks and hopefully better racing.This is the bump in the road that we are going through until than. Regarding the Lasix issue and because its not going to go away anytime soon, the game should adjust to that and the Triple Crown to the first Saturday in May,June and July,The game is changing but racing is not changing with it YET ........IMHO

[Tom]

Would the triple Crown mean as much if we had 10-15 more winners of it?

[magwell]

Would the triple Crown mean as much if we had 10-15 more winners of it? Good question but racing has to adjust to the changing times, the purist and traditionalist have one thing in common, they both oppose change even if its for the better. Change has worked in other sports and racing must get in the 21st century or get left behind .......

[whodoyoulike]

Starters means the number of horses that raced in a given year.

Starts means the number of races that those horses ran in that given year.

If you divide the starts by the starters, you get the average number of races that each horse ran that year.

For example, in 1950 there were 22,388 starters (horses that raced) that ran a total of 244,343 times.

244,343 starts divided by 22,388 starters = 10.91 average starts per horse that year.

Thanks.

I wonder if any one knows how many races were non-maiden?

[jimmy m]

It is almost impossible now to play Monday - Thursday because of the short fields but now it is spilled over to Sunday. Friday and Saturday are the only days that you can play now. I think the problem is everybody wants to run in the good weather most of the tracks that are running now are mostly cold weather sites that you cant run November - Late March. I think Canterbury here at my home track Prairie Meadows and a few others maybe Delaware would be hard with the extreme cold weather and Snow. Would one of these tracks sacrifice live crowds for bigger fields and winterize the track so there would be less completion for horses.