PDA

View Full Version : Why don't horses race more often?


ilzho
05-10-2015, 08:40 AM
Dose racing take so much out of a horse that they have to race only once a month or every few months? I realize injuries can sideline a horse for a very long time and entry fees can be expensive, but if a horse is on a roll in the winnings, why is it only once a month that they race?

Thanks,
David

Augenj
05-10-2015, 09:03 AM
If you read this article to the end, you might get a better understanding of "why". ;)

http://www.horsefund.org/horse-racing-salix-and-calcium-connection-part1.php

ilzho
05-10-2015, 09:13 AM
Thanks for the article. Very eye opening.
Why can't we race horses without the use of drugs?
I digress.....

Robert Goren
05-10-2015, 09:28 AM
If you look back at the history of the lengthening of the time between races, you find it correlates with the increasing use of Lasix fairly closely. Pre Lasix, run of the mill horses races every week to ten days with a month or 6 weeks off after 5 or 6 races. Then they often took the winter or summer off depending on where they were based. It was not unusual for a horse to race 20-25 times a year until they reach the age of 6 or 7.
The purses were so small that they could not afford to have a horse waiting a month to race. They had to roll the dice more often than they do today. Some people claim that breeding has something to do with it as well. Certainly, there is no shortage of injured race horses that rushed off to the breeding shed. The breeding industry has changed during my lifetime. Back in the 1960s, there were plenty of horses being breed to be cheap claimers. I don't see that today. It seems like most horses today are being bred to win the BC sprint, not to be a sound 20k claimer. Some people claim that breeding for speed has led to some brittleness to creep into the breed.

ilzho
05-10-2015, 09:31 AM
It's interesting that you say that.

I believe the smaller tracks are cannibalizing themselves and within the next 10-20 years you will see numerous tracks closing.
To me, it's sad, as I love this sport.

minethatbird08
05-10-2015, 09:43 AM
Thanks for the article. Very eye opening.
Why can't we race horses without the use of drugs?
I digress.....

They don't allow lasix/Salix/furosemide in other countries, just North America. However, I don't think they run more frequently over seas than they do here. I think there are other factors for the reduced frequency of starts. Having said that I am all for getting rid of lasix and being more in line with international racing standards in regard to drug use.

ilzho
05-10-2015, 09:47 AM
I agree.

MJC922
05-10-2015, 09:52 AM
Unfortunately nobody in the medication debate cares what horseplayers want. Voting with your money is the only option, put them on a diet. If we're waiting for a mass exodus of trainers to sign on to the Water Hay and Oats Alliance, we're going to be waiting forever for that. IMO funnel your money into other ventures until there's enough track closures that they finally get the message. It would be nice to see even a cheaper track go with a no medication policy of any kind within 72 hours or something. This would give horseplayers a nice option to vote with their dollars. When the handle doubles or triples it will hopefully speak for itself.

burnsy
05-10-2015, 10:08 AM
I'm not a doctor or a scientist but part of it could be the drugs and breeding. Augenj posted that article dealing with Salix and while reading it you can click on another called "Breeding for Trouble".

Being a social scientist my observations lead me to believe that while the entire society is bigger and stronger now due to medical care and diet, that extra size and strength makes people (and horses) go to higher limits that cause them to breakdown. The other factor is the way we all live now, including the horses. We should realize that in the last 100 years or so we have become like the "Jetsons". No one worries where their next meal will come from, how to heat their home or transportation.....they worry about the next edition of Madden NFL or whatever movie is coming out. Everyone is softer, even the horses, look how they get to live. If my grandfather was still around he would be laughing at the baseball players. During his time a guy would start at pitcher and play somewhere else the next day. The entire society lives the good life, we are bigger and stronger but break easier. Living harder makes one harder to break. Living the way we do now leads to more "safety precautions" due to "evolution" of the mind and body. It starts with humans and works all the way down to our pets and livestock. We got it easy but we are not as tough. Even if the drugs and breeding are part of it, there's no turning back now, society will continue to advance and part of that is the precautions we take. Nothing has to bend like it used to (man nor beast), so it breaks easier, which means more down time.

forced89
05-10-2015, 10:09 AM
If you look back at the history of the lengthening of the time between races, you find it correlates with the increasing use of Lasix fairly closely. Pre Lasix, run of the mill horses races every week to ten days with a month or 6 weeks off after 5 or 6 races. Then they often took the winter or summer off depending on where they were based. It was not unusual for a horse to race 20-25 times a year until they reach the age of 6 or 7.

I raced in the 60s and agree with this 100%. I remember a horse I owned that ran every Saturday for 5 or 6 straight weeks. I think he ran 1,2,3 every time. We could only run on Lasix if horse actually bled in front of the State Vet in a race or workout.

Robert Goren
05-10-2015, 10:11 AM
Unfortunately nobody in the medication debate cares what horseplayers want. Voting with your money is the only option, put them on a diet. If we're waiting for a mass exodus of trainers to sign on to the Water Hay and Oats Alliance, we're going to be waiting forever for that. IMO funnel your money into other ventures until there's enough track closures that they finally get the message. It would be nice to see even a cheaper track go with a no medication policy of any kind within 72 hours or something. This would give horseplayers a nice option to vote with their dollars. When the handle doubles or triples it will hopefully speak for itself. Bettors are voting with their feet so much so, that the sport has had to go getting money from slots in order to survive in many places. The powers that be in the sport would rather go that route than get rid of the drugs, both legal and illegal, in the sport.

ilzho
05-10-2015, 10:23 AM
Didn't mean to open up a pandora's box.

ronsmac
05-10-2015, 10:40 AM
Dose racing take so much out of a horse that they have to race only once a month or every few months? I realize injuries can sideline a horse for a very long time and entry fees can be expensive, but if a horse is on a roll in the winnings, why is it only once a month that they race?

Thanks,
David I find it strange that at Oaklawn horses manage to run 5 or 6 times in less than 3 months year after year. You even see an occasional horse than runs 7 times during the meet. I guess these miracle horses stay healthy enough to get that alternative gaming money.

lamboguy
05-10-2015, 10:49 AM
outside of the medication, the main reason why horses don't run more often is that some of them don't perform that well without rest.

some horses need to be trained hard to run well in a race. if a horse has a race in less than 17 days you really have no idea what to do with the horse to have him ready to run. a good trainer wants quality starts not volume

when training baby's, the horse needs a real solid bottom on him before you can ask him to show some speed. if you don't have the bottom on him the horse can come up with sore shins or other injuries.

what this all comes down to is that trainer's have to know their horses.

Robert Goren
05-10-2015, 11:11 AM
outside of the medication, the main reason why horses don't run more often is that some of them don't perform that well without rest.

some horses need to be trained hard to run well in a race. if a horse has a race in less than 17 days you really have no idea what to do with the horse to have him ready to run. a good trainer wants quality starts not volume

when training baby's, the horse needs a real solid bottom on him before you can ask him to show some speed. if you don't have the bottom on him the horse can come up with sore shins or other injuries.

what this all comes down to is that trainer's have to know their horses.So the trainers in the 1960s did not know their horses when they ran them 3 or 4 times a month. I saw horses run 3 times in 4 days at the end of a season and win all 3 races. I ain't buying the theory that most horses need 3 weeks between races to perform well. That is unless they are on some drug has increased the recovery time.

lamboguy
05-10-2015, 11:23 AM
Robert, today the game is much different. 40 years ago horses ran their races at the track they were stabled at unless they were going into big races. today they get in the van and travel 5 hours or more. sometimes the van ride is like racing 2 races each way. horses lose weight and need to put it back on otherwise they become weak and get injured.

after a race the trainer will generally walk the horse for 3 or 4 days. years ago it was only 1 or 2 days. this is because of the lassix they get. track surfaces are more geared today to speed and the horses are knocked out after the race and need a few days off.

MJC922
05-10-2015, 11:29 AM
Bettors are voting with their feet so much so, that the sport has had to go getting money from slots in order to survive in many places. The powers that be in the sport would rather go that route than get rid of the drugs, both legal and illegal, in the sport.

For the racino the casino-side is an easier show for them to put on with nobody but the customer to keep happy. On the racing-side it seems they're more interested in keeping many of the trainers and vets happy with the status quo than fighting the battles it would take to put on fair contests which the horseplayer can wager on with confidence.

There's a problem with priorities. It's almost like if you own a restaurant which advertises that it serves only organic food, and you hire a head chef who goes out and buys GMO produce. You're upset about it, so you confront the chef who pushes back with the line there are no studies proving such and such, and if you keep on bringing it up the chef threatens to walk out leaving you hanging. So now the focus is short-term i.e. the chef holding you hostage where as the focus should instead be long-term the customer who frequents the establishment for a specific reason, they expect something that they aren't getting and it should be no surprise when they eventually find out what's going on they choose to eat elsewhere.

RaceBookJoe
05-10-2015, 01:44 PM
I find it strange that at Oaklawn horses manage to run 5 or 6 times in less than 3 months year after year. You even see an occasional horse than runs 7 times during the meet. I guess these miracle horses stay healthy enough to get that alternative gaming money.

You will also see horses run 3 races during the Saratoga meet which is only 6 weeks long.

MJC922
05-10-2015, 01:46 PM
This is only a personal opinion as a handicapping observer / researcher, I don't think in the Lasix era you're going to get much more than 12-14 races per year out of a horse (and that's if all goes well).

IMO from a high-level given Lasix and all the other meds a sensible campaign would be starting out with Dec-Feb off, and after the horse returns to the races in March, entering it with an avg of 2-4 weeks between races. I would use those 2 week 'right-back' races very sparingly through the year, maybe a few times each year and ideally within the first 2-3 starts after the return race. I would plan for a 6 week freshening around June or July and then everything else after that it's back to averaging about 3 weeks.

I understand we're talking about animals not robots so a lot of this requires judgment i.e. if you sense the horse just gave you a big effort then it probably needs the 4 weeks, if it's typical effort 3 weeks, if it's somewhat of a dull effort, blocked, horsing, never had a chance to run, hates the slop whatever then right-back in 1-2 may be fine. Obviously this is very much subject to how the horse returns from individual races, nagging injuries, sickness, fevers etc and with all of that being said for practical use it's worthless, but what I'm getting at here is that I don't believe 1-2 week intervals can be used as much as they once were unless the meds are out of the picture.

ilzho
05-10-2015, 01:51 PM
So if all things are equal, horses that are loaded up with drugs and meds, need a longer recovery time between races of horses that are not loaded up with meds?

thespaah
05-10-2015, 02:00 PM
If you look back at the history of the lengthening of the time between races, you find it correlates with the increasing use of Lasix fairly closely. Pre Lasix, run of the mill horses races every week to ten days with a month or 6 weeks off after 5 or 6 races. Then they often took the winter or summer off depending on where they were based. It was not unusual for a horse to race 20-25 times a year until they reach the age of 6 or 7.
The purses were so small that they could not afford to have a horse waiting a month to race. They had to roll the dice more often than they do today. Some people claim that breeding has something to do with it as well. Certainly, there is no shortage of injured race horses that rushed off to the breeding shed. The breeding industry has changed during my lifetime. Back in the 1960s, there were plenty of horses being breed to be cheap claimers. I don't see that today. It seems like most horses today are being bred to win the BC sprint, not to be a sound 20k claimer. Some people claim that breeding for speed has led to some brittleness to creep into the breed.
All things being relative, purses are not out of line with those seen 30 -40 years ago when inflation is factored in.
For example. A typical NYRA NW1X Allowance race at a route distance would have a purse of $25 to $35k depending on the time of year and the track. Saratoga purses are always higher.
Now, using a typical inflation calculator let's go with the mean amount ($30K)...The result is in 1985 dollars, that $30k is now a little over $65,000
Basically the purses have kept up with inflation.
Now, to be fair, lets use Mountaineer...Back in the late 70's and into the 80's when that track was known as Waterford Park, the purses were miniscule...In the $2k to $3k range. So yes. Mountaineer's slots have helped purses....A lot. But...At those "tier B" tracks, Penn, Parx. CT, TP, Del, etc. horses DO race more often.

thespaah
05-10-2015, 02:11 PM
You will also see horses run 3 races during the Saratoga meet which is only 6 weeks long.
Correct....I was going to mention this as well.
Even horses in Stakes caliber will have two or even three Spa starts in the same meet.
For example, there are three Stake opps for colts and fillies (2 and 3yo)
during the meet. More often the number of starts is two....The point is it's more than one in a six week stretch.

nijinski
05-10-2015, 02:29 PM
Dose racing take so much out of a horse that they have to race only once a month or every few months? I realize injuries can sideline a horse for a very long time and entry fees can be expensive, but if a horse is on a roll in the winnings, why is it only once a month that they race?

Thanks,
David

Yes training up to a race and racing does take a toll on many .
Some horses can do more work in a shorter interval of time and
others do better with their races spaced .

castaway01
05-10-2015, 02:39 PM
So if all things are equal, horses that are loaded up with drugs and meds, need a longer recovery time between races of horses that are not loaded up with meds?

1) Horses have been bred with infirmities and soundness issues that early medication intervention as well as drugs like Lasix have been able to cover up. Breeding of unsound horses leads to more unsound horses with ailments that need more rest or are more vulnerable to injury, and so on, weakening the breed.

2) Trainers have come to believe that more rest between starts is beneficial. Whether this is true or it's something that's come to pass because it works at times and then it slowly became the standard, most horses are not being asked to run 15-race campaigns these days. When they're not expected to or trained to, they obviously don't.

It's a chicken-and-the-egg thing that has developed as the breed and training methods have changed over the past 50 years. It's not as simple as "X happened, and then Y".

thespaah
05-10-2015, 02:41 PM
Interesting note. On the Standardbred side, Salix is also used. Those horses still go every week.

Some_One
05-10-2015, 02:43 PM
They don't allow lasix/Salix/furosemide in other countries, just North America. However, I don't think they run more frequently over seas than they do here. I think there are other factors for the reduced frequency of starts. Having said that I am all for getting rid of lasix and being more in line with international racing standards in regard to drug use.

But you see things overseas you never see here, you have horses running in the 2500m Lexus Stakes and then the winner (plus others who qualify) run in the 3200m Melbourne Cup 3 days later. You usually see 1 or 2 try to run in the 1000m Kings Stand on Royal Ascot opening day and wheel back 4 days later in the 1200m Diamond Jubilee.

Redboard
05-10-2015, 10:03 PM
If they banned Lasix today, I severely doubt that horses will then be running every other week. Look at these Euros that run in the Breeders Cup, most of them just have four or five starts for the year before they ship over.

Sysonby
05-10-2015, 11:00 PM
One thing the article doesn't mention in relation to calcium depletion is that calcium also plays an important role in muscle contraction. For 72 hours after getting lasix, it is still being leached from their system. Only after that stops can they start rebuilding. Their ability to work during that period is compromised and it is little wonder it takes longer for them to be prepared between races.

nijinski
05-10-2015, 11:30 PM
But you see things overseas you never see here, you have horses running in the 2500m Lexus Stakes and then the winner (plus others who qualify) run in the 3200m Melbourne Cup 3 days later. You usually see 1 or 2 try to run in the 1000m Kings Stand on Royal Ascot opening day and wheel back 4 days later in the 1200m Diamond Jubilee.
Look at the pps of the great Euro horses .
They generally do not race in the winter at all . They remain there with
five and six months without a race

chadk66
05-11-2015, 09:15 AM
I think the reasons for this are multi-faceted. First, attitudes by owners/trainers on running frequency has changed dramatically in the past twenty plus years. I also agree the use of lasix probably has a lot to do with this. Owners used to hound on me to run their horses every twelve to fourteen days. Now, owners don't want their animals to run in less than three weeks. Where this has come from I can't imagine. Only thing I can think of is that far too many owners think they have secretariat and when they see these big time graded horses running once a month at most they think they have to follow suit. Another thought is that the current onslaught of other drug use has caused these horses to not bounce back as quick. But I think the biggest contributor to this is that you can't get races to go for your horse. I know many cases where owners have had to wait thirty to sixty days to get horses in a race. And then they get lured in with allowance conditions they don't understand and they get in with horses that kick the snot out of them. I see way too many racing secretaries writing races strictly for their top two or three trainers in the standings. Making taylor made conditions to meet certain horses of theirs. Of course this has always gone on but due to the shortage of horses at most tracks, I see this far too often now.

RXB
05-11-2015, 12:49 PM
Interesting note. On the Standardbred side, Salix is also used. Those horses still go every week.

The average number of career starts per standardbred has dropped significantly since Lasix was introduced, although the decline is less than in thoroughbreds.

minethatbird08
05-11-2015, 01:09 PM
But you see things overseas you never see here, you have horses running in the 2500m Lexus Stakes and then the winner (plus others who qualify) run in the 3200m Melbourne Cup 3 days later. You usually see 1 or 2 try to run in the 1000m Kings Stand on Royal Ascot opening day and wheel back 4 days later in the 1200m Diamond Jubilee.

Willy Beamin won the Kings Bishop on 3 days rest after winning a listed stakes at 1 1/8. Before that he had won back to back on 4 days rest. Dirt is less forgiving than turf to boot.

ilzho
05-11-2015, 01:43 PM
Sounds like it's time to get these drugs out of the sport.

minethatbird08
05-11-2015, 05:29 PM
Sounds like it's time to get these drugs out of the sport.

Something we can all agree on.

cj
05-11-2015, 05:37 PM
Why horses don't race more in my opinion:

1) Drugs
2) Trainers
3) Inflated Purses from slots, etc.

Some_One
05-11-2015, 05:39 PM
Willy Beamin won the Kings Bishop on 3 days rest after winning a listed stakes at 1 1/8. Before that he had won back to back on 4 days rest. Dirt is less forgiving than turf to boot.

Might not be best using an example from a trainer suspended for a long time currently.

TJDave
05-11-2015, 06:07 PM
But I think the biggest contributor to this is that you can't get races to go for your horse. I know many cases where owners have had to wait thirty to sixty days to get horses in a race. And then they get lured in with allowance conditions they don't understand and they get in with horses that kick the snot out of them. I see way too many racing secretaries writing races strictly for their top two or three trainers in the standings. Making taylor made conditions to meet certain horses of theirs. Of course this has always gone on but due to the shortage of horses at most tracks, I see this far too often now.

Excellent. Wish you hadn't written it, though. ;)

chadk66
05-11-2015, 06:14 PM
Excellent. Wish you hadn't written it, though. ;)why is that?

TJDave
05-11-2015, 06:28 PM
why is that?

Because I believe most handicappers don't give conditions and how they are manipulated the respect it deserves.

ilzho
05-11-2015, 08:01 PM
So how do we start to get rid of the drugs in this industry?
Do we go to track mgmt or the state racing commissions to start to raise awareness of the what these drugs do to the horses?
I know they know, but does anyone have any ideas?

Thanks,
David

Sysonby
05-11-2015, 08:14 PM
The Water, Hay and Oats coalition (WHOA) is working on this. It might be good to hook up with them.

foregoforever
05-11-2015, 08:16 PM
So how do we start to get rid of the drugs in this industry?
Do we go to track mgmt or the state racing commissions to start to raise awareness of the what these drugs do to the horses?
I know they know, but does anyone have any ideas?

The only way is for Congress to pass a revision to the Interstate Horseracing Act to mandate the elimination of raceday medications as a condition for the exporting of signals across state lines.

The state racing commissions are a lost cause. The feds don't have jurisdiction to regulate gambling within a state ... in fact, the IHA essentially admits to that ... but they do control interstate commerce. The IHA is the hammer.

States would then be free to allow raceday meds if they want to give up out-of-state simulcast wagering.

rastajenk
05-12-2015, 07:47 AM
What's so bad with a little bit of remaining federalism? Abide, or die, yeah, that's a traditional American approach that makes me want to participate in this activity. Not.
:ThmbDown:

OTM Al
05-12-2015, 08:57 AM
I have a bit different take on this though I do believe Lasix does take a bit of a toll. Consider a point in time where everyone is racing their sound horses once a week. One trainer discovers if he gives his horse an extra week's rest, then his expected profit rises more than enough to compensate for the week the horse is off. Others see this and emulate as they too would increase expected returns. Next thing you know everyone is racing once every two weeks and there is no incentive to switch back to once a week for pretty much all horses. Now the enterprising trainer realizes he can increase expected profit by waiting 3 weeks and so on and so on until the time between races for sound horses is increased to a level that maximizes the expected profit.

Essentially when everyone was racing more frequently the horses were equally tired and thus the best horses were most likely to win, but once horses that were not best got extra rest, they began beating the better but more tired horses, so they too got extra rest as an optimal response. So the move toward more rest was a move toward profit maximization.

As I said, this isn't the only factor at play but I believe it has a major role.

chadk66
05-12-2015, 09:57 AM
So how do we start to get rid of the drugs in this industry?
Do we go to track mgmt or the state racing commissions to start to raise awareness of the what these drugs do to the horses?
I know they know, but does anyone have any ideas?

Thanks,
Davidthey already know. they don't care.

chadk66
05-12-2015, 10:03 AM
I have a bit different take on this though I do believe Lasix does take a bit of a toll. Consider a point in time where everyone is racing their sound horses once a week. One trainer discovers if he gives his horse an extra week's rest, then his expected profit rises more than enough to compensate for the week the horse is off. Others see this and emulate as they too would increase expected returns. Next thing you know everyone is racing once every two weeks and there is no incentive to switch back to once a week for pretty much all horses. Now the enterprising trainer realizes he can increase expected profit by waiting 3 weeks and so on and so on until the time between races for sound horses is increased to a level that maximizes the expected profit.

Essentially when everyone was racing more frequently the horses were equally tired and thus the best horses were most likely to win, but once horses that were not best got extra rest, they began beating the better but more tired horses, so they too got extra rest as an optimal response. So the move toward more rest was a move toward profit maximization.

As I said, this isn't the only factor at play but I believe it has a major role.there is a point of diminishing returns with every horse. the reverse of what you just posted is true also. right now all the major stakes horses race a long time between starts so they are all on the same page. For example, lets say after 30 days it becomes increasingly harder to keep a route horse at peak condition. So a horse three weeks off of a race would have an advantage over a horse that is six weeks post race. That's the job of a trainer, to find the sweet spot for a horse. The amount of time he needs to maintain peak performance. It differs from horse to horse. The reason you don't see trainers running horses every two to three weeks and showing how that works is because there aren't races for those horses with that frequency. My brother has an allowance type horse that is lucky to get in every 6-8 weeks. This is not uncommon now days.

Redboard
05-12-2015, 07:24 PM
The only way is for Congress to pass a revision to the Interstate Horseracing Act to mandate the elimination of raceday medications as a condition for the exporting of signals across state lines.

The state racing commissions are a lost cause. The feds don't have jurisdiction to regulate gambling within a state ... in fact, the IHA essentially admits to that ... but they do control interstate commerce. The IHA is the hammer.

States would then be free to allow raceday meds if they want to give up out-of-state simulcast wagering.

That might seem like a good idea, but I see litigation trouble. A group of owners get together and sue the fed for ruining their horses, who have bleeding lungs. 100 equine vets stand up and swear that laxis is good for the animal

ilzho
05-12-2015, 07:26 PM
Well, not too many people win when they sue the gov't.

OTM Al
05-12-2015, 07:58 PM
there is a point of diminishing returns with every horse. the reverse of what you just posted is true also. right now all the major stakes horses race a long time between starts so they are all on the same page. For example, lets say after 30 days it becomes increasingly harder to keep a route horse at peak condition. So a horse three weeks off of a race would have an advantage over a horse that is six weeks post race. That's the job of a trainer, to find the sweet spot for a horse. The amount of time he needs to maintain peak performance. It differs from horse to horse. The reason you don't see trainers running horses every two to three weeks and showing how that works is because there aren't races for those horses with that frequency. My brother has an allowance type horse that is lucky to get in every 6-8 weeks. This is not uncommon now days.

That is exactly my point here. The move from frequent racing by all is the attempt to optimize. And it is different for every horse because they aren't race cars as some would like them to be. Also you bring up a chicken and egg argument. Are there no races because there aren't horses to run or are there no horses to run because there aren't races for them.

Sysonby
05-12-2015, 11:09 PM
That is exactly my point here. The move from frequent racing by all is the attempt to optimize. And it is different for every horse because they aren't race cars as some would like them to be. Also you bring up a chicken and egg argument. Are there no races because there aren't horses to run or are there no horses to run because there aren't races for them.

Except that if this was accurate, you would expect improved performances from these "rested" thoroughbreds, when in fact race times are not getting faster. There are studies that indicate that in fact race times are getting slower overall, and this is at all levels. There is some evidence that horses do better with lots of works and fewer races, and I think that is playing into some decision making particularly at elite horse levels.

OTM Al
05-13-2015, 12:57 AM
Except that if this was accurate, you would expect improved performances from these "rested" thoroughbreds, when in fact race times are not getting faster. There are studies that indicate that in fact race times are getting slower overall, and this is at all levels. There is some evidence that horses do better with lots of works and fewer races, and I think that is playing into some decision making particularly at elite horse levels.
Improved from what? You don't see the contraposotive to compare how the horse would run on a week's rest. Profit maximizing behavior explains this situation and many others in life very well.

cj
05-13-2015, 08:34 AM
Improved from what? You don't see the contraposotive to compare how the horse would run on a week's rest. Profit maximizing behavior explains this situation and many others in life very well.

Win percentage for trainers is more important than maximizing profits IMO.

minethatbird08
05-13-2015, 08:42 AM
Might not be best using an example from a trainer suspended for a long time currently.

Did the horse break down? Also, I thought drugs were the reason you couldn't run back short, I guess you want it both ways.

depalma113
05-13-2015, 11:00 AM
There are too many graded stakes and it is much easier to get to a soft grade one now than it was 40 years ago.

It's all about getting that black type for the catalog and that lucrative stud deal. The purses are meaningless for the top horses. They don't need competitive races, they need easy spots.

Winning a couple of easy Grade Ones can result in a stud deal that is worth well more than any amount ever won by any horse on the track.

chadk66
05-13-2015, 06:54 PM
That is exactly my point here. The move from frequent racing by all is the attempt to optimize. And it is different for every horse because they aren't race cars as some would like them to be. Also you bring up a chicken and egg argument. Are there no races because there aren't horses to run or are there no horses to run because there aren't races for them.the game has changed drastically in twenty to thirty years. I had a few horses that ran every twelve to fourteen days like clock work. And rarely missed the board. and they were lasix horses. but they were 5-8k claimers and there was no problem getting them in races. now days it's a challenge to get races to fill. I also had horses that you couldn't run back in under three weeks. they bounced back slower. Had many that ran from fourteen to twenty one days nearly all the time. Lasix plays a roll with some horses for sure but for a large percentage it has nothing to do with it. temperatures at the time also plays a roll. there are just so many variables involved it's crazy

forced89
05-14-2015, 09:52 AM
the game has changed drastically in twenty to thirty years..... now days it's a challenge to get races to fill.

Good point. Back in the "Good Old Days" the condition book was a lot smaller and there were way fewer "Extras". Sometimes today there are 20 races to choose from including the Extras. In the old days it was maybe 10-12.