Lateralus
05-27-2009, 12:33 AM
Something I meant to post after the derby but forgot to do.
I always go over to Trackmaster the day after big racing days to see how each of the public handicappers there did. I have to say, I now have a profound respect for "Trackmaster Rick" Rick Needham for having stated something in his handicapping report that day that I have believed for a long, long time. Two year old horses should flat out not be raced. He went a lot farther than that though: he said that although it was his job to handicap all of the races including two year old races, he felt so strongly about it that he refuses to bet on two year old races. He basically said "bet on this race if you must" but that he was refusing to. Now THAT is conviction. He went on to say that to solve many of the issues involving horses becoming injured or breaking down, it could be solved to a large degree if everyone just flat out refused to bet on races for 2 year olds.
I agree 100% with Rick Needham. I have ALWAYS believed that, even in spite of the unsound Northern Dancer horrible soundness genes that plague modern thoroughbreds, if horses began their careers at age three and in their three year old season performed the light racing that two year olds now perform, the soundness issues would largely resolve themselves. FAR better than polytrack or any other high tech surface manipulation could accomplish.
And, perhaps the Northern Dancer lines are not really unsound at all! Perhaps his progeny are simply "late bloomers" like many HUMANS are. Many humans are solid and strong by age 14, but there are plenty who are rather frail even at age 17, perhaps not reaching full muscular and bone / ligament growth and strength until as late as age 19 or even 20 (especially true with human males). Those people are not "unsound", they simply develop at a slower rate. But ultimately, excepting those who are simply naturally destined to be frail, as adults the majority of "slow bloomers" end up as "sound" as everyone else. Why should it be any different with horses or any other species for that matter? Although you can't tell it by simply looking at a two year old horse, perhaps certain lineages such as the Northern Dancer line simply need more time for bones to fully harden and ligaments to a safe level of development and strength. I would go so far as to say even two year olds with proven soundness lineages should not be raced at two however. A horse raced lightly at age 3 and then starting their real career at age four should allow for ANY genetic line to become fully sound and injury therefore to become far less likely. And, although this is probably wishful thinking - perhaps breakdowns to become almost unheard of. Dramatically reduced at the very least though.
Protecting the very best horses should be accomplished in the same manner as for all horses. No racing as 2 year olds, light racing as 3 year olds. If the the Triple Crown series was moved ahead one year and became a series for four year olds, (as well as all of the other top races for three year olds moved up to four) we'd see the Nation's best horses around for much longer, more productive careers with significantly more starts per horse during the course of their career. That alone could solve a lot of the 5 and 6 horse field nonsense we see on many circuits.
The way I see it, this would be a WIN-WIN-WIN-WIN-WIN course of action. Certainly, during the transition a SMALL amount of pain would be required, but only for a 2-3 years. After that, I would predict more racing with fuller fields of much stronger horses. It would be a WIN for the owners and trainers because their horses would have longer careers with more starts = more money. A WIN for the jockeys because they'd be getting more mounts as well. A WIN for the tracks because the handle would go up dramatically with bigger fields of much stronger horses which would mean much better, more interesting racing. A WIN for all of us, because we'd have more racing and much BETTER racing to handicap and wager on. And of course, most importantly, a BIG WIN for the horses themselves who would be stronger and healthier, hopefully lifelong. I see the current situation as an example of the tracks, trainers, and owners allowing the goose that laid the golden egg to be gutted, rather than giving the goose time to lay golden eggs and reaping massive, permanent rewards into the future after a short period of transition.
Back to Rick Needham. I love the idea, and I'm going to start refusing to wager on 2 year old races myself. I won't know if I've missed a juicy overlay because I'm not going to handicap 2 year old races, either. It will take some small amount of enjoyment out of the game but nothing serious; I'll know I'm doing the right thing for the horses. Rick Needham has no choice but to handicap those races; it's his job. Imagine the kind of conviction it takes for Rick Needham to see a superb overlay on the board and refuse to bet it! My hat is off to you, Rick. The question is, to anyone interested in joining in this, what actions would you suggest could start and ignite a movement to get the public at large aware and to stop betting on two year old horses?
I always go over to Trackmaster the day after big racing days to see how each of the public handicappers there did. I have to say, I now have a profound respect for "Trackmaster Rick" Rick Needham for having stated something in his handicapping report that day that I have believed for a long, long time. Two year old horses should flat out not be raced. He went a lot farther than that though: he said that although it was his job to handicap all of the races including two year old races, he felt so strongly about it that he refuses to bet on two year old races. He basically said "bet on this race if you must" but that he was refusing to. Now THAT is conviction. He went on to say that to solve many of the issues involving horses becoming injured or breaking down, it could be solved to a large degree if everyone just flat out refused to bet on races for 2 year olds.
I agree 100% with Rick Needham. I have ALWAYS believed that, even in spite of the unsound Northern Dancer horrible soundness genes that plague modern thoroughbreds, if horses began their careers at age three and in their three year old season performed the light racing that two year olds now perform, the soundness issues would largely resolve themselves. FAR better than polytrack or any other high tech surface manipulation could accomplish.
And, perhaps the Northern Dancer lines are not really unsound at all! Perhaps his progeny are simply "late bloomers" like many HUMANS are. Many humans are solid and strong by age 14, but there are plenty who are rather frail even at age 17, perhaps not reaching full muscular and bone / ligament growth and strength until as late as age 19 or even 20 (especially true with human males). Those people are not "unsound", they simply develop at a slower rate. But ultimately, excepting those who are simply naturally destined to be frail, as adults the majority of "slow bloomers" end up as "sound" as everyone else. Why should it be any different with horses or any other species for that matter? Although you can't tell it by simply looking at a two year old horse, perhaps certain lineages such as the Northern Dancer line simply need more time for bones to fully harden and ligaments to a safe level of development and strength. I would go so far as to say even two year olds with proven soundness lineages should not be raced at two however. A horse raced lightly at age 3 and then starting their real career at age four should allow for ANY genetic line to become fully sound and injury therefore to become far less likely. And, although this is probably wishful thinking - perhaps breakdowns to become almost unheard of. Dramatically reduced at the very least though.
Protecting the very best horses should be accomplished in the same manner as for all horses. No racing as 2 year olds, light racing as 3 year olds. If the the Triple Crown series was moved ahead one year and became a series for four year olds, (as well as all of the other top races for three year olds moved up to four) we'd see the Nation's best horses around for much longer, more productive careers with significantly more starts per horse during the course of their career. That alone could solve a lot of the 5 and 6 horse field nonsense we see on many circuits.
The way I see it, this would be a WIN-WIN-WIN-WIN-WIN course of action. Certainly, during the transition a SMALL amount of pain would be required, but only for a 2-3 years. After that, I would predict more racing with fuller fields of much stronger horses. It would be a WIN for the owners and trainers because their horses would have longer careers with more starts = more money. A WIN for the jockeys because they'd be getting more mounts as well. A WIN for the tracks because the handle would go up dramatically with bigger fields of much stronger horses which would mean much better, more interesting racing. A WIN for all of us, because we'd have more racing and much BETTER racing to handicap and wager on. And of course, most importantly, a BIG WIN for the horses themselves who would be stronger and healthier, hopefully lifelong. I see the current situation as an example of the tracks, trainers, and owners allowing the goose that laid the golden egg to be gutted, rather than giving the goose time to lay golden eggs and reaping massive, permanent rewards into the future after a short period of transition.
Back to Rick Needham. I love the idea, and I'm going to start refusing to wager on 2 year old races myself. I won't know if I've missed a juicy overlay because I'm not going to handicap 2 year old races, either. It will take some small amount of enjoyment out of the game but nothing serious; I'll know I'm doing the right thing for the horses. Rick Needham has no choice but to handicap those races; it's his job. Imagine the kind of conviction it takes for Rick Needham to see a superb overlay on the board and refuse to bet it! My hat is off to you, Rick. The question is, to anyone interested in joining in this, what actions would you suggest could start and ignite a movement to get the public at large aware and to stop betting on two year old horses?