Speaking about carrying weight.....

[WinterTriangle]

Saw this on another board, it makes me ill:

Sunland Park, March 9th, 2010, Race 5.
"Two Years Old. Weight, 120 Lbs"

An entire field of 2 year olds, carrying more weight than any horse in a race like the Santa Anita Handicap.

I looked up some of these babies, for some it's their FIRST START! Others only their SECOND start!. and most born in March-April.


Racing should police itself.......yeah, right.:rolleyes: :bang:

[joanied]

Jeeze...do you think maybe that is a typo? I hope so...because that is insane:faint:

[wisconsin]

2 year old maidens have carried 122 in Chicago for as long as I can remember.

[cj's dad]

At first glance it seems absurd BUT it was a 4.5 f sprint - would that be more acceptable ??

[joanied]

At first glance it seems absurd BUT it was a 4.5 f sprint - would that be more acceptable ??

Probably, yes...but why ask them to carry that much in the fist place:confused: ...wouldn't something like 116 be a little kinder to these babies?

[WinterTriangle]

No, these 120 lb races are ususually at 2F.

and I don't care what they do in Chicago. Doesn't make it sound thinking or right.

[46zilzal]

To an 1100 pound animal 6 to 10 pounds would make a very small difference.

Workout riders in the AM routinely weigh 140 plus

[Hanover1]

My best colt man went 150 easy...had a bucked shin now and then, but usually at 4.5f we could get .52 first out easily.......

[wisconsin]

To an 1100 pound animal 6 to 10 pounds would make a very small difference.

Workout riders in the AM routinely weigh 140 plus


While we often disagree, I am with you on this one.

[castaway01]

While we often disagree, I am with you on this one.

Me too...carrying 120 vs. 116 to a horse is a miniscule difference and only means something relative to what another horse in the same race is carrying (if then). Worrying about this is like saying a human can lift 19 pounds but 20 pounds will break the same person's arms...ludicrous.

[Spalding No!]

The irony is that the initial poster said it made them "ill" to think about a 2yo carrying 120lbs.

How many Nex Mexican riders would have to be "ill" to make the suggested 116lb impost?

[joanied]

It's true...116 to 120 isn't much...and yes, in the mornings many of the riders are heavy...
my bad:faint:

[nearco]

I've seen 2yos carry 135lb+, not sure what the big deal is.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Me too...carrying 120 vs. 116 to a horse is a miniscule difference and only means something relative to what another horse in the same race is carrying (if then). Worrying about this is like saying a human can lift 19 pounds but 20 pounds will break the same person's arms...ludicrous.

Ditto.

[WinterTriangle]

if unraced, barely 2 year old babies carry 120 lbs. in a race, why are horses in SA Derby and such given less weight?

seems like we must have a lot of mamby pamby stakes runners then?

sorry, still against it. Of course, I'm against racing 2 year olds anyway esp. heavily

[Spalding No!]

if unraced, barely 2 year old babies carry 120 lbs. in a race, why are horses in SA Derby and such given less weight?

seems like we must have a lot of mamby pamby stakes runners then?

sorry, still against it. Of course, I'm against racing 2 year olds anyway esp. heavily

The Santa Anita Handicap is what it says, a handicap. If a racing secretary set a standard minimum weight and then worked his way up there could be instances of horses carrying significant amounts over much longer distances than 2yos typically race (eg, what if the minimum weight in the Santa Margarita was 123 lbs?). Its much more likely to sustain injury (or wear out) that way then it would be for a juvenile carrying a standard amount of weight for horses of all ages.

Another thing that needs to be addressed are the riders. It appears as though 120 lbs is the minimum weight (excluding apprentice and other sorts of allowances) used in New Mexico, thus in fact, the 2yos are carrying a relatively low weight in that state. There has been talk within the industry for the last few years regarding an increase in minimum weight a horse carries in an effort to at least partially alleviate dietary and other health concerns faced by jockeys during their riding careers.

[johnhannibalsmith]

if unraced, barely 2 year old babies carry 120 lbs. in a race, why are horses in SA Derby and such given less weight?

seems like we must have a lot of mamby pamby stakes runners then?

sorry, still against it. Of course, I'm against racing 2 year olds anyway esp. heavily

I'm pretty sure that the SA Derby is run with males at 122. I think the scale of weights in CA are: 3yo mdn (121), 3yo winner (122), 4yo+ mdn (122), 4yo+ winner (123). I think that they too put 120 on 2yo mdn and 121 on 2yo winners.

Many of the races for winners have weight allowances for futility (non-winners since...) and obviously fillies/mares get a sex allowance when facing males. So, a 5yo in a $10k claimer that hasn't won in five months would likely be in receipt of four pounds under the allowances and actually get in at 119, but the scale of weights calls for a "base" weight of 123.

Handicaps are obviously another story altogether, where the weights are nothing more than an effort to impost or relieve the horses with enough weight to "level the field".

I can't think of a case where under the thoroughbred scale of weights a juvenile would carry more weight than a sophomore or older horses prior to receiving weight allowances, but maybe I'm being forgetful due to fatigue.

[nearco]

It's not the amount of weight carried, it's the amount you concede. Making a big deal out of Zenyatta, or Curlin or whoever carrying 130lbs+ is completely meaningless. It's what they are giving to the other horses that counts. When Curling carried 133lbs in that prep in Dubai, people acted like he was carrying a volkswagen on his back. He should actually have been carrying more weight, as according to the official handicap he was 20+lbs better than the rest of the field.
I see 2yo races where the top weight is carrying in the mid 130-135lbs and giving away up to 25-30lbs to the low weight. For example, check out this race for 2yos, the winner is carrying 103lbs (7-5) and the third placed horse 133lbs (9-7).. http://www.racingpost.com/horses/result_home.sd?race_id=460608&r_date=2008-07-04&popup=yes

[twindouble]

if unraced, barely 2 year old babies carry 120 lbs. in a race, why are horses in SA Derby and such given less weight?

seems like we must have a lot of mamby pamby stakes runners then?

sorry, still against it. Of course, I'm against racing 2 year olds anyway esp. heavily

I agree.

[Saratoga_Mike]

if unraced, barely 2 year old babies carry 120 lbs. in a race, why are horses in SA Derby and such given less weight?

seems like we must have a lot of mamby pamby stakes runners then?

sorry, still against it. Of course, I'm against racing 2 year olds anyway esp. heavily

So you believe a 2-yr-old is more likely to be injured (I assume?) if they're carrying 120 lbs vs say 115 lbs? I couldn't disagree more. It's like saying you're worried by a 12-yr-old kid (talking humans here) having to run the 50 yard dash carrying an extra 8 ounces. Would that concern you? And I know there isn't a jock hitting the 12-yr-old kid - the analogy still holds. I don't agree with your opposition to 2-yr-old racing overall, but that's a separate matter from the weight issue.

[twindouble]

So you believe a 2-yr-old is more likely to be injured (I assume?) if they're carrying 120 lbs vs say 115 lbs? I couldn't disagree more. It's like saying you're worried by a 12-yr-old kid (talking humans here) having to run the 50 yard dash carrying an extra 8 ounces. Would that concern you? And I know there isn't a jock hitting the 12-yr-old kid - the analogy still holds. I don't agree with your opposition to 2-yr-old racing overall, but that's a separate matter from the weight issue.

The controversy over Eight Belles and racing 2 yo's ended in the hands of the Jockey Club. The result was racing them was beneficial but the sample was so small in their study there was nothing conclusive in my mind. I don't remember but it included just few colts and a couple classic races won by 2 yo's and the Derby or the BC. The weight carried wasn't mention that I recall. Anyway I think a better study could be done to clear it up but for now I'm not for it.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The controversy over Eight Belles and racing 2 yo's ended in the hands of the Jockey Club. The result was racing them was beneficial but the sample was so small in their study there was nothing conclusive in my mind. I don't remember but it included just few colts and a couple classic races won by 2 yo's and the Derby or the BC. The weight carried wasn't mention that I recall. Anyway I think a better study could be done to clear it up but for now I'm not for it.

Assuming they're carrying the weight you deem appropriate, why are you opposed to it? Is there any evidence that 2-yr-olds breakdown at a higher rate than horses of all ages? I'd bet the opposite is true.

[twindouble]

The controversy over Eight Belles and racing 2 yo's ended in the hands of the Jockey Club. The result was racing them was beneficial but the sample was so small in their study there was nothing conclusive in my mind. I don't remember but it included just few colts and a couple classic races won by 2 yo's and the Derby or the BC. The weight carried wasn't mention that I recall. Anyway I think a better study could be done to clear it up but for now I'm not for it.

Assuming they're carrying the weight you deem appropriate, why are you opposed to it? Is there any evidence that 2-yr-olds breakdown at a higher rate than horses of all ages? I'd bet the opposite is true.

Well like I said a better study could convince me one way or the other. There's many other issues that they didn't cover in the above mentioned study. Like, breeding, the effects of drugs on breeding and the very fact today's horses that we all agree aren't as durable as they used to be, especially the old classic horses that were mentioned in that study.

[Saratoga_Mike]

[QUOTE=Saratoga_Mike]

Well like I said a better study could convince me one way or the other. There's many other issues that they didn't cover in the above mentioned study. Like, breeding, the effects of drugs on breeding and the very fact today's horses that we all agree aren't as durable as they used to be, especially the old classic horses that were mentioned in that study.

But you said, "I'm not for it." I thought that declaration was referring to 2-yr-old racing. If so, why aren't you for it presently (without the advantage of future studies)?

[twindouble]

[QUOTE=twindouble]

But you said, "I'm not for it." I thought that declaration was referring to 2-yr-old racing. If so, why aren't you for it presently (without the advantage of future studies)?

I should have been clearer on my position, for now I'm apposed to 2yo's racing because the only thing that ever turned me off in racing was seeing horses breakdown, jocks hurt or killed and like I said today they are more fragile than the used to be. I would feel better if they did a better study, that's all.

[Saratoga_Mike]

[QUOTE=Saratoga_Mike]

I should have been clearer on my position, for now I'm apposed to 2yo's racing because the only thing that ever turned me off in racing was seeing horses breakdown, jocks hurt or killed and like I said today they are more fragile than the used to be. I would feel better if they did a better study, that's all.

So by inference you're assuming 2-yr-olds breakdown at a higher rate (per 1,000 starters) than horses 3 and up. I just don't think that's true.

[twindouble]

[QUOTE=twindouble]

So by inference you're assuming 2-yr-olds breakdown at a higher rate (per 1,000 starters) than horses 3 and up. I just don't think that's true.

I don't have any "real" stats on 2yo breakdowns and neither does anyone else that I know of so no comment. Do you have them? What I think is just my gut feeling and I rarely go against that.

[Saratoga_Mike]

[QUOTE=Saratoga_Mike]

I don't have any "real" stats on 2yo breakdowns and neither does anyone else that I know of so no comment. Do you have them? What I think is just my gut feeling and I rarely go against that.

No, I don't have the data either. As we learned with the Gill matter at Penn, racing seems to do a poor job of keeping records on this front. I'm going with gut, too. In general, I believe the national breakdown rate (1 per 1,000 starters or some say 1 per 500 starters) is skewed upward by low end claimers being dropped down, sometimes in a reckless manner. I just don't think that happens as much with 2-yr-olds. Typically 2-yr-olds are dropped for lack of ability, not serious problems (granted they seem to have more overall problems than an old war horse, which makes them a money pit).

[Horseplayersbet.com]

[QUOTE=twindouble]

No, I don't have the data either. As we learned with the Gill matter at Penn, racing seems to do a poor job of keeping records on this front. I'm going with gut, too. In general, I believe the national breakdown rate (1 per 1,000 starters or some say 1 per 500 starters) is skewed upward by low end claimers being dropped down, sometimes in a reckless manner. I just don't think that happens as much with 2-yr-olds. Typically 2-yr-olds are dropped for lack of ability, not serious problems (granted they seem to have more overall problems than an old war horse, which makes them a money pit).
I actually was amazed at the stat that Lamboguy showed. Tracks like Aqueduct have more DNF's than Turf Paradise.

I don't think we see many 2 year olds break down though because if they look like they will be unprofitable at 2 or if they injure themselves, the owners generally will pull them from training and wait until 3.

[Saratoga_Mike]

[QUOTE=Saratoga_Mike]
I actually was amazed at the stat that Lamboguy showed. Tracks like Aqueduct have more DNF's than Turf Paradise.

I don't think we see many 2 year olds break down though because if they look like they will be unprofitable at 2 or if they injure themselves, the owners generally will pull them from training and wait until 3.

You must be referring to different stats. I was referring specifically to Lambo's Gill stats. Could you direct me to what you're referencing? Thanks.

[Saratoga_Mike]

[QUOTE=Saratoga_Mike]
I actually was amazed at the stat that Lamboguy showed. Tracks like Aqueduct have more DNF's than Turf Paradise.

I don't think we see many 2 year olds break down though because if they look like they will be unprofitable at 2 or if they injure themselves, the owners generally will pull them from training and wait until 3.

And that's why they're money pits. I swore off 2-yr-olds five yrs ago, and now I occasionally make a few dollars racing.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

[QUOTE=Horseplayersbet.com]

You must be referring to different stats. I was referring specifically to Lambo's Gill stats. Could you direct me to what you're referencing? Thanks.
It was in that long thread, I don't get paid enough to look for it :)

[Robert Goren]

The old racing adage says "weight will stop a truck." While that may be true it going take a lot more than few pounds. JMO

[Saratoga_Mike]

[QUOTE=Saratoga_Mike]
It was in that long thread, I don't get paid enough to look for it :)

The Gill thread? Should be easy to find. :rolleyes:

[twindouble]

[QUOTE=twindouble]

No, I don't have the data either. As we learned with the Gill matter at Penn, racing seems to do a poor job of keeping records on this front. I'm going with gut, too. In general, I believe the national breakdown rate (1 per 1,000 starters or some say 1 per 500 starters) is skewed upward by low end claimers being dropped down, sometimes in a reckless manner. I just don't think that happens as much with 2-yr-olds. Typically 2-yr-olds are dropped for lack of ability, not serious problems (granted they seem to have more overall problems than an old war horse, which makes them a money pit).

That's very typical of the industry, getting information is like pulling teeth and your rarely get the truth when they open their mouth. The more players talk about racing the more questions come up. Overall I give players on forums a lot of credit for being well ahead of the industry in being aware of what's wrong now and what got racing in trouble over the years. I don't know about you but I get to point where I'm tired of shooting my mouth off and getting nowhere, when you think about it, it's really foolish. I don't how many years I have left so I'm thinking just enjoy what racing is left and leave it at that. I'm no spring chicken.

[Saratoga_Mike]

[QUOTE=Saratoga_Mike]

That's very typical of the industry, getting information is pulling teeth and your rarely get the truth when they open their mouth. The more players talk about racing the more questions come up. Overall I give players on forums a lot of credit for being well ahead of the industry in being aware of what's wrong now and what got racing in trouble over the years. I don't know about you but I get to point where I'm tired of shooting my mouth off and getting nowhere, when you think about it, it's really foolish. I don't how many years I have left so I'm thinking just enjoy what racing is left and leave it at that. I'm no spring chicken.

There's way too much complaining about racing, so we agree!

[twindouble]

[QUOTE=twindouble]

There's way too much complaining about racing, so we agree!

Well, I don't know what it is about racing that causes us to feel so deep about it. Isn't like we are attempting to save the country or someone elses life but if it dies or turns into something we don't like it's hard to except. The worst part is knowing we have no control over the out come.

Anyway, I didn't like tonight card so I'll spend some time looking at tomorrows and take in the big races in the afternoon.

Take care

[thespaah]

2 year old maidens have carried 122 in Chicago for as long as I can remember.
Yeah..122lbs for 2yo MSW is common in NY as well.

[twindouble]

Yeah..122lbs for 2yo MSW is common in NY as well.

Speaking of NY racing, check out this.

http://www.saratogian.com/articles/2010/03/12/news/doc4b99ad3491bbf975516437.txt

[Saratoga_Mike]

Speaking of NY racing, check out this.

http://www.saratogian.com/articles/2010/03/12/news/doc4b99ad3491bbf975516437.txt

In case you missed it, there's another thread on this issue based on an article in the T'bred Times.

[johnhannibalsmith]

[QUOTE=Horseplayersbet.com]

You must be referring to different stats. I was referring specifically to Lambo's Gill stats. Could you direct me to what you're referencing? Thanks.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=829550&postcount=1006

[thespaah]

Speaking of NY racing, check out this.

http://www.saratogian.com/articles/2010/03/12/news/doc4b99ad3491bbf975516437.txt
there is a thread about this.
It's one person's opinion.
I think he's being an alarmist.
I wonder how the success or failure of NYC OTB will effect him.