Beyer article

[baravot]

A good article by Andy Beyer about the demise of Point Given and other promising 3 yr olds:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33248-2001Sep2.html

[andicap]

Beyer wimped out by not pointing all the previous Baffert horses who got hurt.

[baravot]

Would you have preferred that he not say anything at all?

[andicap]

No, but I'd give this article a B-.
I'm not saying he should have gotten into the Baffert drug rumors -- that would have been scurrilous. Just mention that a lot of Baffert's horses have retired prematurely.

[baravot]

andicap,

I agree with you. It would be nice to see Beyer and others of his stature take a strong stand in defense of saner and better treatment of these magnificent creatures- not just the world class ones, but all of them. When all is said and done, they are the stars of this show and they are worthy of the very best treatment we can give them.

[PaceAdvantage]

What trainer DOESN'T have a lot of his horses retire prematurely??? That's why I never understood the Lukas bashing that went on all these years. Lukas was doing the same thing all these other guys did, yet he caught all the flack......all these trainer (Zito, Mott, Frankel, McGaughey, Mandella, etc) have horses get hurt and/or break down.

7 times out of 10, whenever a major racehorse is announced to be leaving the game, it is because of injury. Would you not agree??

Don't blame Baffert, or Lukas....blame the nature of the game as it has evolved. These guys are just playing by the new rules.....


==PA

[baravot]

PA you posed this question:

"What trainer DOESN'T have a lot of his horses retire prematurely??? "

In general terms, I'd say one who treats his horses with respect and nurtures them along and doesn't treat them like machines and doesn't succumb to the "new" rules. Are there any such trainers out there? I imagine there are. Perhaps some of the others who visit this board have some knowledge of such trainers. Do such trainers never have their horses break down or suffer injury? Of course not. It's part of the game. But certain practices certainly increase the risk of injury to the animal while others minimize it.

As for "blaming" the trainers, if any given trainer's approach is to churn 'em and burn 'em no matter what the cost to the horse, they and the owners who support such practices deserve some of the blame, as do any of us who don't demand better. An attitude of passive resignation that "that's just the way it is" doesn't seem to me to be one bit conducive to positive change or improvement. Even "new" rules can suck and often do.

[PaceAdvantage]

Who is the trainer ultimately responsible to? The owner of course. If the trainer does not treat his horse in the way that the owner expects, then that trainer will lose that horse (one way or the other).

It is neither in the best interests of the trainer or the owner to treat the horse in such a way that does NOT nurture them along and promote peak performance for the longest period of time...wouldn't you agree??

While you suggest that some trainers and ultimately OWNERS (since they continue to provide horses to suspect trainers) "churn and burn em no matter the cost", this method of training is, at the common sense level, completely UNPRODUCTIVE from both a practical and economic perspective, is it not?

Logic would dictate, along with natural selection, that trainers who practice this type of "churn and burn" method will be weeded out as they fail to produce results over a long period of time.

Therefore, at the level of common sense, your theory would not apply to too many trainers....for if too many trainers practiced what you are suggesting, we wouldn't have enough horses to fill a nine race card ANYWHERE!!


==PA

[baravot]

PA,

I certainly do agree with most of what you say. I think most owners and trainers do treat their horses well and I'm sure that there are some who succumb to a short sighted view in their quest for glory or big purses and ask too much of their animals. And, as far as I know, the average field size has been declining in recent years.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes, the field size certainly lends credence to your argument. It probably falls into the middle of the road. Probably many trainers at one time or another decide to "go for it" with a talented horse, despite them knowing that they are probably risking something down the road.

In any event, I guess we'll never know unless we have someone on the backside looking over the shoulder of every trainer on the grounds, recording their every training move......

Time for bed!!! LOL


==PA

[Tom]

There is just too much racing these days. Owners can't afford to let their stock sit idle - they aren't earning money when they aren't racing, yet the horse still needs to eat and be cared for and have vet bills.
Most owners/trainers lose money at this game. Those few that win the big money have plenty of it to begin with and they are in the game for pride, not cash anyway. If you have $x and y people to slpit it amoung,
the higher number y is the less money each y gets.
LEt's see, most owners lose money, most trainers lose money, most players lose money.....
Ok, who the Hell is making money on this game?
Oh yeah, the state and local governments. Who contibute nothing, just take.
D'oh!

Tom 525

[Rick Ransom]

Am I missing something here? I remember a lot of them racing horses every 5-10 days 20 years ago. Now it's usually about every 3 weeks on average. That seems to be an improvement to me. The down side is that I also think that this is largely resposible for smaller average field sizes these days.

[takeout]

Originally posted by Tom

LEt's see, most owners lose money, most trainers lose money, most players lose money.....
Ok, who the Hell is making money on this game?
Oh yeah, the state and local governments. Who contibute nothing, just take.
D'oh!

Tom 525
Tom,

I think you hit the nail on the head. And let's not forget the Feds and their ridiculous tax laws that drive folks away from racing. And, their withholding tax that can potentially keep money out of circulation for well over a year.

I'm sure I would probably get major flack from horsemen and owners on this one - but I've never liked the practice of paying all the way down to 6th or whatever. Too much of this running them around in circles trying for a tidbit of the purse. They run the horse to death for next to nothing. But, like you say, it's probably due in large part to economics. Some of the smaller outfits are really between a rock and a hard place.

Speaking of economics, how about these runners that are always entered over their heads in the claimers? It becomes obvious after a while that the trainer is just protecting his day rates. From time to time I see some pretty glaring examples of this in the PPs, including some where the trainer eventually gets his own horse, spots it properly, and manages to win.:rolleyes: I can't believe the owners stay with them but some of these associations seem to go on for a long time. Go figure.:confused:

[The Judge]

Good horses of the past ran often but weren't bred for speed (precocious). What I think may be important is, in the past they ran thru their conditions mdn, nw1, nw2, nw3 then a small time stakes race or even nw4 then a rest. I assume that a horse that runs thru their conditions don't exert themselves as early in their career, and are allowed to mature. The purses are small so why kill the horse.

We all know what happens know a horse breaks its maiden an it's off to a stakes race.

[JesseV!!!]

Baffert/Lucas
I don't get to see that many horses walk to the winners circle but 3
horses stand out in my mind. Charismatic was lame after the Preakness.
His demise was predictable.
Exchange Rate was lame after his last race, yet it was announced that
he broke down during a work (59) the next week! BULL!!!
General Challenge was twice reported to be lame after his last 2 races!
Where the hell are the state vets after the race? Why aren't they put on
a 35 day vets list to protect them? Why is a horse allowed to have a joint
tapped and then race?
I've walked sore horses off after a race but never worked for a butcher
that would run him back. Oops. Yes I did. Dan Perlsweig. What a blind
idiot he was! The owners got the insurance money. How sickening.
JesseV

[Slider]

IMO the answers lie with the breeding industry. Soundness has been bred out.

[PMian]

Can't blame the breeding industry alone. As with any market driven industry, the breeders try to produce the item, in this case thoroughbreds, that will sell most successfully. In today's game, the amount of money a precocious two year old can earn is astounding. If you can earn a massive return on your investment in one year as opposed to two or three years would you not be foolish to take that risk? Further, training techniques have evolved over the years to emphasize speed over endurance. No single aspect of the entire industry is exempt from blame.