Physical appearance on the track

[smf]

I have a question for the horsemen/ horsewomen here.

Whenever I go to LS, I check out the horses appearances in the paddock and during warm ups. My "skills" in this area are pretty minimal (paddock--looking for dappled coat, seeing if the rear hoof covers the front print, tail, ears, general disposition,etc...).

I've noticed Dallas Keen and others (Cole Norman when OP is done) hanging out at the paddock checking out the horses as they walk in. My question is; What exactly are they looking for that I'm not catching on to?

I know these guys have years and years experience, and their claims won't get submitted unless they see something that can be corrected.

I've read about Tom Amoss' assistant Frank Bernis and his extensive note taking on tendons, etc. What exactly do these guys look at and can someone like me get "good" at it?

I've read Ledbetter's book and it was a big help (thanks SO CAL fan), much better than 'Beat the Beam' was (visual).

I really dislike going to LS, but I'd like to make my time there productive. If I can expand my (limited) knowledge in this area it would be great.

Thanks!

p.s....I can't tell you folks how many times I went to LS last year with the intention of betting one horse and, after watching the warm ups, not bet at all b/c of the animal's attitude or some physical "flaw" I saw. Each and every time it saved me a lost bet.

[Observer]

smf,

It seems like you're off to a good start if your observations have saved you on bets that would have been losers. The horse can be a complicated animal, as no two will ever act the same. Horses are individuals just like people, but there are certainly hints to look for.

As you mentioned, the dappled coat is great. Horses not in good health will not have brilliant coats, but will look dull.

Some other things I look for:

*Horses that look alert, without looking nervous, fractious or scared.

*Bright eyes.

*A tail that swings. The tail should not be tucked into the horses hindquarters. It should be free-flowing, slightly carried.

*Head-carriage. I like to see horses that appear what I call a "coiled spring of contained energy." Horses that put themselves on the bit, arching their necks

*Fluid strides. While it's good a horse steps up and meets his mark with the hind hooves into the front prints, you want to make sure the horse is moving fluidly through his stifle and shoulder as well. The horse's stride should also have a nice swing to it, with a steady, rhythmical, even beat.

*Good flesh and muscle. I don't want to see bones protruding, most notably hip bones and shoulder bones. The horse should have a rounded or a soft curve appearance over these areas, and the entire body in general. I don't like a horse that looks "sunken in" in his sides through his waist, right in front of the hip bone, and I don't like horses that seem too grayhound like, with their bellies too tucked where the hind end joins in. In contrast, I don't like to see a horse with little or no slope upwards along their belly from the girth to the hip. This to me is a horse in need of some fitness. I like horses to look robust, no matter how big or small their frame is.

*Good Feet. It can be hard to judge this sometimes, but I don't like a horse with feet that are out of proportion, or feet that seem too shallow, or a heel set too low. The angles of the hoof can be changed to some degree with time, but a horse with small, narrow hooves or big, wide hooves are basically stuck with those hooves. Minor adjustments in shoeing or the angle of the hoof can sometimes make dramatic changes all around in the horse. Back or hip problems can sometimes be a direct result of improper shoeing.

Trainers scoping out horses in the paddock already have ideas about certain horses, especially the old veterans who have been on the circuit for at least several months. The longer they're around, the better the horsemen get to know them, just like the public. And I'm sure some stories also circulate through the backstretches regarding particular horses. My best guess regarding what trainers are looking for would say they're down there to see if there is anything they might be able to correct, like the general condition, how the horse travels, or maybe consider if the horse needs some adjustments with the feet or shoes. You can also be sure they're checking to see how clean the legs are, including any filling or puffs in the ankle joints.

I hope this helps.

[smf]

Observer,

Much much thanks!

I have a bunch of questions about 'fluid on the knees' and such. Is this detectable to the avg Joe, or does this take a real expert to see the flaw? Also, the hooves...I've been told that a leading claiming trainer here "trims" hooves of runners he claims that need trimming and this produces a big change. How can I identify that, ie, when you say out of proportion do you mean to the horses frame/ body, or to his back/ front hooves?

I've hung out at the paddock for 3 days in the meet and can detect the "Takach stuff", but if I can identify a horse with the problems I listed above and see who claimed them, I can build a pretty good base of info on what certain claiming trainers look for. (i can hear the pace/ fig boys roar, as i post)...hey, Anything for an edge.

One side note....at LS tonite in the first, Asmussen had a (grossly overbet) claim that looked to be the best in the field on paper, but still didn't have the usual "pattern" his winning claims have (workouts). I set the line at 5-2, didn't get it. In the race, Dallas Keen had a layoff runner with very fast works and was obviously pointed to the spot he ran in tonite (passed up better purses at FG, skirted the tougher FG competition).

On the track & paddock, Keen's horse looked underweight (to me, anyway...had the Crafty CT syndrome-- ribs) but still had an aggressive, yet controlled attitude. Well you know the rest of the story....Keen's horse won on the engine.

What isn't talked about on Takach's video is important...when a horse looks under/ overweight, it s/b noted what the runner normally wieghs to begin with. If I had known 'Cotton Candy Girl' was always 'slight', I may have taken a swing at her. Instead, I passed.

Thanks again for the much needed help.