Beyer: U.S. lags behind England in race for superstars

[horses4courses]

Andrew Beyer's article takes a look at possible reasons why US thoroughbred racing has lacked superstars for some time. What do you think?

http://www.drf.com/news/andrew-beyer-us-lags-behind-england-race-superstars

[Ca9]

Horses win major races with the help of medications, go to stud, pass on their infirmities to their offspring and weaken the breed. The theory appears to be confirmed by the high attrition rate of colts in the Triple Crown series.

Agree 100%

[grant miller]

whos got the gas!!!!!!!!!!!

[RXB]

Horses win major races with the help of medications, go to stud, pass on their infirmities to their offspring and weaken the breed. The theory appears to be confirmed by the high attrition rate of colts in the Triple Crown series.

Agree 100%

High attrition rate has nothing to do with it.

Average career starts of Ky Derby winners since 1980 (post-Bid): 17.1
Average career starts of Epsom Derby winners since 1980: 8.3

Euro horses are handled like delicate daisies compared to American horses. And the Euro/Arab connections mastered the artful dodge and the early retirement long before North Americans did.

[horses4courses]

The only fault I can find in Beyer's article is attributing the rise in breeding stature in Britain to Robert Sangster's use of Northern Dancer in 1980.

Ireland, and Vincent O'Brien, deserve the credit for the Northern Dancer rise in Europe. It happened over 10-15 years before Sadler's Wells.
American Charles Engelhard was the major financial backer behind O'Brien's vision, first with Ribot, and then with Northern Dancer. Along came Nijinsky.
The rest is history.......

[Tom]

Our horses are not trained to be champions anymore - just a fast $$$ turnaround and no losses.

A few more campaigns like Wise Dan's and we might see some champions

Get rid of the Breeder's Cup and we might see much better racing all year.

[Cholly]

Over administration of meds is high on the list, but the primary culprit is the over-emphasis on winter/spring 3yo racing. The evidence is overwhelming that this approach doesn’t build a foundation for a horse to go on and achieve super-star status.

Granting Grade I status and million dollar purses to Derby preps was a step directly in the wrong direction.

[Steve R]

Inferior breeding, inferior training and an emphasis on short-term profitability over long-term development.

[duncan04]

I think economics is the main factor. Not being sold overseas but after a big 3 y.o. season, the horse gets retired for the breeding $$.

[Hoofhearted]

I regret to say that the poll is somewhat irrelevant because the proposition of the Beyer article is fundamentally incorrect.

"Andrew Beyer: U.S. lags behind England in race for superstars".
No country lags behind England in the horsebreeding industry -- not Albania; not even North Korea! Britain is at the bottom of the global thoroughbred business.
I am really surprised that a reputable expert such as Andrew Beyer would make such a basic error.

It is certainly not my intention to offend any British forum members but the facts of the matter are this:
Of all the horses mentioned by Beyer in his article, only Harbinger was foaled in the U.K.
Of the others,
Canford Cliffs (foaled in Ireland).
Goldikova (foaled in Ireland).
Sea The Stars (foaled in Ireland)
Frankel (sired by an Irish stud-horse -- Galileo -- and reared in Ireland).

Beyer:
"The decline of the U.S. and the ascendancy of Britain is not a sudden phenomenon;"
It is not a phenomenon of any description; it is a complete fabrication to suggest that it is anything but a fallacy.
Beyer would have been much better employed if he had compared any alleged U.S. decline as compared to European rather than British breeding.
Britain has possibly got the best racing in the world and probably the most prestigious races, but as a centre of thoroughbred breeding the country itself is a virtual non-player on the international scene.

[horses4courses]

I regret to say that the poll is somewhat irrelevant because the proposition of the Beyer article is fundamentally incorrect.

"Andrew Beyer: U.S. lags behind England in race for superstars".
No country lags behind England in the horsebreeding industry -- not Albania; not even North Korea! Britain is at the bottom of the global thoroughbred business.
I am really surprised that a reputable expert such as Andrew Beyer would make such a basic error.

It is certainly not my intention to offend any British forum members but the facts of the matter are this:
Of all the horses mentioned by Beyer in his article, only Harbinger was foaled in the U.K.
Of the others,
Canford Cliffs (foaled in Ireland).
Goldikova (foaled in Ireland).
Sea The Stars (foaled in Ireland)
Frankel (sired by an Irish stud-horse -- Galileo -- and reared in Ireland).

Beyer:
"The decline of the U.S. and the ascendancy of Britain is not a sudden phenomenon;"
It is not a phenomenon of any description; it is a complete fabrication to suggest that it is anything but a fallacy.
Beyer would have been much better employed if he had compared any alleged U.S. decline as compared to European rather than British breeding.
Britain has possibly got the best racing in the world and probably the most prestigious races, but as a centre of thoroughbred breeding the country itself is a virtual non-player on the international scene.

The poll is not as irrelevant as you suggest.
If you actually read the question posed, which is "why does US racing lack superstars?", you should realize that this has little, or nothing, to do with GB.

[PhantomOnTour]

I think HoofHearted has a point...England?
C'mon Andy

[Hoofhearted]

Well, the tagline of the linked article reads:
"Andrew Beyer: U.S. lags behind England in race for superstars"

And the thread title is:
"Beyer: U.S. lags behind England in race for superstars"

Indeed, the question which you yourself pose regarding why the U.S. might lack equine superstars in recent years is a valid one, but I am suggesting that if Britain is to be used as a comparative "marker" in such an debate, then the debate is based on a false premise ( of Beyer's).

[RXB]

From a factual standpoint, the article is spotty to say the least. For example, Danehill shuttled between Ireland and Australia, not Great Britain and Australia as Beyer claims. Beyer doesn't even once mention Ireland, despite the fact that Irish-breds are pre-eminent at the highest levels of "English" or "British" racing.

I don't disagree with Beyer's premise that other parts of the world are catching up to the USA from a pedigree standpoint but he's using an awfully small sample of recent "English" horses-- and throwing in French-based Goldikova and switching his reference to "Europe" where it suits his argument; she ran more times in the USA than in England-- as a basis to claim that an area of dubious specification (Britain? Europe?) has superior horses.

[tucker6]

Inferior breeding, inferior training and an emphasis on short-term profitability over long-term development.
To me, this is the correct answer. In fact, an emphasis on short term profitability has directly led to the inferior breeding and inferior training.

[burnsy]

an emphasis on short-term profitability over long-term development.
the under statement of our time.......this goes way, way beyond horse racing but it is sadly.......true. The insta-meal, gratification society..is my happy meal ready yet???...lol... They retire quick, not only that they will sell to the highest bidder....by, by champ, overseas for you. The drugs are the same deal...gotta win today.....keep these horses running, cost too much to weed out the "bleeders"...who thinks about next month, next year, next decade????? The longer this goes on, the wider the margin will be. We might get lucky with one here and there....but who has the odds stacked in their favor?.....not us......but hey, the bottom line says we are ahead...lol..lol, Do people really think thats how owners always thought??? The people that used to own the really good horses....were not in it for the money. that old time style is few and far. can't just blame horse racing its the society we live in.

[J17star]

I regret to say that the poll is somewhat irrelevant because the proposition of the Beyer article is fundamentally incorrect.

"Andrew Beyer: U.S. lags behind England in race for superstars".
No country lags behind England in the horsebreeding industry -- not Albania; not even North Korea! Britain is at the bottom of the global thoroughbred business.
I am really surprised that a reputable expert such as Andrew Beyer would make such a basic error.

It is certainly not my intention to offend any British forum members but the facts of the matter are this:
Of all the horses mentioned by Beyer in his article, only Harbinger was foaled in the U.K.
Of the others,
Canford Cliffs (foaled in Ireland).
Goldikova (foaled in Ireland).
Sea The Stars (foaled in Ireland)
Frankel (sired by an Irish stud-horse -- Galileo -- and reared in Ireland).

Beyer:
"The decline of the U.S. and the ascendancy of Britain is not a sudden phenomenon;"
It is not a phenomenon of any description; it is a complete fabrication to suggest that it is anything but a fallacy.
Beyer would have been much better employed if he had compared any alleged U.S. decline as compared to European rather than British breeding.
Britain has possibly got the best racing in the world and probably the most prestigious races, but as a centre of thoroughbred breeding the country itself is a virtual non-player on the international scene.

Somewhat pedantic, given Ireland and the England can be grouped as almost one here. The reason those horses were born there is purely economics. It is more economically viable to produce many of these horses in Ireland than England. Yet England has a significantly stronger calender, many more horses, and by far the more significant racing. Only one Irish race is annually top class ; the Irish Champion stakes.

It is purely on economics. Still, Ireland and UK interact with each other like no other racing community. To somehow imply those horses aren't British, because they were born in Ireland, seems somewhat childish, pedantic and pointless. They are breed to race largely in England. Indeed most of the heavy hitters within Ballydoyle are actually English.

Ireland flat racing is a monopoly. Dominated by one trainer, who solely trains for the biggest breeding business in the world, a business financed by largely english people. Outside of O'Brien, you have 3/4 trainers who produce top quality animals from time to time ....and little else. Irish flat racing is actually in a somewhat poor state because of this.

Of course this isn't entirely relevant to the topic at hand.

As for British racing being the most prestigious? I don't know. We (As Britains) think it is. Of course, few international competitors travel over because of a paucity of prize money. I think it's regarded still as the place with consistently top class horses over mile/middle distances and is probably the strongest in the world in those divisions. Stayers too ; given our strong ongoing tradition in National Hunt racing. But best? Nay, i think no nation can really claim itself to be the best.

[RXB]

There isn't any more emphasis on short term profitability in North American racing than in British racing. I posted the comparative career start averages for the Ky and Epsom Derby winners.

If the top horses racing in England were bred better, and trained better, and not so geared for early profit and quick retirement to the breeding shed, they'd be running a lot more races in their careers after they won the Epsom Derby or the 2000 Guineas. Number of Guineas or Derby winners from the past 30 years that started more than 15 times in their careers: ZERO.

[Hoofhearted]

To somehow imply those horses aren't British, because they were born in Ireland, seems somewhat childish, pedantic and pointless.
No, it isn't childish, pedantic or pointless .................... it is factual.
And there is no "implication" about it. It is a statement of actuality. If a horse is foaled outside of Britain, and is the result of a mating between a sire and a dam neither of whom are themselves British born, then how can that foal be construed by you as being British???

I'm not in the business of knocking British racing -- I love it and follow it daily. But simultaneously I am open enough to recognize that the British thoroughbred breeding industry is not by any means a significant force in global terms.


You also claim that the causality of this situation is due to it being "more economically viable to produce many of these horses in Ireland than England. It is purely on economics". How come? Economic baselines ( employee costs; feeds, price of land, etc) are more-or-less standardized between the two countries. The fact is that it is more due to the situation that the proven sires and broodmares are based in Ireland.

Finally, not quite sure what the relevance of the following is:
"Indeed most of the heavy hitters within Ballydoyle are actually English".
but I'll try to address it anyway.
Michael Tabor and Derrick Smith ( two English lads) are relatively recent incomers to the Coolmore scene, but I'll guarantee you this -- the main engine and the final arbiter of that particular operation is John Magnier. Always was and always will be.

[Native Texan III]

"You also claim that the causality of this situation is due to it being "more economically viable to produce many of these horses in Ireland than England. It is purely on economics". How come? Economic baselines ( employee costs; feeds, price of land, etc) are more-or-less standardized between the two countries. The fact is that it is more due to the situation that the proven sires and broodmares are based in Ireland. "

Ireland does not pay tax on stud fees.
UK pay tax and VAT (value added tax) at 20% on stud fees.
Irish government subsidises Irish racing industry.
UK private owners cannot claim racehorse costs and losses against tax.

These huge cost saving to owners it what caused the Irish thoroughbred industry to boom and UK breeders to move sires from UK to Ireland.

When UK was bankrupt after WW2 many of its best sires went to USA as many Brits could no longer afford to buy - as A Beyer explains. Things are fluid and horse movements by air are now commonplace.

I would think that Andy takes "England" to mean UK + Ireland in his article.

[Tom]

Who cars where they were foaled, it is where they race that matters.

[Broad Brush]

There are several reasons that others here have stated that contribute
to the decline in stars at the classic level in the US.

My 2 cents, I HATE 2yo in training sales. I think they should be banned or
go back the format of horses just galloping in sets for the sales.

These sales do damage in several ways:

First, these young horses are purchased by pinhookers who push them
for speed way to early--some do not have their knees "closed" yet.
We have no idea as to how many good horses went wrong leading up to
a sale and never make it to the races or make it in a lesser form.

What would Forego have been had he been pushed that early??
Zenyatta? Slew?

Second, these sales influence high speed early breeding for good
yearling sales---not what we need. If you look back at the final times
of 2yo races, the times were just as fast--but the fractions were much slower years ago.
This also makes it tough for solid classic type sires to get good mares
and then they are termed failures.

The race distances keep getting shorter to match the weak-knee sprinters
we are producing.

For every 2yo sale success, there are hundreds of ruined or compromised
horses.

I went to one a few years ago. Some of the horses looked like they had been thru a war and they are only 2yo (really 1 years old).

2yo sales:
I hate them. I hate them and I hate them!!!!

[nijinski]

There are several reasons that others here have stated that contribute
to the decline in stars at the classic level in the US.

My 2 cents, I HATE 2yo in training sales. I think they should be banned or
go back the format of horses just galloping in sets for the sales.

These sales do damage in several ways:

First, these young horses are purchased by pinhookers who push them
for speed way to early--some do not have their knees "closed" yet.
We have no idea as to how many good horses went wrong leading up to
a sale and never make it to the races or make it in a lesser form.

What would Forego have been had he been pushed and flares up later.
Zenyatta? Slew?

Second, these sales influence high speed early breeding for good
yearling sales---not what we need. If you look back at the final times
of 2yo races, the times were just as fast--but the fractions were much slower years ago.
This also makes it tough for solid classic type sires to get good mares
and then they are termed failures.

The race distances keep getting shorter to match the weak-knee sprinters
we are producing.

For every 2yo sale success, there are hundreds of ruined or compromised
horses.

I went to one a few years ago. Some of the horses looked like they had been thru a war and they are only 2yo (really 1 years old).

2yo sales:
I hate them. I hate them and I hate them!!!!

Billy Turner has voiced concerns regarding the 2 YO in training sales that you mention .
Early cartilage damage that would likely shorten the career of these young horses.

[Humph]

the breeding industry had been in decline in england for some time, no question , but when the irish decided to go tax free they delivered a blow that hasn't quite killed the industry in england but as near as.

[Gamblor]

Agree with the Pom earlier ;) who stated it was pedantic to get caught up in the Britain/Ireland thing... Beyer could've avoided all this by just saying UK.

The European stayers are the best in the world, unfortunately for the Brits the German's are currently killing them with G1 stayers.... and in the sprinting ranks, Australian sprinters punch well above their weight, consistently.

I can't understand why US owners wouldn't look to Europe for stayers, and Australia for sprinters. The Aussie and NZ sales are consistently strongly populated by Hong Kong owners, and most of their champions of the last many years have been bred here or NZ.

If I were an owner, I'd quickly put aside patriotism and shop for the best bred, no matter where they're born. Ludicrous to do anything else.

[depalma113]

There are several reasons that others here have stated that contribute
to the decline in stars at the classic level in the US.

My 2 cents, I HATE 2yo in training sales. I think they should be banned or
go back the format of horses just galloping in sets for the sales.

These sales do damage in several ways:

First, these young horses are purchased by pinhookers who push them
for speed way to early--some do not have their knees "closed" yet.
We have no idea as to how many good horses went wrong leading up to
a sale and never make it to the races or make it in a lesser form.

What would Forego have been had he been pushed that early??
Zenyatta? Slew?

Second, these sales influence high speed early breeding for good
yearling sales---not what we need. If you look back at the final times
of 2yo races, the times were just as fast--but the fractions were much slower years ago.
This also makes it tough for solid classic type sires to get good mares
and then they are termed failures.

The race distances keep getting shorter to match the weak-knee sprinters
we are producing.

For every 2yo sale success, there are hundreds of ruined or compromised
horses.

I went to one a few years ago. Some of the horses looked like they had been thru a war and they are only 2yo (really 1 years old).

2yo sales:
I hate them. I hate them and I hate them!!!!

This is nonsense.

It is overinflated purses and the abundant number of Grade One races that is the problem. Trainers can pick and choose to avoid the competition, get their grade one win and retire to stud.

As for your comment about for every one success there are hundreds of ruined or compromised horses, do you exagerate much?

1 in 87 OBS horses that went throught the sales ring from 2011 is a Graded Stakes winner, including the Kentucky Derby winner. Last time I checked that race wasn't a sprint. That is slightly better than the average of all 2 year-old sales graduates. So please stop with the hyperbole.

[tholl]

This is nonsense.

It is overinflated purses and the abundant number of Grade One races that is the problem. Trainers can pick and choose to avoid the competition, get their grade one win and retire to stud.

As for your comment about for every one success there are hundreds of ruined or compromised horses, do you exagerate much?

1 in 87 OBS horses that went throught the sales ring from 2011 is a Graded Stakes winner, including the Kentucky Derby winner. Last time I checked that race wasn't a sprint. That is slightly better than the average of all 2 year-old sales graduates. So please stop with the hyperbole.

An interesting stat that I heard, but have not verified, is that it, on average, takes longer for a two-year-old in training sales graduate to win versus a yearling sale graduate.

[classhandicapper]

I think the major factor is that we tend to sell too many of our best stallion prospects to foreign concerns. Many of our owners are more interested in individual profit than advancing the breed. Over a long period of time, that has to lead to a shift in power.

An example that doesn't get a ton of publicity is Sunday Silence. Not that Sunday Silence is single handedly responsible for the rise in quality of Japanese racing, but he did have a Deep Impact. :lol:

Do that enough times over 20-30 years and it will matter.

[J17star]

No, it isn't childish, pedantic or pointless .................... it is factual.
And there is no "implication" about it. It is a statement of actuality. If a horse is foaled outside of Britain, and is the result of a mating between a sire and a dam neither of whom are themselves British born, then how can that foal be construed by you as being British???

I'm not in the business of knocking British racing -- I love it and follow it daily. But simultaneously I am open enough to recognize that the British thoroughbred breeding industry is not by any means a significant force in global terms.


You also claim that the causality of this situation is due to it being "more economically viable to produce many of these horses in Ireland than England. It is purely on economics". How come? Economic baselines ( employee costs; feeds, price of land, etc) are more-or-less standardized between the two countries. The fact is that it is more due to the situation that the proven sires and broodmares are based in Ireland.

Finally, not quite sure what the relevance of the following is:
"Indeed most of the heavy hitters within Ballydoyle are actually English".
but I'll try to address it anyway.
Michael Tabor and Derrick Smith ( two English lads) are relatively recent incomers to the Coolmore scene, but I'll guarantee you this -- the main engine and the final arbiter of that particular operation is John Magnier. Always was and always will be.

It is a point without fact. The difference between these horses being born in England and Ireland changes what exactly? The wording in the article was slightly misleading in relation to where they are born (although to stipulate the UK doesn't have studs is of course asinine, various successful studs are here with good stallions).

Much of British horse racing is based upon two juggernauts. The arab men and their great wealth, who have studs in both Britain and Ireland. Coolmore being the other, in Ireland, despite being run by englishmen by and large. Economics dictate it's location. If it were economically more logical to be in Britain, it would be. Ireland/UK bloodstock industry runs together, hand in hand. One without the other does not exist. Thus your moaning is superfluous.

It is more favourable to breed in Ireland for economic purposes. Why do you think these "better stallions" are in Ireland. For the sheer hell of it? The location of businesses (even though that business serves and caters largely for Britain) depends entirely on fiscal restraints and plausibilities. The businesses, and the stallions, are in Ireland because it's more profitable for them to be there. Why else would they be there, given Britain has much more racing/more owners etc? The stallions aren't there for traditional, or because "well, there here, so why move them!".

Magnier is of course a big hitter, but plently of english folk have been involved in that operation over the years, and Tabor isn't what i'd call a new member of the team. Smith, yes, although he's been active for a number of years now.

Of course, what does this have to do with the topic at hand? You're merely being pedantic with no point behind it. Yes, factually many of these horses were foaled in Ireland. What other (and i hope deeper) point are you trying to assert?


Currently British racing actually has some clear issues. Financial issues, large financial issues, exist. For me however, purely as somebody who watches it as a casual fan, the merging of the best in the talent pool into a small oligarch type structure is somewhat damaging. The talent isn't spread out enough for me. British racing is for me the best in the world because of the charisma, character, variables and oddities of it all ; relative to what i percieve to be more bland, structured and less variable racing in the rest of the world. Of course, however, many issues exist in UK racing (and Ireland) and it is not all flowers, prostitites and sweets over here.

[J17star]

Agree with the Pom earlier ;) who stated it was pedantic to get caught up in the Britain/Ireland thing... Beyer could've avoided all this by just saying UK.

The European stayers are the best in the world, unfortunately for the Brits the German's are currently killing them with G1 stayers.... and in the sprinting ranks, Australian sprinters punch well above their weight, consistently.

I can't understand why US owners wouldn't look to Europe for stayers, and Australia for sprinters. The Aussie and NZ sales are consistently strongly populated by Hong Kong owners, and most of their champions of the last many years have been bred here or NZ.

If I were an owner, I'd quickly put aside patriotism and shop for the best bred, no matter where they're born. Ludicrous to do anything else.

Germans aren't killing us with stayers. Danedream is a middle distance horse, not a stayer, and she is a relative anamoly.

UK racing is very strong at a miler to a mile and a half, and has a great tradition in staying races (Unsuprising given our national hunt heritage, hell it is probably a more popular sport than the flat).

Austrialians do own us at Sprints. Our sprint division is always so clouded and condensed with few elite performers per decade. Handicapping and Group sprints are sometimes not that divisible.

Australia are much better with speed, we are much better with stamina.

[Cholly]

This is nonsense.

It is overinflated purses and the abundant number of Grade One races that is the problem. Trainers can pick and choose to avoid the competition, get their grade one win and retire to stud.

As for your comment about for every one success there are hundreds of ruined or compromised horses, do you exagerate much?

1 in 87 OBS horses that went throught the sales ring from 2011 is a Graded Stakes winner, including the Kentucky Derby winner. Last time I checked that race wasn't a sprint. That is slightly better than the average of all 2 year-old sales graduates. So please stop with the hyperbole.

I don’t pretend to know squat of the physiology of thoroughbreds…but in my book Zenyatta, Curlin, and Tiznow stamped themselves as the stars of the last decade by winning multiple GI’s at classic distances in SUCCESSIVE years. None of those went through a 2YO-in-training sale, nor did any of them race as a 2YO.

But I definitely agree with you that the excessive number of Grade I races (esp. for 2YO’s + 3YO’s in the Spring) is a core problem, both for the sake of the breed and for the business of horse racing.

[Robert Fischer]

Why quibble? Beyer is calling for positive improvements to the sport. :ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

[Broad Brush]

This is nonsense.

It is overinflated purses and the abundant number of Grade One races that is the problem. Trainers can pick and choose to avoid the competition, get their grade one win and retire to stud.

As for your comment about for every one success there are hundreds of ruined or compromised horses, do you exagerate much?

1 in 87 OBS horses that went throught the sales ring from 2011 is a Graded Stakes winner, including the Kentucky Derby winner. Last time I checked that race wasn't a sprint. That is slightly better than the average of all 2 year-old sales graduates. So please stop with the hyperbole.
Do you count the number of horses who were purchased to be pin-hooked
but were injured or diminished before ever getting to any sale??

As for your point that the quality has gone down because of too many
Grade I races??? This is a stupid point that has no logic.

How does horses "avoiding each other" make them run slower??

Should not they have better records with smashing wins???

Explain the logic.

How does this cause them to run slower at classic distances??

[Gamblor]

Germans aren't killing us with stayers. Danedream is a middle distance horse, not a stayer, and she is a relative anamoly.

UK racing is very strong at a miler to a mile and a half, and has a great tradition in staying races (Unsuprising given our national hunt heritage, hell it is probably a more popular sport than the flat).

Austrialians do own us at Sprints. Our sprint division is always so clouded and condensed with few elite performers per decade. Handicapping and Group sprints are sometimes not that divisible.

Australia are much better with speed, we are much better with stamina.


Agree with that. Our stayers are quite poor because the breeding industry here is so focused on speed. It means we get great sprinters like Black Caviar (22 from 22) but European stayers kill ours.

You're right about UK 1600 to 2400 VG right now.

[depalma113]

I don’t pretend to know squat of the physiology of thoroughbreds…but in my book Zenyatta, Curlin, and Tiznow stamped themselves as the stars of the last decade by winning multiple GI’s at classic distances in SUCCESSIVE years. None of those went through a 2YO-in-training sale, nor did any of them race as a 2YO.

But I definitely agree with you that the excessive number of Grade I races (esp. for 2YO’s + 3YO’s in the Spring) is a core problem, both for the sake of the breed and for the business of horse racing.


It's easy to pick and choose. If you are going to go as far back as Tiznow, I can easily add Silver Charm who did go through a 2 year-old sale and was dominant for years at the Classic distance. By the way, Zenyatta never won at the Classic distance in successive years.

[depalma113]

Do you count the number of horses who were purchased to be pin-hooked
but were injured or diminished before ever getting to any sale??

As for your point that the quality has gone down because of too many
Grade I races??? This is a stupid point that has no logic.

How does horses "avoiding each other" make them run slower??

Should not they have better records with smashing wins???

Explain the logic.

How does this cause them to run slower at classic distances??

Are you kidding? Horses not facing competition, like any athlete, are not going to have to find their bottom if there is nothing to push them. Seriously, put a Grade One winner in a claiming race and tell me if they are going to break track records?

[depalma113]

Also, to further the point.

Slower horses do not win against faster horses.

So when a slower horse who would not have hit the board against 10 of his peers in a race like the JCGC, his connections find a softer Grade One to pad his resume. He faces weaker competition, gets his Grade One and suddenly becomes a stallion prospect. Now a slower horse is breeding to slower mares who also got their black type by facing inferior competition. What are going to be the results of their offspring?

To put it another way. If you have ten horses and one Grade One race , all ten will show up for that grade one. If you have ten horses and five grade ones, will all ten horses show up for all five grade ones?

So out of those ten, you could have one true Grade One animal, but you could end up with five Grade One winners. All going to the shed, all producing offspring.

[horses4courses]

. Slower horses do not win against faster horses.

Not necessarily true.
Faster horses often get burnt out by other fast horses, or by themselves if they can't hold back some energy for the finish.
Plodders can win races......

[Cholly]

Also, to further the point.

Slower horses do not win against faster horses.

So when a slower horse who would not have hit the board against 10 of his peers in a race like the JCGC, his connections find a softer Grade One to pad his resume. He faces weaker competition, gets his Grade One and suddenly becomes a stallion prospect. Now a slower horse is breeding to slower mares who also got their black type by facing inferior competition. What are going to be the results of their offspring?

To put it another way. If you have ten horses and one Grade One race , all ten will show up for that grade one. If you have ten horses and five grade ones, will all ten horses show up for all five grade ones?

So out of those ten, you could have one true Grade One animal, but you could end up with five Grade One winners. All going to the shed, all producing offspring.

Grade I races should be an utmost rung on the ladder, an achievement that certifies preeminence. The logic of awarding Grade I status to Derby preps just doesn’t register. If a Grade I is supposed to be a pinnacle, how can you have 5 of them going off at basically the same time with no overlap among the runners…not to mention adding in a million dollar purse GII Louisiana Derby in the same period.

[Cholly]

It's easy to pick and choose. If you are going to go as far back as Tiznow, I can easily add Silver Charm who did go through a 2 year-old sale and was dominant for years at the Classic distance. By the way, Zenyatta never won at the Classic distance in successive years.

No argument about Silver Charm’s status--I consider him to be a star of the 90’s, along with Cigar and Skip Away. And you’re right, Silver Charm and Skip Away did race as 2YO’s, although Cigar didn’t.

Incidentally, those 3 compiled 24, 33, & 38 lifetime starts, whereas my stars of the “aughts” only managed 20, 16 & 15 starts. A lot has changed in just 15 years, which harkens back to the subject of Mr. Beyer’s column.

[SharpCat]

When discussing stars of the 90's you must never leave out my favorite horse Holy Bull.

[PhantomOnTour]

One of my favorites and as game as they come, but he wasn't "dominant for years"

Truthfully - he would have lost the Preakness to Touch Gold if the latter didn't kiss the ground at the start, and TC beat him in the Belmont.

[RXB]

Agree with the Pom earlier ;) who stated it was pedantic to get caught up in the Britain/Ireland thing... Beyer could've avoided all this by just saying UK.


The Republic of Ireland is not part of the UK and therefore saying UK instead of Britain wouldn't solve that particular quibble.

[RXB]

When discussing stars of the 90's you must never leave out my favorite horse Holy Bull.

Yes, a great horse.

[depalma113]

In a string of 21 consecutive stakes races from his 2 year-old season until his 5 year-old season he won 12, came in second 6 and third twice, with one off the board finish.

I'd classify that as pretty dominant over a 3+ year span.

[Track Phantom]

The problem is you have idiots advancing baseless notions (G1 winners avoiding each other hurts the breed) coupled with weak based arguments taken as gospel....Unproven lines of logic that are used to make sense of things. That combo makes it difficult to find a grain of truth.

[ronsmac]

When discussing stars of the 90's you must never leave out my favorite horse Holy Bull.
The horse who got me hooked as a kid was Seattle Slew, I thought the Bull was the closing thing to him until Ghostzapper came along.

[thespaah]

There are several reasons that others here have stated that contribute
to the decline in stars at the classic level in the US.

My 2 cents, I HATE 2yo in training sales. I think they should be banned or
go back the format of horses just galloping in sets for the sales.

These sales do damage in several ways:

First, these young horses are purchased by pinhookers who push them
for speed way to early--some do not have their knees "closed" yet.
We have no idea as to how many good horses went wrong leading up to
a sale and never make it to the races or make it in a lesser form.

What would Forego have been had he been pushed that early??
Zenyatta? Slew?

Second, these sales influence high speed early breeding for good
yearling sales---not what we need. If you look back at the final times
of 2yo races, the times were just as fast--but the fractions were much slower years ago.
This also makes it tough for solid classic type sires to get good mares
and then they are termed failures.

The race distances keep getting shorter to match the weak-knee sprinters
we are producing.

For every 2yo sale success, there are hundreds of ruined or compromised
horses.

I went to one a few years ago. Some of the horses looked like they had been thru a war and they are only 2yo (really 1 years old).

2yo sales:
I hate them. I hate them and I hate them!!!!
Yep..The stamina is being bred out of the breed.
up to 20 years ago, there was no such thing as a 5 1/2 furlong race for older horses. That excludes those 5f turf sprints we see as stakes races. A few tracks have them.
I think 2 year olds should not be racing until they reach 2 years 6 months after their birth. I think 2 year olds should be limited to a maximum of 5 starts.
With the exception of career ending injury, I think the minimum age for the breeding shed should be 5.
Reason, the industry is still racing to breed. The age thing is designed to simply keep the best horses on track racing for at least one more full season.
Perhaps some will see these as radical ideas. The typical response would be " well we've always done it this way". Or " the horsemen will never stand for it"..
Well, we have been doing it "this way" and it isn't working.
So rules need to be changed. And everyone will have to adjust. So what.

[tophorse1145]

Well, in this article, Andrew Beyer has mention the possible reasons well, but it we find the what exact reason then it will be easier to get back in less time. Isn't it?

[Track Phantom]

Well, in this article, Andrew Beyer has mention the possible reasons well, but it we find the what exact reason then it will be easier to get back in less time. Isn't it?

How does an adult type a sentence like this? I lost brain cells trying to decipher it.

Forget the races and look into a community college.

[tzipi]

1. They just breed for speed today. Boring sprint races everyday.

2. Every time we get good horses today who could become even better down the line and keep fans, they retire it or the horse gets INJURED after the TC and retired for big money.

3. The myriad of drugs and super "trainers" doesn't help.

[thespaah]

1. They just breed for speed today. Boring sprint races everyday.

2. Every time we get good horses today who could become even better down the line and keep fans, they retire it or the horse gets INJURED after the TC and retired for big money.

3. The myriad of drugs and super "trainers" doesn't help.
SPOT ON POST!

[thespaah]

How does an adult type a sentence like this? I lost brain cells trying to decipher it.

Forget the races and look into a community college.
If there were an emoticon for "I have no idea what I just tried to read", I'd post it.