|
Your info is pretty good here, Kash. Just allow me to make a few minor adjustments. Hobble length: Unfortunately, there is little of value that can be gleaned by a change of hobble length one way or the other. The old saw that a longer hobble allows a horse to "stride out" longer is mostly a myth with no basis in reality. That's because, with the exception of ridiculously severe cases, a too-tight hobble will result not so much in a shortening of stride, but a a "sliding up" of the hobble, higher on his arm so that he can get his arm further "under" the hobble so as to maintain his normal or preferred stride. This sliding up of the hobble will generally cause "burning" (which is a rubbing-raw of the front arm about midway up in the area where the hobble normally rides. This is an indication to the trainer that he should loosen the hobble a bit.
The too-long hobble that is shortened may be a positive as well as negative factor. That's because any uncertainty in the animal's gait will lead to a lack of confidence out on the track and consequently a tentative effort. Pacing is a power game and without the confidence to cut loose to the maximum power, the horse will never achieve his full potential. One of the reasons that we have NEVER seen a great champion pacer without hobbles is that they provide the support necessary for the horse to have the confidence to "let it rip" for maximum brush. So a horse who is a bit fumbly may actually benefit greatly from a shortened hobble. On the other hand, as you point out, some trainers tighten the hobbles as a reaction to unsoundness. So there's really no way to know just on the basis of a shortened hobble what's going through the trainer's head. My recommendation here is to view the horse on the track before wagering. If the horse seems bad-gaited or "nodding" due to lameness, it's probably a good bet the the shorter hobble is just to try to get the horse around the track.
Second or third lasix: What you say has a great deal of truth to it. I agonized for quite some time over why the application of lasix to a bleeder should produce a better effort in subsequent races following the first application. The only logical explanation I could come up with is that the bleeder is a horse who races chronically "short". That is, due to the bleeding problem, the horse is never able to go fast enough to produce maximum fitness. Therefore, on first application of the lasix, the horse is still racing "short". However, that first somewhat improved effort provides a good tightener for the second-out performance. Also, once the trainer realizes that he has a bleeder on his hands, when he trains between races, he will almost always train on lasix. Thus the training effort becomes more useful since the horse can go fast without bleeding.
The flip side to this coin is that trainers are usually able to get non-bleeders on lasix through a process which I will not detail here. However, there is no reason for a non-bleeding horse to be "short" and therefore the addition to lasix to a non-bleeder will produce maximum effect right out of the box. Unfortunately, there is no way to know if or how bad a bleeder a horse was prior to having lasix administered. This, of course, leads to the question of whether lasix will improve the performance of non-bleeders and there have been sufficient controlled studies to determine that the answer is "yes". The improvement has been documented to be highest on geldings and the researchers who carried out this research had no explanations for this. However, I think I know the answer but since this post is getting absurdly long and probably boring to most people reading it, I won't bother to explain this effect. Unless someone has an interest and requests it.
Bridles: You are right on the money here. However, a switch to an open bridle may actually help a horse as well because the ability to see the driver can motivate the horse. Also, if the horse has been difficult behind the gate, the calming effect of the open bridle may actually enable the horse to leave better because the driver doesn't have to fight the animal before the word "go"s given. The great driver Herve Filion often requested that trainers take the blind bridles off of the horses he drove. His feeling was that he wanted the horse to see him so he could show the horse the whip and this he felt led to better tactical ability, whereas a horse in a blind bridle is more or less a scud missle on a mission. When leaving, he felt that showing the horse the whip and tapping him led to as much early acceleration as a blinker and it's pretty hard to argue with a man who's won like 13,000 races. Also, blinkered horses can't see other horses coming up on them, so in the deep stretch, any natural gameness that the horse might have is negated by his inability to see an approaching animal.
Anyway, just some New year's day ramblings while we await the Big M opening card.
|
