Troubling trend among Derby winners

[Turkoman]

It's not the same anymore.

http://drf.com/news/troubling-trend-among-derby-winners

[lamboguy]

this looks to me that the problem here is a by-product of what happens to them with all these drugs. first of all they are being bred today from horses that ran on steroids, they all race today with lassix and other stuff. these are all chemicals being pumped into the horses body. horses that bleed bleed because they need to bleed. when you prevent them from bleeding it stops the natural process that occurs in the body. the tripple crown used to be a test of staying power of the horses to stay in training. the healthy horses kept going. lassix and other drugs enhance the ability for the horse to make to the tripple crown, but they pay the price afterwords. trainers have to stop on horses after a tough campaign out of necessity today. years ago before the breeders cup people took their horses out of training at the end of october and brought them back around the beginning of the year.

[Turkoman]

Yes, I agree. What you're saying makes a lot of sense.

[PaceAdvantage]

Or it just could be a random distribution of events that gives the illusion of some sort of meaningful trend...

As if there weren't steroids in racing in the days of Secretariat...

[JustRalph]

Today....... in the role of Captain obvious

Jay Hovdey !!

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

this looks to me that the problem here is a by-product of what happens to them with all these drugs. first of all they are being bred today from horses that ran on steroids, they all race today with lassix and other stuff. these are all chemicals being pumped into the horses body. horses that bleed bleed because they need to bleed. when you prevent them from bleeding it stops the natural process that occurs in the body. the tripple crown used to be a test of staying power of the horses to stay in training. the healthy horses kept going. lassix and other drugs enhance the ability for the horse to make to the tripple crown, but they pay the price afterwords. trainers have to stop on horses after a tough campaign out of necessity today. years ago before the breeders cup people took their horses out of training at the end of october and brought them back around the beginning of the year.

The pressure to win the race and cash in on stud fees breeds this stuff, imo. It's what factory stables do nowadays.

Race at two and hit major stakes. Point to Derby. Start up in January and get rolling.

If you have a horse (like IWR) that might need time to heal the kinks do you inject or kick him in the paddock and get him ready for the Haskell and Travers? You inject and drive on. If he wins the Derby and can string together one or two big races, you can cash in on a potential $50M payday by July. If you get him through he can stop there.

Then you can spend the $50M buying other horses and put them on the same program to do it all again. If you buy 15 horses and 13 of them fall by the wayside, you still have two left to hit the jackpot.

Vicious cycle.

Three horses, for example, who have lasted through the trail the last several years have a unique bond - who developed them. Curlin was Pitts. SS was Nafzger and Rachel was Hal Wiggins. No super stables or claiming stables had that success. I bet we see fewer and fewer horses make it to the end of the year, because they are concentrated in super stables/claiming stables.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by DeanT

The pressure to win the race and cash in on stud fees breeds this stuff, imo. It's what factory stables do nowadays.

Race at two and hit major stakes. Point to Derby. Start up in January and get rolling.

If you have a horse (like IWR) that might need time to heal the kinks do you inject or kick him in the paddock and get him ready for the Haskell and Travers? You inject and drive on. If he wins the Derby and can string together one or two big races, you can cash in on a potential $50M payday by July. If you get him through he can stop there.

Then you can spend the $50M buying other horses and put them on the same program to do it all again. If you buy 15 horses and 13 of them fall by the wayside, you still have two left to hit the jackpot.

Vicious cycle.

Three horses, for example, who have lasted through the trail the last several years have a unique bond - who developed them. Curlin was Pitts. SS was Nafzger and Rachel was Hal Wiggins. No super stables or claiming stables had that success. I bet we see fewer and fewer horses make it to the end of the year, because they are concentrated in super stables/claiming stables.

the fact that you don't see the horse in his or her 4th year is getting people turned off to the game. this game has really become ultra boring with all the same faces everywherel. they played out that lisa story this year in saratoga because they had nothing else to play. years ago you had a million stories

[tzipi]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

the fact that you don't see the horse in his or her 4th year is getting people turned off to the game. this game has really become ultra boring with all the same faces everywherel. they played out that lisa story this year in saratoga because they had nothing else to play. years ago you had a million stories

Very true and I think it's what hurts racing also. People have favorite athletes and they stay around for more than one year. You can follow them, Racing promotes the heck out of these horses and splashes them everywhere and then in a split second 95% of them are retired for big money.

[BluegrassProf]

Originally Posted by tzipi

Racing promotes the heck out of these horses and splashes them everywhere and then in a split second 95% of them are retired for big money.

Yes indeed, which reminds us why this is a doomed approach - if promotion is the name of the game, promote races and racing, not just the shooting stars.

Certainly, the stars of the game are important, and we love those athlete/spectators connections. But despite the "__________ is sooooooo good for the game!!!!" silliness - which we've seen a ton of lately, particularly with respect to a couple of current superstars, despite pretty hard evidence to the contrary - in the grander sense, they're but fleeting actors on a dimming stage.

Racing is forever caught up in wishing that it was either something it never was, or something it will never be. It's far more efficient to work with what we're given, and in the long run, the only thing we can realistically do.

[Robert Fischer]

Borel was running around like Jackie Chan and won 3 Derbys on horses that shouldn't have.

[bane]

Horses for courses..

[therussmeister]

The problem is the Derby is frequently won by a horse that got lucky, rather then a horse that is amongst the best of his class. Got lucky in the sense that they hit a form cycle peak at just the right time, and run a career best race on the first Saturday in May. To a certain extent having twenty starters promotes this. Someone is bound to run the race of his life time.

[Robert Goren]

The last two derbies have been run on some pretty unusual surfaces. My dad use to say when the tracks are off so is the Form.

[Irish Boy]

This trend doesn't get you very far. Big Brown had a pretty strong three year old campaign, even if it wasn't exactly historic. Same with Street Sense. Maybe there were no Seattle Slews that came out of it, but how often does that happen?