Culture Change
Fifty years ago, the average number of lifetime starts per runner was more than 40. Now, shockingly, it is less than 14. Why? What has changed so much?
Conventional wisdom is that the Thoroughbred breed had become more fragile as we have emphasized speed and early maturity over soundness and stamina. But on the other hand, we are working with the same basic gene pool we had 30 years ago. Horses like Nashua, Bold Ruler, Damascus, Northern Dancer, Native Dancer, and Hail to Reason were tough as nails, but their descendants are soft as butter.
However, in Europe and Australia horses are much heartier. Many are American-bred. Consider the top filly Finsceal Beo, by American-as-apple-pie Mr. Greeley. She won the Stan James English One Thousand Guineas (Eng-I) May 5, came back a week later to just miss in the French equivalent, and then two weeks later won the Boylesport Irish One Thousand Guineas (Ire-I). I myself have U.S.-breds training in England that routinely run every seven to 14 days. We can no longer just point to pedigree as the reason our horses are weaker, because our pedigrees in other locations are producing tougher horses.
It occurred to me that perhaps the racetracks have changed or become harder over the last 30 years, resulting in more injuries. I consulted racetrack maintenance guru Joe King who explained that for the most part, conventional dirt tracks have not changed much over the past 30 years. It's not the tracks.
Soundness is not the only issue or even the biggest reason why horses run less nowadays. Horses are not as tough constitutionally as they used to be. Every time they run a big race, they seem to be knocked out for weeks. Again, why?
It is my belief that our horses are over-medicated to the point that they are seriously weakened. Over the last 30 years, horses have received more and more medication and have raced less and less. The drugs not only don't work; they are counter-productive. Just look at other countries where they medicate less and race more. All drugs are toxic and our 2- and 3-year-old horses receive dozens of drugs in a given month. My average vet bill here is more than $800 per month.
The trainers are letting the vets run the game. The real problem is not illegal drugs, but the legal ones that they train and race on. Salix and Bute are given out like candy. These drugs have major side effects; just ask the humans who take them. Salix, which is used for works as well as races by many trainers, is a diuretic that depletes minerals and dehydrates a horse. Bute causes ulcers, a common ailment on the backstretch. Horses need more time to recover from their drug "hangover" after a race.
I believe another contributing factor is shoeing. This is not just my pet theory, but the opinion of many prominent veterinarians and blacksmiths. We have changed the way we shoe horses over the last 30 years. Simply put, horses today don't have as much heel as they used to. This causes "crushed heel syndrome," recently described in an issue of The Blood-Horse. The basic theory here is that a horse's coffin bone needs to be parallel to the ground. If it is not, it causes all kinds of problems, especially in the hock, stifle, and hips. If you look at pictures of old-time horses, they have less toe and a lot more heel, especially behind.
Finally, I believe there is a tendency by trainers to be too aware of their win percentage stats. Trainers don't want to lose. You see first time starters showing four to five months of breezes. That's ridiculous. Years ago, trainers and handicappers were acutely aware of form cycles. Horses would run throughout the year, often every seven, 10, or 14 days, and they would go in and out of form. But they would keep running. When a horse got good, the trainer was desperate to run him "right back" while he was good. Horses don't "bounce" if you run them back quickly. Witness the very formful Preakness (gr. I) run two weeks after the Kentucky Derby Presented by Yum! Brands (gr. I).
So what's the bottom line?
With the advent of synthetic tracks, there will be no excuse for horses to run as seldom as they do now. But we will need to wean ourselves off the tremendously counter-productive drug culture. Salix should be banned, period. And blacksmiths—please—more heel!
Bobby Trussell is the co-owner of Walmac Farm near Lexington.
Also--
1-- We breed many more horses than we used to, which results in many fillies being taken off the track much earlier. Less campaigns=less starts.
2-- I would argue that the horses being much stronger (whether through improvement of the breed over time or steroids and other drugs) causes them to be less sound, since it places greater stress on bones, tendons and ligaments (see Sandy Koufax, Mickey Mantle).
3-- 30 years ago most horses were raced by their breeders. Now virtually all are bought at auction, and so bred for the market-- which wants good looking, muscular fast horses. We don\'t breed for soundness.
4-- The stat I would like to see is starts per year per runner, and I would also like to see it for sires and trainers. Well bred horses are pulled from training much earlier, so their number of lifetime starts is less.
By the way, I talked to Joe King when I was researching \"Are Racehorses Getting Faster\". He couldn\'t tell me whether cushion depth had changed or much about composition changes at NY tracks, and nothing about other tracks. They started keeping records later, and Porcelli was responsible for them keeping really detailed records.
Thank you Miff.
This is a very timely post.
I was just about to point out that this year\'s 3YO crop has been pretty darn sound so far. Curlin and Hard Spun raced in all the Triple Crown races, but are still firing big shots into the late summer and fall. Before the Derby a lot of people were saying that Curlin was rushed too fast in the spring just to make it. Hard Spun has really never been out of training since last year.
Street Sense and AGS have been handled in the more modern conservative fashion, but both have been fairly active all year and are still firing big also.
One thing that needs to be considered is that many of the top modern trainers \"believe\" that fewer starts and more time between races lead to more consistent performance. So the number of starts had to go down regardless of the soundness issue. Even if they are correct about the consistency and peak performance aspect of this, no one has demonstrated that more time and fewer races is the best way to earn the most money or maximize the chances of a horse getting black type.
You are focusing strictly on stake horses, which are treated differently, and don\'t represent the breed as a whole.
By the way, Curlin was given two breaks after the TC.
Yes, I was focusing on stakes horses and lightly raced ALW types that are considered prospects. But to some degree, it appears that even some of the higher level claimers and statebreds in NY are handled differently than they used to be.
It might make sense to also compile the stats for starts per year away from the major racing centers where a handful of trainers that like to space races have a ton of horses.
You have to admit that this has been a pretty rugged group of 3YOs. The conventional wisdom here has been that if you run in all three Tripe Crown races you are toast. This year, it wouldn\'t be a complete shock if the major actively raced 3YOs make up the triple in the Classic.
Only two of the top 3yos ran in all 3 TC races, and only one of those has been campaigned regularly after that. That might have something to do with all 4 making it to the BC.
Yea but both that campaigned in all 3 made it and both of them had very active campaigns before and after the Triple Crown. The other two were given breaks, but Street Sense certainly hasn\'t had an easy campaign by modern standards. Typically, by this time of the year we are busy convincing ourselves that the 2nd string and late developers are better because everyone else is out. ;-)
Curlin did not have an \"active campaign\" after the TC.
Even 30 years ago horses used to get a break after the Triple Crown. I\'ll take a 9 race campaign like Curlin\'s over what we\'ve been getting in recent years from our best horses.
TGJB, as far as starts per year per runner, the Jockey Club lists it as 11.3 in 1960, 9.21 in 1980, 7.94 in 1990, 7.1 in 2000, and 6.37 in 2006.
http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=10
Jerry hit on one of the two key issues regarding the ruination of the breed when he mentioned commercialism. With commercialism comes a lack of responsibility of the breeder, as the breeder does not have to consume or rely upon the product.
The other major reason for the denigration of the breed is the manipulation by veterinarians of the limbs of young horses. They forgot to pay heed to the old margarine commercial that warned about fooling around with mother nature.
>With commercialism comes a lack of responsibility of the breeder, as the breeder does not have to consume or rely upon the product. <
This is very short term thinking on their part.
The economics of this sport never cease to amaze me. I\'m not an expert on horse values, but it seems to me the income streams don\'t even come close to justifying the prices paid for horses. It\'s as if \"the greater fool theory\" is not applicable to horse racing because there really is an endless stream of fools paying higher and higher prices. I realize there are intangible benefits to thoroughbred ownership that account for some of that, but I think there has to be at least some correlation between the quality of the asset (the horse), it\'s ability to earn (which is partly dependent on soundness and ability to race often), and the ultimate values. If some aspects of the quality keep deteriorating, something is going to hit the fan.
Many of the posts on this string have an element or more of truth to them, making it a worthwhile read.
As for the weakening of the breed leading to the weakening of the business I don\'t think there is a connection. If racing income was the only source of income available to an owner, the business would have closed down long ago.
It\'s not the only source...clearly. A breeder-owner can realize a profit racing/selling or participating in gambling, which is a source of unreported income the owner can try to access. For sure, an owner is going to have more inside information than the average fan in that regard.
It\'s been good for me.
TGJB -
When I wrote the Final Turn piece I was limited to 735 words so I cut a lot out. I had a long conversation with Joe King and we talked about every track. I had a theory that the tracks had changed dramatically over the past 30 years both with limestone base replacing clay and deeper cushions being added to make up for the harder base. He said that the only tracks which have limestone bases are the winterized tracks or tracks used for Standardbreds. As for the cushions he said they have not changed appreciably and that goes for all non limestone based tracks and he specifically mentioned all 3 NYRA tracks, Churchill,Santa Anita (old track) etc. He said the cushion may be 1/4 inch more now than it was 30 years ago but he thought that was negligible. He also said you have to be very careful in how you measure the cushion. It can vary by more than an inch depending how fluffed up it is when you measure.
I think your point on steroids is right on the mark. But that is my point. The medication is counter productive. By the way I have had horses with Bobby Frankel and Patrick Biancone and they are both very anti steroid and view the fact they don\'t use them as a factor in their success.
And yes the breed has been weakened. I don\'t deny that. People are trying to breed a good looking yearling which will sell. But what sells? Yearlings which look like rocket ships, big hip, well muscled because these do often make good race horses albeit fragile. But my other point is our horses are much tougher than we think when raced in other locations where they don\'t medicate nearly as much. And I\'m talking about legal medication. This is the real problem, not illegal medication in my opinion.
Synthetic tracks could and should change this. Horses won\'t bleed as much because they are less stressed. The use of Lasix should naturally decline unless this mindless drug culture persists. Minerals won\'t be depleted from the drugs, horses will recover faster and run back sooner, field sizes will go up. Trainers won\'t feel pressured to run sore horses. Horses will hang around longer kind of like many grass horses do now. Our racing should start to look more like other countries.
Bob Trussell aka
BB-- on the subject of changes in the tracks themselves, you should read \"Are Racehorses Getting Faster (1 and 1A) in the archives of this site. The cushions are much deeper, and the soil has a higher percentage of sand and less clay. As I said, I talked to Joe King when I was researching that piece. At that point (2003?) he had already not been involved for several years.
Barry -
If you have a chance, can you elaborate on what you mean by this and how it weakens the breed? Thanks.
TGJB,
You are going to have to take my word on this. Back in the 70s I used to take a look at the chart with cushion depths every time I went to the track trying to find correlations between that and rail biases (never found much and stopped). I can\'t recall any of the specifics, but the cushion wasn\'t nearly as deep then as it is now at the NYRA tracks.
On the flip side, since we know that moisture is also an issue in this, I wonder whether more frequent watering, a higher average moisture content, and rolling, floating etc... are having offsetting impacts on both speed and the hardness of the tracks????
I don\'t have to take your word. Porcelli gave me details, and they are in ARGF.
Yes, I know that. But BB was giving opposing testimony from Joe King about NYRA. I can verify that Porcelli is correct about NYRA (definitely Belmont because that\'s where all the dead rails were I was trying to predict better). I don\'t remember any 2 3/4 cushions, but low 3s almost definitely on occasion.
The racing/breeding industry today stands on the precipice of perhaps another disaster, as it did in the late 1980s.
When consumers become producers and there are few replacement consumers, the market equation collapses.
That is happening as we speak.
If the game does fall down the hill, then you may have more people joining you in trying to beat the game through the wickets than as owners.
TGJB -
I\'ve read it and think it\'s a very interesting theory. I\'m just not sure it\'s correct. Belmont is just one track. We discussed this in a thread a couple years ago. That\'s one reason why I called Joe King. I asked him if the tracks are considerably slower now than 30 years ago. He told me no. I said I heard that when Secretariat won the Belmont there was a 2 3/4 inch cushion. He told me no way. So are you trying to say he is out of it and is not a good source?
I agree it is logical that horses should be getting faster. We have been selectively breeding a certain type for 20 years at least. Sprinter milers to be specific. So we should be getting faster horses up to a mile and slower horses from 9-12 furlongs. That\'s probably what we are getting. But to say that Secretariat would be a nice allowance horse now and that you couldn\'t find him in today\'s Triple Crown races is taking a (now disputed) data point about cushion depth and extrapolating it way too far in my opinion. The best way to resolve this is to study grass racing. When we discussed this you dismissed that because of pace but that should be a constant. I don\' think we\'ve changed the way we ride grass horses. And if you look at it observationally it does seem that grass sprints are getting faster and the routes are not. I did look at some major races like the Yellow Ribbon that have been run for decades and the times were faster in the seventies.
Also do you believe tracks are getting slower and horses are getting faster each year or did this level off at some point? It seems that fig inflation has accelerated the past few years.
1-- Joe King would have no way of knowing whether tracks are slower unless he was a) using one of the energy return machines George Pratt invented, or b) using figures that are accurate, which is to say have not relied on pars for the last 20 years, which is to say TG (and not Ragozin, who cut loose from pars relatively recently). His account of the cushion depth does not square with what Porcelli told me (and frankly with what King told me, which was that he didn\'t disagree with anything Porcelli had told me, and didn\'t have much to add). Porcelli started the accurate record keeping at NYRA, and was the one who put me in contact with King. Without any doubt, the cushion depth at the NYRA tracks has increased over the period of time Porcelli has been involved, specifically when Terry Meyocks came in.
2-- As I pointed out a year or two ago when the issue of grass race times was last brought up, there have been a lot of VERY fast grass races run in the last couple of years (I listed a dozen or so at the time from the previous 6 months). Additionally, as I make clear early in the article, the prevailing theory today is that soft=safe, and the same thing presumably applies to grass, to the degree it can be controlled by not mowing, watering, etc. Trainers start screaming when racetracks get hard, and Darrel Vienna (for one) does not like to run horses over the Hollywood grass course when it gets too hard.
3-- \"Fig acceleration\" is I believe a function of such things as drugs. On the question of track speed today, it\'s all over the map, especially since the advent of poly etc.
Here is just one way this impacts the breed.
Breeders plan their matings by trying to come up with the best match for their mares by choosing a stallion that compliments their mares.
As with any breeders of animals whose function follows form, conformation is important.
Let\'s say you have a stallion that goes to stud that was born with legs that were severely deviated or deformed. Let\'s say this horse--we can call him him Real Quiet for the purposes of the hypothetical example--underwent surgery to correct his limbs.
Let\'s say that Real Quiet went on to win a race such as the Kentucky Derby. We will throw in the Preakness just for the sake of fun.
Well, by and by, Real Quiet goes to stud. His legs look all right. Breeders support him. When his foals are born, they have the same type of legs that Real Quiet had when he was born.
The breed has been weakened.
This is merely one example of the detriment of this type of manipulation.
When I first started writing about this stuff 8 or so years ago, I was not a popular figure among farm managers in Central Kentucky. Some of them, I have been told, paid money to a certain scumbag to make fun of me and my ideas in a certain scandal sheet printed in Kentucky.
Nowadays, everybody is talking about these things and certain people are trying to obtain full disclosure of the practice on young horses. Good luck to them because they have an uphill struggle ahead of them, as the establishment in the bluegrass like the status quo just fine.
By the way, conformation and honestly depicting the body of a dog is considered so important, that it is considered unethical to evem touch up a photograph of a dog, let along to surgical change its body.
99% of the dogs you speak of exist in a vacuum outside of any performance requirements, other than \"being pretty\".
Function doesn\'t follow form - form follows function. Horse purchasers have to be willing to not accept \"perfect\", and to realize that a variety of what are thought of as \"flaws\" are perfectly compatible with function and soundness.
Admittedly difficult to do, to have experience as that teacher, when those flaws never are allowed to make it to the track extant.
\"Porcelli started the accurate record keeping at NYRA, and was the one who put me in contact with King. Without any doubt, the cushion depth at the NYRA tracks has increased over the period of time Porcelli has been involved, specifically when Terry Meyocks came in\"
JB,
FYI,there was a period of time during spring 2005 that the posted cushion depth at Belmont was studied for 32 consecutive racing days.During that period, 9 racing days in a row had a posted cushion depth of 4.25 inches but raw times wildly fluctuated during the 9 days. Whether it was wind,maintenance,humidity or a combination of many factors the exact posted cushion of 4.25 was IRRELEVANT as to how fast raw times actually were during this period. I suspect the result for the entire meet would have been similar.
Conclusion: The Posted cushion is rather meaningless to raw times, at least at Belmont and I wonder about all other venues.
Mike
> The economics of this sport never cease to amaze
> me. I\'m not an expert on horse values, but it
> seems to me the income streams don\'t even come
> close to justifying the prices paid for horses.
Opening up this week\'s Blood-Horse to the article crunching the final numbers for the Keeneland sale, the large excerpt in the middle of the page reads,
\"Lurking under the lofty numbers posted by the Keeneland September sale is the fact that only 25% made a profit for their breeders\".
You sound like an advance man for Cot Campbell, who never lets a crooked leg stand in his way of buying a beautiful pedigree!
sighthound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > The economics of this sport never cease to
> amaze
> > me. I\'m not an expert on horse values, but it
> > seems to me the income streams don\'t even come
> > close to justifying the prices paid for horses.
>
> Opening up this week\'s Blood-Horse to the article
> crunching the final numbers for the Keeneland
> sale, the large excerpt in the middle of the page
> reads,
>
> \"Lurking under the lofty numbers posted by the
> Keeneland September sale is the fact that only 25%
> made a profit for their breeders\".
That 25% figure isn\'t correct. They\'d need to count live money RNAs and sales negotiated after the horse goes through the ring for an accurate figure.
>\"Lurking under the lofty numbers posted by the Keeneland September sale is the fact that only 25% made a profit for their breeders\".<
If that many breeders are losing money, then owners paying huge prices must be getting demolished. I thought that breeders were benefitting from the strange economics. IMHO, income streams must determine intrinsic value, not the ability to find a greater fool and sell at a higher price.
There is probably NO way to prove this kind of thing.
Even if we had perfectly reliable cushion depth information for every track, we don\'t have moisture content and other relevant data.
For example, anyone that has ever been to the beach knows that sand gets harder and faster when you add water.
So how do we know whether some of today\'s sandier surfaces are slower and softer than the old clay ones even if they are deeper when the trucks are out there watering the surface every couple of races and they are constantly rolling it?
The same kind of thing is also true of turf.
Regardless of whether the turf surfaces are allowed to get softer now than in the past (I don\'t know), there are other complicating issues. Turf racing is much more popular now than it was 30 years ago. The pool of turf horses is probably a lot larger as a result. So if the best turf horses are in fact faster, it may have nothing to do with the changed breed, drugs (which seem to be less effective on turf anyway), or training methods. It may just be that there are more turf horses. So the top naturally gets better (the same is not true of the overall horse population in the US).
The bottom line is this is mostly intellectual conversation.
If horses are getting faster, they aren\'t doing it fast enough to impact figures from a single year to the next. So handicappers have almost nothing to worry about.
If the surfaces are causing problems by being too hard, then they should be softened regardless of what they were like in the past.
If you are intellectually curious about the progressively faster figures, I think there\'s no way to \"prove\" the point. There\'s just some evidence to evaluate. If you are an experienced figure maker, then you can evaluate the methodologies also.
Well, the ped is the only residual value you\'ve got.
I think it comes down to the reality that the buyers have different agendas, and these agendas conflict to some extent.
That affects what\'s offered and what is done to get that horse to market, in order for the seller to realize the highest return.
No matter the end-user, you get more dollars selling a popular ped, straighter legs, and muscling. And you have to sell horses in order to stay in the business and be able to eat.
At the Kee sale, 4,901 offered, 3,799 sold. What percentage of those yearlings went to:
Future stallion (and broodmare) makers - buying for breeding
Pinhookers - buying for resale and profit
Ultimate end users - buying to race that horse
I would like to know what percentage of sales went to pinhookers. I think that affects what is done to get a horse to market more than anything. Those buying to race will accept different pedigrees, conformation, maturity (muscling, etc) than pinhookers will.
I think the market would be quite different if the majority of pinhookers were out of the equation.
Comments?
Street Sense Wrote:
> That 25% figure isn\'t correct. They\'d need to
> count live money RNAs and sales negotiated after
> the horse goes through the ring for an accurate
> figure.
Blood-Horse said the calculation was based upon yearling-price-to-stud-fee ratio (stud fees higher), plus cost of raising the yearling to sale and selling (feeding, prepping, KEE sales commission). They said last year 27% of yearling were profitable. I don\'t know if the RNA subsequent sales would make much difference using that method of calculation, but 22.5% of total offered (1,102) were indeed RNA\'d.
BH had these comments about pinhookers (paraphrasing and just pulling out the stats): average price paid for weanlings to pinhook rose 10.1% over last year, average price sold for fell 2%. Rate of return on pinhooking investment fell from 44.6% in 2006 to 29.8% in 2007. 38% of yearlings sold by pinhookers were profitable in 2007 compared to 43% in 2006.
The percentage that make money is not the important thing. If you have 4 yearlings to sell you could sell 3 for a loss but if the fourth one knocks it out of the park you make money on the group. So that stat is a little misleading. Most breeders are doing fine IMO.
1- Do you have data on other tracks?
2- I still think the grass times should be looked at more closely. It\'s a little dismissive to just say that grass is getting slower too. Certainly the new carpets at Hollywood and Gulfstream are faster surfaces than traditional grass courses.I know Epsom Derby times haven\'t improved much from the 1940\'s.
3- How do you figure drugs are a major part of what makes horses run faster? Legal drugs (Lasix, Bute, Banamine, Clenbuterol, Robaxin, etc) are not stimulants and shouldn\'t make horses run faster. So are you saying that all the horses are hopped on illegal drugs? If so I\'m not with you. Perhaps you are referring to steroids?
1-- No data, just comments from various people. Nothing firm. I did some research and that article because the question had come up, none since. If you want to do some more, be my guest-- just make sure you ask the right questions to the right people.
2-- You do understand that the same people are making both the dirt and grass figures and using the same process, right? So if we are making a mistake with one, we would make it with both-- right?
3-- Most of those drugs you mentioned help horses run faster, in many cases by helping them breath better, in others by reducing pain during a race, and in the case of steroids-- see Marion Jones. There are also other drugs we have discussed here at great length, like alkalizing agents.
4-- By the way, aside from cushion depth, there has been a major change in the sand/clay ratio at many tracks over the years. This was done to help them dry faster, and it is why you don\'t see the muddy/slow tracks you used to when tracks get wet-- many get faster. The more sand the slower when dry, compared to ones with higher clay content.
Miff-- fkach dealt with this, but just to nail it down-- assuming your facts are correct, that only says that cushion depth is not the ONLY factor. Humidity and track maintenance affect track speed, just to name two. That is covered in detail in \"Changing Track Speeds\".
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2-- You do understand that the same people are
> making both the dirt and grass figures and using
> the same process, right? So if we are making a
> mistake with one, we would make it with both--
> right?
wrong.
dirt runners, on balance, have more of a progression in terms of distance, especially the younger horses. many of the triple crown runners go from 7f and up until they get to the mile and a quarter. if you are tying all these races together, and the breed is indeed better suited for the shorter distances, you are going to get the longer races too fast; you will get drift when in fact the horses are not running any faster on the longer end.
turf horses tend to run in a closer range of distances. if you are tying them all together, you don\'t run the above mentioned risk (or not to the same degree). the top mile and a half horses might run 1 race at 9f or 10f, and the top 9f horses might run a 8.5f race, but you rarely get the 7f, 1M, 8.5f, 9f, 10f type progression. now, things have changed over the past two years. tracks are starting to card more turf sprints, and some of the 3 yr olds that wind up in the big turf races later in the year might start the year in a 7f turf race.
JB,
The facts are solid, I was present when it was being done most of the days.I agree with your assessment but I think this confirms that even if cushions are supposedly deeper today(than years back) that alone does not mean tracks are slower.Also, there are still a few big race days when venues scrape to produce the wow factor for horses that are already fast.The scrape was almost automatic years back, now much less since the phony track managers like to blame fast surfaces alone for breakdowns.
Mike
Michael-- the distance progression shouldn\'t have anything to do with it, and a) older horses are most of the basis for figure making, and b) younger horses get stronger and faster as the year goes on, which complicates things. But the question of distance itself is interesting. Problem is I don\'t know how you would prove it.
AS a practical matter, most horses run on dirt before they run on grass, so you use those figures as part of your decision making process.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Michael-- the distance progression shouldn\'t have
> anything to do with it, and a) older horses are
> most of the basis for figure making, and b)
> younger horses get stronger and faster as the year
> goes on, which complicates things. But the
> question of distance itself is interesting.
> Problem is I don\'t know how you would prove it.
>
> AS a practical matter, most horses run on dirt
> before they run on grass, so you use those figures
> as part of your decision making process.
fair enough.
injecting all these new turf sprints into the turf figure pool is going to be interesting. it shouldn\'t have any impact on the longer distance turf figs, should it?
thanks for the response.
What I\'ve been trying to figure out for a while now is the right data base query to address this turf/dirt thing-- some right way to look at horses that have run on both surfaces, maybe. It\'s trickier than it looks.
While those drugs can allow a horse to race, I don\'t see anything there that makes a horse run faster than it can via genetics and training. Those drugs enable being able to run. Obviously a lame horse is slower than a sound one, and a horse bleeding into it\'s lungs slows or stops.
The test is that if you give those drugs to a sound, healthy horse, they don\'t make him any faster than he already is.
Edit: horses from our fairly recent past raced on alot of drugs that could indeed alter performance: cocaine, heroin, caffines, amphetamines, etc.
The concept of \"drug free racing\" is very, very recent indeed.
What? Drugs make humans run faster why not horses? Balco!!! Do you really need Pletcher or Dutrow to be found guilty? How anyone can ignore whats happening with DRUGS?
It depends upon what drug we are talking about. Some can enable speed (they are illegal), most do not.
Yes, I am very \"anti-drug\", and yes, I think there is drug abuse in horse racing, including steroids.
Some drugs enable the ability to perform, when a horse should be rested. Some of those drugs are good and necessary to racehorse health, some are abused or abusive by use.
Say your filly comes out of a hard race, and spends the next two days moping about her stall, not eating, significant weight loss, just wrung out by her effort, athough overall physically she\'s okay (not injured, etc).
Her vet giving her a certain legal steroid injection at the FDA-approved dose is good for her - it will get her eating and drinking well again, get her perky and happy, get her back to the track for light training - combined with good horsemanship regarding her training schedule, her next race scheduling, etc.
That steroid use may get her back to a next race in 5-6 weeks, rather than in 8-10 weeks.
That is NOT the same thing as \"steroid abuse\". Although, in Indiana, this type of good use - using the drugs for what they are intended, under veterinary supervision - may become problematic (that\'s another discussion).
A trainer or vet who is giving that same injection, in higher doses with more frequency, simply to get that filly to race back in two or three weeks, or keep her racing over months when she should be rested - that\'s abuse.
A trainer or vet who obtains non-FDA approved \"designer\" steroids, in an attempt to use a steroid-class drug without detection - that\'s abuse.
The public tends to lump all \"drugs\" together, unfortunately. They assume that reports of steroid abuse in humans are directly transferable to horses, and that all \"steroid use\" is the same. No, it isn\'t.
We\'ve gone beyond that gross generality on this forum - talking about different classes of steroids, effects and side effects, etc. (but a smarter bunch here than \"the general public\", I think)
The majority of \"steroid use\" in horses are not the same \"steroids\" as Barry Bonds or Marion Jones used, nor does it necessarily get the same result.
\"We\'ve gone beyond that gross generality on this forum - talking about different classes of steroids, effects and side effects, etc. (but a smarter bunch here than \"the general public\", I think)\"
Sight,
....Generally agree, with the exception of the conspiracy idiots who know nothing and voice inane stuff.Biancone is a classic case, the guy trains on the edge and got big time for breaches in ADMINISTRATIVE regulations.The case is basic bullshit(read the ENTIRE case), re Snake Venom & unlabeled injectibles. A good Legal Aide Lawyer would have a shot on appeal.No question the guy is being made an example of without having a CLASS I positive and maybe his past made him a nice fat target or maybe there is more to the story that is not being released.
Don\'t think he\'s doing anything much different from many outfits, at many venues, who walk that fine line in using meds agressively.
Mike
Can\'t prove cobra venom has been injected (can\'t find it pharmacologically in the body), so all that exists for that drug is illegal possession of the Class A, then the other technical-violation stuff that\'s common in many barns (unlabled bottles and vials of meds, vaccinations, the IV fluids and bicarb, etc).
I think the appeal success on that case would hing upon if the search and seizure were \"legal\". But I haven\'t the first clue about technical legalities (any lawyers on here might comment).
For those interested in the details, here\'s the written KHRA suspension as given to Biancone: http://www.khra.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/...2/0/070104.pdf
And here\'s the RMTC model rules (adopted by KY for the most part) outlining common drugs, their offense class, and suggested penalties (just make up a password and sign in as an owner, click on \"model rules\"): http://www.rmtcnet.com/
It\'s a pain to search the KY.gov site for all of KY horse racing rules, but you can do it.
>>> Don\'t think he\'s doing anything much different from many outfits, at many venues, who walk that fine line in using meds agressively.
I agree.
Edit: after posting, I see the forum didn\'t allow the complete link through: add the appropriate internet prefix to the following and let\'s see if this goes through:
The Biancone suspension letter from the stewards: khra.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/858E5DAB-4484-479E-996D-A22DD378E5F2/0/070104.pdf
Thanks Sight,
That was a big problem with the Venom case,not traceable.Biancone took an FBI type polygraph which he passed. I\'m surprised John Veitch is on board with this particular case which is why I feel there may be more info not yet released or not yet confirmed.What prompted the raid on Biancone\'s barn in the first place?
If he was using venom, he should be barred for life, if not he is a sacrificial lamb for the phonies that run Kentucky racing, heretofore the MOST permissive venue in the world.
Mike
I think someone in his barn turned him in.
The Kentucky Racing Stewards over the years ... yet another discussion
Miff and Sight -
Thanks for adding some sensible comments re:Biancone. You are correct. The only issue here should be the cobra venom. But that\'s the part that never added up. That would be something you might find in a claiming trainer\'s barn. It would have the same effect as something like Sublimase for whatever joints it was used on. He trains young horses and grass imports. Now if they had found blood-doping kits or something like that I would say this looks bad.But cobra venom? It\'s used to block feet, diagnostically or otherwise. Cobra venom is not the reason he succeeds, that much I can assure you.
Also consider:
* Dr Stewart has testified that he put the bag in the refrigerator and that Biancone had no knowledge of it.
* Biancone has said he has no knowledge of it
* He passed a polygraph on this point and on whether he has ever used cobra venom
* He turned over his computer and all records and there apparently is nothing incriminating there.
* No needles or syringes were found.
* Biancone was never interviewed by the KHRA.
I know Patrick believes he was set up. But I also know that KHRA Pres Lisa Underwood has said in the press that they did not act on a tip. I know Lisa well and I believe her. So then why did they do the raid? I guess because he had a positive at Churchill for an asthma medicine on a 2 year old (who didn\'t even have lasix!). In my opinion what has happened here is the KHRA, on a mission to clean things up, raided a trainer after a very minor offence and found an illegal medication that he has never used that unfortunately was put there by a vet 45 minutes before the search.
I think most people would agree that IF my assessment is true then a one year suspension, effectively taking away someone\'s livelihood is excessive.
Disclaimer - I have 2 horses in training with PB. I can tell you this much. He is an outstanding horseman, one of the best I have been around.
Bob,
One problem is Biancone\'s previous record. It is not to difficult to think he is guilty of something ugly, given his past record.I stand that the Kentucky racing hierarchy are a bunch of phonies and it surprises me that a good man,John Veitch, is knee deep into this obvious propaganda.
The stories circulating at Belmont for weeks had Biancone barred for life, caught red handed with the magic bullet, etc, etc.Instead, administrative bulls--t for the most part.One year is a bit stiff, given the published circumstances.
Mike
bloodline bob Wrote:
>> Now if they had
> found blood-doping kits or something like that I
> would say this looks bad.But cobra venom? It\'s
> used to block feet, diagnostically or otherwise.
No. There is no \"diagnostic\" use for cobra venom in the horse, approved, not approved, experimental, or otherwise. It\'s not used to block feet.
It\'s ONLY known use in a horse is as an illegal intra-articular injection as a joint painkiller, used ONLY as it is undetectable via current testing. It is a Class A substance, of zero approved use in the horse and banned from being on the racetrack premises.
>> In my opinion what
> has happened here is the KHRA, on a mission to
> clean things up, raided a trainer after a very
> minor offence and found an illegal medication that
> he has never used that unfortunately was put there
> by a vet 45 minutes before the search.
Do you think, then, that the vet was trying to set Biancone up?
If there wasn\'t a tip, it\'s one hell of a coincidence, hum?
Good interview at Blood-Horse w/Bobb Trussell
http://www.bloodhorse.com/talkinhorses/BT100507.asp