Triple crown (http://therail.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/triple-crown-needs-major-reform/) [quote rag=]... In our view, thoroughbred racing's Triple Crown is a tradition that was fine 50 years ago when, as horse people say with rare irony, horses ran on hay and oats. It is a dangerous grind in this era of chemically high-tech, high-powered training. But the five-week event puts tremendous pressure on owners and trainers to run their horses even when they suspect they shouldn't. The racing authorities make much of the fact that the Triple Crown brings out the crowds and the money and helps keep the sport alive. The pull of tradition and the media attention can be irresistible. We suggested that Big Brown pass on the Preakness last year but he ran. And he won. Then he pulled up short in the Belmont and his racing career faded away.
With the heavy weight of evidence in our 50-year data base of thoroughbred performance to back us up we want to state the blunt truth: The Triple Crown is good for neither the horses nor the sport of racing. ... [/quote]
Jump:
Of course you are quoting the \"Lens\" in The New York Times. First, a
brief word about the Times, the so called newspaper of record. The
Times has fallen on hard times, and in a move which many are calling
suicidal, has raised the newstand price of their publication to $2.00 per day.
The Times, once the gold standard of print journalism, now devotes
nearly an entire page DAILY to errata and apologies.
Perhaps most infuriating, the Times still insists on calling
everbody \"Mr.\", as in \"Mr. Stalin, who is responsible for the deaths of over 60
million people...\" or \"Mr. Dahmer, who dismembered his girlfriend and used her
bones for soup stock in his East Village kitchen...\"
Lets talk about a real newspaper. For 50 cents, the New York Post. While
I was dozing off on the public conveyance carting me grudgingly to my Monday
labor,I caught the following headline in rather large letters \"GURU GETS IT
RIGHT\". The subhead \"Thoro- Graph president gave spot-on analysis of Belmont\"
Kerrison is an Australian journalist who followed the racetrack on a daily basis
in his younger years; given this curriculum vitae I would imagine he enjoys the
occasional drink; I guess one\'s never too old to start enjoying Kool- Aid.
Bee,
Lots of Kool Aid drinkers out there.If I tell you how many times the Rags guys have given \"the last rites\" to a fast performer(BIG BROWN after FL derby) it\'s comical. Like the snake oil salesman of days past, they take the obvious and spin it.Re injuries,law of averages in racing catches up with many runners eventually.
You probably know that many trainers will tell that it\'s surprising that many more horses do not get injured during a racing career.
There were no less than 5 nice stake type horses go bad just last week, none had run extremely fast. These guys just dont know how to spell R-A-N-D-O-M or really don\'t have a clue what goes on every day, at all levels of racing.
Mike
P.S. Dunkirk out with a Condylar fracture, another one who never ran excessively fast.
Two zeros by March is pretty fast, Miff, if not \"excessively\" so. And he ran pretty hard for 12 furlongs saturday. But you know best, of course. I\'m sure it was just random.
Magic,
Yes,that was a pretty fast pair for a young horse. I thought he was knocked out by the two Florida races.The point is that some will tell you that what happened in March,is relevant to the injury in June but Plethcher/attending vet were clueless. The Kool Aid drinkers will say \"see I told ya\" and will spin this injury for sure.
Guys believe that QR\'s quarter crack had something to do with how FAST he ran, BRILLIANT!
Mike
Are any of these Unbridled\'s Song\'s making it to race as 5 year olds or even 4 yo? Wow are they fragile..
It\'s all about stress during growth. Age is a big variable here. It\'s entirely possible that the injury to Dunkirk had its origins in March. It\'s got nothing to do with Kool Aid.
You realize of course that Dunkirk\'s races in March would put him in the top 1% in terms of speed relative to all thoroughbreds at that age.
Another obvious point is that Dunkirk could not talk to Pletcher and the vet and say \"hey I have a little pain here.\" With horses you are at a disadvantage sometimes because you don\'t always know what\'s going on until an injury fully manifests itself.
Overall Miff you are as guilty of generalizing as much as the other side. If drinking this particular brand of Kool Aid helps owners and trainers be a little more cautious I think that\'s a good thing. I wouldn\'t go as far as throwing out the whole Triple Crown format...but that\'s another can of worms.
HP
It\'s all about stress during growth. Age is a big variable here. It\'s entirely possible that the injury to Dunkirk had its origins in March. It\'s got nothing to do with Kool Aid.
HP,
That is possible.The people with real expertise,Team Pletcher and Equine Vet Team that tend to this horse every day probably would have detected something lingering from March.The Kool Aid drinkers have no expertise with equine health and just deal in inane/unscientific speculation.In every case they have never even laid eyes on the animal, yet pronounce them ready for impending disaster,VOODOO!
Spoken to many vets over the years and respect their knowledge,if echoing their sentiments is generalizing,fine.It is always randomly possible for the Kool Aid drinker to be right but for all the wrong reasons.Even a broken clock is right twice a day!
Mike
Richie-- the East Village guy was a different homicidal maniac, not Dahmer-- our guy was one and done, don\'t think Dahmer would have been able to last that long with New Yorkers.
And at least the Times prints corrections. BUT-- yeah, Kerrison is a good guy. Always looking for a contrarian angle, and I\'m Mr. Contrarian. I\'ve learned how to be the Human Quote Machine.
Miff-- my offer stands, terms of the bet in the earlier post. If it\'s random you have a huge edge. On the \"experts\" who know better since they are with the horse-- you don\'t know how many times trainers have told me the problem was mental when I insisted it was physical, and an injury showed up a race or two later. Usually too late to prevent real problems. The nuclear scans are helping a little in that regard. I had one old time trainer thank me profusely for insisting he scan the horse after he said nothing was wrong-- a hairline fracture showed up, if the filly had run back she would have been done. Her name is My Three Sisters, we gave her some time and she won a stake, placed in several others, and earned something like 300k after that.
I\'ve discussed that scurrilous Times piece by you-know-who before in this space. The idea of stretching out the TC has been put forward on TV and in print by yours truly since at least the early 90\'s, and by many others before that and since. But what really stinks about what they did is the attempt to attach themselves to Rachel-- 50 years from now someone will do a search for her in the paper of record, and Ragozin\'s name will pop up. They had NOTHING to do with her. We have sued in Kentucky to try to get paid for our contribution, it\'s gotten a little coverage, hopefully it will get more..
JB,
The \"experts\",I have listened to, say that most injuries are random and unpredictable, bad step/landing etc etc, a pure occupational hazard for these athletes.
Every horse in training is likely to incur one,in the 90 percentile,sooner or later,some minor,some severe.
Don\'t recall the bet but if you really have the ability to call an injury without any vet like expertise and without seeing/examining the horse,thats an industry scoop.Fire all the vets,hire you!
Mike
martoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are any of these Unbridled\'s Song\'s making it to
> race as 5 year olds or even 4 yo? Wow are they
> fragile..
USong is a fragile bloodline. I wouldn\'t touch one.
Old Fashioned was another US that didn\'t make it past the preps.
They are several others if you look back.
captain bodget another one of my fav unbridleds
I along with a group of horsemen tried to syndicate Old Fashioned and bring him to Louisiana. fortunately or unfortunately, the deal couldn\'t be put together. Louisiana breeders need not only a credential ed stallion but one whose foals will remain sound and produce breeders awards. While at the time I was tremendously disappointed it may have been a blessing to miss the Old Fashioned opportunity.
Also couldn\'t help but pitch in on Miff\'s comments regarding jb\'s ability to diagnose unsoundness without the benefit of radio- graphs. Mike I agree! I\'ve got great respect and admiration for Jb\'s abilities but I think he is s t re t c h i n g....
Captain Bodgit is by Saint Ballado, not Unbridled.
You guys are too much. No one is trying to diagnose unsoundness. Only trying to point out that the stress of top efforts over a short period of time could put some stress on a horse and lead to an injury. It\'s no different from any other sport!
As just one example, if you have a pitcher, and he throws a complete game and you bring him back on three days rest, he may not do so well...and he could also blow out his arm. Judging from your posts, you guys are completely incapable of digesting what every Little Leaguer in the US could recite chapter and verse. Are you saying doctors or vets in sports medicine are unaware of this? This is a NEW concept for you?!? Do you follow sports at all?!?
The idea that you need to be a doctor or a vet to understand this is preposterous, but given the level of miff\'s posts on this I\'m inclined to just give up. Plus no one is making a general rule and I\'m sure JB would agree you need to analyze this on an individual basis.
Have it your way. I like my Kool Aid on the rocks!
HP
dannyboy135 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I along with a group of horsemen tried to
> syndicate Old Fashioned and bring him to
> Louisiana. fortunately or unfortunately, the deal
> couldn\'t be put together. Louisiana breeders need
> not only a credential ed stallion but one whose
> foals will remain sound and produce breeders
> awards. While at the time I was tremendously
> disappointed it may have been a blessing to miss
> the Old Fashioned opportunity.
Two other talented USong\'s of recent note- Midshipman and Eight Belles. I think you should thank your lucky stars Danny. Seems the good & fast ones don\'t have the limbs to handle the stress.
Mike-- among the terms of the bet was that I spotted you a couple, so if it is indeed random you have the best bet of all time.
You would not believe how many good buys I have had killed because of vets who wouldn\'t pass them. Xtra Heat (250k) and Magic Wiener (100k) were turned down by the same vet as 2yos. Glitter Woman, the list goes on and on...
With the exception of something like an obvious existing chip, vetting is completely random. What I do is not-- percentages, yes, random, no. And I have 25 years of proof.
JB,
I will remind you that Rachel Alexandra and Summer Bird both failed vetting and purchases were not made(IEAH both times).Look how these two turned out(Rachel operated on). I would guess that a sufficient number of todays stakes winners would fail vetting tomorrow,for sale purposes.
With todays nuke scan,it\'s a different game.If your vets are failing horses solely based on TG figs/beliefs,and not on soundness or conformation issues,they should lose their license.
Mike
Although I like your name better think you meant Magic Weisner.
Why on earth would vets fail horses based on TG figs/beliefs? That\'s not what he\'s saying at all.
Mike-- I luvya, but you are a very bad listener.
JB,
Read you again,got it. You deferred to the vets opinion but the horseS you picked still went on to do big things.
Mike
Yes. Except it wasn\'t my call to defer, never is. And if an advisor ever did go against a vet who wanted to turn down a horse and the horse broke down, there could be real trouble (lawsuit). So you just have to take it.
Biggest problem with vets, as Barry I\'m sure will attest, is that their first responsibility is to cover their asses. Another they killed for me was Brass Hat as a maiden (for 60k), in that case it wasn\'t the vet\'s fault, it was the client, who decided to talk to the vet directly rather than let the trainer do it. He didn\'t understand that vets will tell you everything they see whether it\'s significant or not, to protect themelves, and you have to weed it out. The vet in that case (Bill Baker, great vet) was shocked to learn the client did not proceed. That was 4 days later, when the horse won the Rushaway as a maiden.
A couple of million bucks later...
TGJB:
For what its worth...
As an imaging professional > 25 years in Nuclear Medicine/Nuclear Cardiology (also served as a consultant on more that one equine \'nuclear scintigraphy\' facility), I agree with you as regards the help that the nuclear scans provide.
BUT (a big but!) it depends on the facility, the equipment (nuclear cameras, particularly the age of the units), the sophistication of both the vet performing the exam as well as the interpreting vet, etc... The quality of exam (and obviously the result) varies widely.
Also, I doubt that there will be any nuclear scans performed on horses over the next 6 months...there is a critical worldwide shortage of the radioactive material that is used. This shortage is seriously impacting imaging in humans as well (specifically Nuclear Cardiology)
John
my bad, always thought he was
>>Biggest problem with vets, as Barry I\'m sure will attest, is that their first responsibility is to cover their asses.
Interesting. I think my biggest responsibility is being advocate for the horse.
TGJB Wrote:
> You would not believe how many good buys I have
> had killed because of vets who wouldn\'t pass them.
> Xtra Heat (250k) and Magic Wiener (100k) were
> turned down by the same vet as 2yos. Glitter
> Woman, the list goes on and on...
Didn\'t he end up a shuttle stallion, 250 mares/year?
Sight-- The discussion was about vetting horses for purchase, where by definition you are only analyzing the situation for the buyer-- not working for the current owner of the horse, or doing any work on the horse.
Sight-- That one almost went over my head. Pretty funny.
If I remember correctly, Magic Wiesner (okay, I got his name wrong the first time) was a gelding. I had him bought for 100k, the top vet in Maryland turned him down, he immediately won something like 6 in a row including a stake or two, then ran second in the Preakness. Same guy killed the deal on Xtra Heat, had her bought for Win Star after her second start.
This game will try your patience. Years ago there was a completely concealed maiden running at Calder, big figures. I got my client to make an offer (I think 100k), they said they would take it, but he was entered and they wanted to run him. The owner said they would sell him for the same price no matter what happened in the race. He figured to win by ten, I told my client that, and that he had to get the horse bought before the race, no matter what they said, if he won off they would get bombarded with offers. He said no, he trusted them, they gave him their word.
Anyway, he won by ten, Barry swooped in and offered them twice as much and got him bought before he even cooled out, we never had a chance. Horse by the name of Prized, won the BC Turf the same year.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Horse by the name of Prized, won the BC Turf the
> same year.
Somehow, \"ouch\" doesn\'t seem to suffice here.
The buyer, their personality and tolerances and intended use of the horse, is the largest variable, and sets up what the vet advises them regarding a purchase.
Every comment a vet makes about a horse is in relation to your intended use, your personal stated tolerance for financial and emotional risk.
My advice to buyer A on purchase of a specific horse may be different than my advice to buyer B on purchase of the same horse.
My job is to document what I find, and give you my best impression of how it could potentially influence your purchase\'s subsequent performance and use.
The itemization of any physical defects found in a particular horse, and the opinion of what those defects mean to the future, are two entirely separate things (you know this, TGJB, it\'s more for the folks here that don\'t)
Say we are at Keeneland September yearlings, and you want an XX baby from this newly-popular rising sire. You tell me to look at the rads of 10 XX colts you have on your long list.
Well, the growthy big ones are gonna likely have small OCDs in their front ankles (because they all do from this sire), half of them will also have small OCDs in their stifles.
And it\'s worse for the early-born ones who have been \"forced\" by the sales crew 60-90 days to put on some size and weight and muscle to bring top dollar for the sale.
I\'ll go to the barn and evaluate their conformation and way of going, too, to compare to the rads, because that\'s the way I do it - and that helps tell you what to worry about in the future, and what not to (the defect in light of the whole package).
And we know, from recent years, that this sire is pretty good for horses running well nationally at 4 and above, and he\'s got alot of 2 year olds that end up needing time due to shins and chips so don\'t get involved until second half of their three year old year.
But some few of them do very well in the early 3-year-old races, and these rare ultra-stars make some pretty big noise and big $$ (that\'s why you want one!)
But that\'s only 1 in 50 of these XX babies. How do we find that one?
So if you are set on the August debut at SAR, and the big fall baby races, and the Triple Crown trail, I\"ll warn you off this sire\'s kids.
It\'s very unlikely you\'ll beat those odds. The reward is high, but the risk is very high.
And I really don\'t care to see this baby end up broken down by an owner who forged ahead with a sloppy trainer and an ego, in spite of what the colt needed.
If you want to take the risk, fine, but the chances are not good that you\'ll be saying, \"I bought the horse anyway in spite of the vets advice, he\'s an idiot, and thank you for the Derby Trophy, it\'s lovely!\".
I\'ll not tell you to buy one of these to pinhook, either. And not the choice for a new young horse for your syndication packaging - your buyers want to be at the races, not receiving notes from the farm on when the horse can make it back into training.
But if you have money and patience, and the risk-reward is wanting to make national noise summer-fall of the three-year old year, and on the next year - wow, go for it, those OCD\'s will give us some great $$ bargains when they go through the ring. If you have some patience and a good trainer.
Sight-- if all vets did it that way things would be a lot easier. But they don\'t.
I had a conversation with a vet one time that was an absolute classic. He refused to say whether he would pass the horse, said he would never use the term. I tried to find a question he would actually answer. Finally got to \"If your granmother was looking at this horse, would you tell her it\'s okay to buy her\"? Guy said, \"Depends how much money Grandma has, and how many horses she wants to buy\".
You describe an analysis that is forward looking, has to do with the future, which is what I need as a buyer. Bill Baker will do that for you. Some vets will not. They will tell you what they see, not what it means-- they are worried that offering an opinion can get them in trouble or make them look bad if they are wrong. Just reciting facts can\'t.
Grandma\'s filly turned out to be very sound. We bought her for Graph for 50k, she ran about 20 times in 2 years in California, placed in a couple of stakes.
What you describe is why people should realize they will probably go through a few agents and vets in order to find one that meshes well with your teams business resources, approach and goals.
I don\'t expect you to recommend the same horses to me if I say, \"Find me a $100K 2-yr-old that will stay sound and I can run in NYRA for a few years\", versus, \"Find me ten $100K 2-yr-olds that we can try and get on the Derby trail\".
Quotethey are worried that offering an opinion can get them in trouble or makthem look bad if they are wrong. Just reciting facts can\'t.
Grandma\'s filly turned out to be very sound. We bought her for Graph for 50k, she ran about 20 times in 2 years in California, placed in a couple of stakes.
Additional comment:
But if you were advised to purchase the horse, but Grandma\'s filly broke down after two races, would you ever use that vet again?
It\'s very highly competitive and cutthroat in the equine vet world.
Exactly my point. That\'s why they won\'t offer an opinion. And unless I have specific reason to think a vet missed something, I would have no problem using them again. The one who turned down Xtra Heat and Magic W-- not so much.
But on your other post-- if that is what a vet wants to predicate his/her answer on, so say that, put the opinion in that context. Problem is they often don\'t give an opinion at all. Keep in mind that I am dealing with horses in training-- if they said (and sometimes they do) an average result would be you get 5 starts, it would be fine. But not giving you anything you can actually use is CYA territory, stealing money. It would be like your doctor handing you your X rays and lab results to look at, but not giving you an informed opinion.
>>It would be like your doctor handing you your X rays and lab results to look at, but not giving you an informed opinion.
Exactly. Good description.
But consider also if many of that physicians patients were high-end, hard-working, extremely successful people very used to having their way and getting what they want just for the demanding
BTW, some clients only want to pay the cost of those lab results and rads, and not the informed opinion
who is the best vet, Jerry? How about a top 5?
I never knew about that one. Must have been a major ouch. For any pups too young to remember Prized, he also defeated Sunday Silence on dirt at Hollywood in the \'89 Swaps, one of only two horses to beat the brilliant champion that year (in nine starts).