Alex, Bellamy, FD, who next?

[jimbo66]

JB,

Sorry, but one more topic that is not TG related by horse racig in general.

Anybody have any theories as to what is happening to the quality of racing in the U.S.?  Travers day, the four stakes races totaled about 22 starters.  This weekend on one of the Belmont Fall Championships weekends, we got a 3 entry Woodward, a four horse turf race, a five horse turf race, a six horse Jerome and one true full field in the Man O\'War.  The BC Classic looks awful this year, at least for now.  is there really any interest in guessing if Roman Ruler or Flower Alley can get fast enough overnight to beat Saint Liam?  Who here wouldn\'t love to see and wager on an Afleet Alex - Saint Liam match?  Even Bellamy Road or Commentator in the race would add intrigue, even if you hate those horses as one dimensional speeds.  The former is out and the latter will be out shortly, is my guess.  Who are your top sprinters this year?  Woke Up Dreaming will be the favorite off the 4 month layoff?  Where is Extra Heat, Safely Kept, or some other interesting entries.  

It just seems that the racing product in general this year is really lower quality than usual.  I know that those in the industry probably believe that gamblers don\'t care about the product and will bet no matter who runs, and maybe that is true in some cases.  But there are other things to gamble on.  I, for one, will be spending more time and discretionary gambling on football than horses this fall as long as they continue to churn out inferior products.

Any theories as to why this is the case (assuming you agree that the product is not as good this year because of small fields)

1.  I have heard theories about the way that we breed horses in the U.S. now (speed over speed with no thought to stamina or endurance) has adversely affected the fragility of the horses.

2.  It also seems that the prices for yearlings and stud fees is going up.  I think Class once said on this board that he felt that as long as the prices keep going up, it doesn\'t pay for owners to race their horses.  Win one or two key races with a well bred colt and then it makes economical sense to retire them.  

3.  We don\'t see the same problems in Europe, at least according a few friends mine that bet in the U.K.  They claim to have full fields and competitive races in most of their stakes offering, yet they also have a very healthy breeding industry.  Any reason for this difference?

4.  Is racing on dirt so much more stressful than turf, which is why all of our stars retire early with minor injuries?


Anyway, it is frustrating.  At closing weekend at Saratoga, I was talking to Michael D. from this board after the Forego when Forest Danger ran a poor race.  He thought he was a bet back in the next race, figuring he might not have been ready to run 7 furlongs, as he was originally pointed for a 6 furlong race.  I said, \"probably true, but I bet we see the retirement announcement within a week\".  Six days later it was on DRF.com.  He was a very fast horse, won a few nice races, had one bad race and a minor injury and he is retired.  That is the MO for racing right now.

Jim

jimbo,

I still think #2 is at least part of the problem (probably along with the other things you mentioned). Given the prevailing prices, it must make economic sense to retire any high level horse once there is a setback. Otherwise, they would try to bring them back. If I had to guess though, I think market forces will eventually correct any pricing excesses - at least to some degree. I know others have pointed out that owners don\'t care as much about losses as in other industries, but there has to be a point at which things are so out of balance the losses aren\'t as easily absorbed or sensible given the intangible benefits.

No matter how you slice, racing is going down hill when you have 3 betting interests in the Woodward and one of them is bugs bunny and his friend.

[TGJB]

I have no problem with general discussions about the industry, especially intelligent ones. I have no problem with the occasional mention of other handicapping theories, especially the (unusual) intelligent ones. I have a problem with repetitive and self absorbed posts filling my board, especially when they involve handicapping theories built on assumptions we don\'t accept, that I then have to deal with, or let stand, in which case they multiply and become what this board is all about.

There are lots of reasons for smaller fields, especially in stakes. To name a few--

1-- Multiple choices of spots, combined with increasingly easy transportation. Shaniko scratches to go at Turfway this weekend, where he\'ll be favored, for a big purse.

2-- Major changes in training styles, involving more time between races, intended to get a higher percentage af big efforts. Zito and Dutrow are giving horses lots of time between races, skipping the obvious big money spots-- it would have been unheard of in the past to skip the Gold Cup with a horse that would be the favorite.

3-- Today\'s super horses are running so fast they are more susceptible to injuries. Forest Danger runs crazy fast, and gets laid up.

[STB]

Some blame for the seemingly shorter fields this year may rest with the Mare Reproductive Loss Syndrome outbreak in Kentucky in 2001. I believe over 3,000 pregnancies were terminated due to this, and there were losses of weanlings as well.
Certainly the roots of the problems of short fields and fragile horses run deeper than MLRS, but the fact is a not-insignificant number of potential racehorses were lost that year.  

[miff]

TGJB said

\"Today\'s super horses are running so fast they are more susceptible to injuries. Forest Danger runs crazy fast, and gets laid up\"


As usual, your opinion only.Horses break down jogging,walking, taking bad steps,etc. You think horses are running faster, so I quess if they were running \"slower\", they wouldn\'t break down as much.Not even CLOSE!!.

[rando]

Miff  Insane comment with the results of the horses that ran superhorse times and figures this year.

[miff]

Rando,

You are clueless. There is no evidence that horses break because they ran big figs,PERIOD.

\"2-- Major changes in training styles, involving more time between races, intended to get a higher percentage af big efforts. Zito and Dutrow are giving horses lots of time between races, skipping the obvious big money spots-- it would have been unheard of in the past to skip the Gold Cup with a horse that would be the favorite.\"

Has anyone actually calculated whether you get a higher return on investment by producing a higher percentage of big efforts?

You would think that would be the important issue to owners.  

Maybe a few extra bounces mixed in with a few extra 2nds and 3rds and an occasional extra win earns more money on average. I see no reason you couldn\'t sort of mix and match a campaign to both aim for a peak for a specific race and then run more often once the goal is met.

Plus, there\'s nothing in Zito\'s record to indicate to me that he gets more consistent performances or more even development from his horses. That\'s one of the things I dislike about him. Frankel/Pletcher, on the other hand, do seem to, but many attribute that to other factors.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

I don\'t know, it seems the injuries that occur walking and jogging are many times likely to be from defects that occurred when running hard. Pretty sure Alex\'s injury was such and had they galloped or jogged him and he broke down badly they\'d say the gallop did it when it was just the final bit of stress.

Regarding Forest Danger, he\'s retired now. TGJB mentioned laid up. He's gone. Maybe he meant laid up in the past from running hard and that's probably true. His entire career was at Hallandale and Aqueduct. On old Hallandale he wasn\'t quite the speedball. On New Hallandale and the spring Aqueduct surface he was very fast. But those strips were other worldly the times he smoked them.

They resurfaced Hallandale and Medallist set a track record in the Deputy Minister. A few days later Forest Danger busted it by over a full second. Clearly a fast horse, but how much was horse and how much was new surface and perhaps even timing? Still don\'t believe that turf world record set by a second cut animal.

Medallist and Forest Danger were very closely matched animals. In the Carter, if Medallist doesn\'t have to chase Don Six, he may win. At the very least its much closer and it was close. When I was attending Thorograph seminars the impact of loose speed upon otherwise the fastest horse was stressed in each seminar. I think I still have my TGraph Videocassette here somewhere and I\'m about sure loose pace is discussed on it. Maybe they have gotten away from pace in the form of loose speed being a factor. Maybe thats why I dont understand the criticism of Classhandicapper. That said, this is TGraphs board and you certainly can understand them not wanting their principles to be relegated to lesser standing by domination of concepts their principles are set up to supervene. The Rags wouldn\'t allow talk upon their board that track speed changes race to race upon moisture vacillation. Their principle is, or at least was, the track is constant for variant but for two turns and observable natural phenomena. Think they\'d tolerate a debate upon that? Not likely.

So why are the Wood Day horses running bad since Wood Day? Is it because they ran too fast for their own good or is it because the track was concrete, or both? If Don Six goes down we won\'t have to discuss it any more, they\'ll all be gone.

 But the issue is just how crazy fast he was? miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TGJB said
>
> \"Today\'s super horses are running so fast they are
> more susceptible to injuries. Forest Danger runs
> crazy fast, and gets laid up\"
>
>
> As usual, your opinion only.Horses break down
> jogging,walking, taking bad steps,etc. You think
> horses are running faster, so I quess if they were
> running \"slower\", they wouldn\'t break down as
> much.Not even CLOSE!!.
>

[miff]

Many of the horses recently retired/laid up were not that sound to begin with, as is the case with MOST horses. Of course it doesn\'t HELP a horse to run big time stressful figs, but I owned a few \"slow fig\" garbage cans that broke down running 10\'s.

[rando]

Of course it doesn\'t HELP a horse to run big time stressful figs, I agree with this comment. Also most of Mike Gill bunch which jumped 6 to 12 point under his ownership and \'HELP\" now are strugling to compete whether it was the help that is now gone or the stress of over exertion we \'ll never know.

[richiebee]

Rando and Miff:

   Part of the relation of high TGs and Beyers to the rate of attrition is that the assignment of these spectacular #s (ie Bellamy Road\'s Wood-- Negative 5 TG, 120 Beyer) contributes to the overvaluation of these phenoms as potential stallions. Once overvalued, they are more likely to be retired prematurely. (Here I go again Miff) When BR retires to stud, he will be advertised as the fastest 3YO ever based on his Wood #s. As JB has said in the past, its all about perception.

  One of the most imaginative solutions regarding the attrition in the handicap/ stakes races was presented in DRF or Blood Horse a few months ago. The proposal was that syndicates be formed (and this is where it got convoluted because racetrack ownership would be involved) to buy expensive colts and geld them  immediately, looking for the next Kelso, Forego or John Henry.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rando and Miff:
>
>    Part of the relation of high TGs and Beyers to
> the rate of attrition is that the assignment of
> the these spectacular #s (ie Bellamy Road\'s Wood--
> Negative 5 TG, 120 Beyer) contributes to the
> overvaluation of these phenoms as potential
> stallions. Once overvalued, they are more likely
> to be retired prematurely. (Here I go again Miff)
> When BR retires to stud, he will be advertised as
> the fastest 3YO ever based on his Wood #s. As JB
> has said in the past, its all about perception.

Thats pretty funny Richie. I recall reading Beyers Figure making book and how he didn\'t fully appreciate Secretariat\'s Belmont number until the night he sat down with his Scotch and made the speed figure. It came out to either 124 or 128 is my recollection.

Agree that theres been some monster figure horses recently that are far overvalued upon the speed figure perception. Ghostzapper most recently.

I think TGJB has too much integrity to play an assign top figure and endorsement for season game, but not as sure about the other guys.


>   One of the most imaginative solutions regarding
> the attrition in the handicap/ stakes races was
> presented in DRF or Blood Horse a few months ago.
> The proposal was that syndicates be formed (and
> this is where it got convoluted because racetrack
> ownership would be involved) to buy expensive
> colts and geld them  mmediately, looking for the
> next Kelso, Forego or John Henry.

Got to think the foregoing was tongue in cheek...lol

Have you noticed the yearling prices at Keeneland? They are obscene. Theres no end to this. The breeding industry is alive and well. On second thought Jerry.

Just can\'t see paying that kind of money. Biggests sale horses before that were:

Seattle Dancer 13.1 million, earned 152K on track. Very Well bred and has sired a good number of stakes winners including Pike Place Dancer (Won Kentucky Oaks) Stands in Germany now.

Snaafi Dancer 10.1 million, unraced, sired four total foals that accomplished nothing.

Storm Cat-Welcome Surprise 8 million yearling of 2004, purchased by FuPeg FuSham Fusaichi. Unraced, unheard of

FuSham himself for 4.5 million (Guess FuShams owner thinks every 4 million FuPeg purchase is gonna turn out as lucky) Maiden win, allowance loss, vanished. Still, think he made 45 million on the FuPeg deal so hes got some in the black to burn.

And Now,

Storm Cat-Tranquility Lake 9.7 million

and

Storm Cat-Secret Status 6.3 million

The Storm Cats are going like hotcakes. Man, hes a fiery sire granted. But if you\'re trying to race a Triple Crown Classic or Breeders Cup Classic horse you can get 20 times the chance for less than one twentieth the money.

He did get Tabasco Cat
Cat Thief was a decent horse, made of iron, still think bias carried him to his Classic Victory at Hallandeale
Then theres Giant\'s Causeway. Still not sold on that one. Has to suspect hes way overvalued as far as a U.S. Influence.

Its the rackiest of rackets

[jimbo66]

Jerry,

Points 1 and 2 make sense. Point 3 doesn\'t make sense to me.  Let me explain.  I don\'t want to re-write what you already wrote about all the reasons that horses are getting faster here, but let me cover a couple.  I think you said it was evolution, similar to the fact that humans are getting faster, if you look at the human records for running, swimming, jumping, lifting, etc.etc. They are all broken all the time, as we have advances in training, nutrition,etc.  Horse generations \"turn over\" faster than we do, so there have been more generations of horses in the past 30 years, than say humans.  So this evolution would be more rapid.  You also mentioned advances in medicine.  All of these advances shouldn\'t make horses more brittle.  You say they are running so fast, they are more likely to get hurt.  Why?  The \"norm\" for horses is now faster than it was 30 years ago for mostly natural reasons, like those previously mentioned (nutrition, training methods, medicine, evolution).  So, all classes of horses are getting faster.  Not just the super horses, but I would guess that the 20 claimers now are much faster than 30 years ago, the allowance horses, etc.etc.  

My point is that if it is natural that horses are getting faster, than it should not have a negative impact that they are more easily hurt.  Are humans more brittle now that we run sub 4:00 miles or sub 10 second 100 m dashes?  No, the breed is just faster.  

[richiebee]

CTC:

   No implication on my part that fig makers are willing participants in the overvaluation of breeding stock, or that they receive any quid pro quo for the assignment of high #s.