Another View of Modern Racing From Bobby Trussell

[fkach]

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.

[sighthound]

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?

[sighthound]

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.

[bloodline bob]

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.

[bloodline bob]

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?

[TGJB]

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.

[TGJB]

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\".

[Michael D.]

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.

[miff]

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

[TGJB]

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.

[Michael D.]

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.

[TGJB]

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.

[sighthound]

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.

[Wrongly]

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?

[sighthound]

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.