Beyer swipes at spacing theory

[miff]

05/12/2014 1:48PM
Beyer: Racing suffers from the myth of the short layoff
By Andrew Beyer



Comments
74
Email
Print

Barbara D. Livingston
Smarty Jones came back two weeks after his Derby win and took the 2004 Preakness Stakes (pictured) by 11 1/2 lengths.
The filly who could have won the Preakness won't be in Baltimore on Saturday.

Untapable captured the Kentucky Oaks in sensational fashion, a performance significantly faster than California Chrome's Kentucky Derby victory the next day. But trainer Steve Asmussen and owner Ron Winchell decided almost immediately against challenging males in the Preakness. "It is not in her interests to run back in two weeks," the trainer said.

Asmussen, who won the Preakness with Rachel Alexandra under similar circumstance in 2009, presumably knows what's best for his filly. But his reluctance to run a top horse in the Preakness after a two-week rest is part of a trend in the sport. Only three of the Derby's 19 starters will be in the Preakness field. The horses who finished 2-3-4-5-6 will not challenge California Chrome.

::DRF Live: Reports from training hours at Pimlico 8-9 a.m. ET this week

Asmussen's decision is as disappointing as the one made last year by Chad Brown, trainer of Normandy Invasion, who was almost every wise-guy handicapper's pick to win the Preakness. The colt had made a bold premature move into the teeth of a fast pace before weakening to finish fourth in the Derby. Brown and owner Rick Porter hemmed and hawed about the Preakness before deciding not to run. "Coming back in two weeks would be a mistake long term," Porter said. The decision was subject to even more second-guessing when Oxbow, who had finished six lengths behind Normandy Invasion in the Derby, won at Pimlico.

The belief that horses need lengthy rest between races has become part of the orthodoxy of the sport. It's a radical change from the past. In the 1950s and '60s, good horses often raced with a week's rest (or less) between races. Now 3-year-olds get their final prep race three, four, or five weeks before the Derby, and so the 14-day layoff before the Preakness looks like a daunting challenge.

Why do modern-day Thoroughbreds need such gentle handling? The change in training philosophy may have occurred because horses are less robust than their forebears. It may have to do with the almost-universal use of Lasix; the diuretic causes horses to lose significant weight, and they need time to recover from a race. Many leading trainers are believers in the Ragozin Sheets and the Thoro-Graph Speed Figures, both of which espouse the philosophy that horses will "bounce" – i.e., run an inferior race – if they run back too quickly from a peak effort. Five-time Preakness-winning trainer Bob Baffert believes that the Derby's now-common fields of 20 runners put so much stress on runners that they need more time to recover than the Preakness allows.

Art Sherman, the 77-year-old trainer of California Chrome, remembers how the game used to be played. As a youngster, he was the exercise rider for the great racehorse Swaps, who in 1956 set a world record for 1 1/16 miles, then made three more starts in the next month, winning them all and setting another world record. Swaps didn't need much long rest between races and he never bounced. Yet Sherman, too, has embraced the modern thinking. He now says, "I never run a horse back in two weeks even when I'm running cheap claimers. ... I'm a guy who likes to go seven to eight weeks between races."

::DRF Live: Reporting and insight from the Preakness draw 6-7 p.m. ET on Wednesday

Because the trainer of a Derby winner will almost always take a shot at the Triple Crown, the Preakness is one of the few races in which top horses will run with two weeks' rest. The results at Pimlico contradict the belief that this short layoff is too difficult for the horses.

Kentucky Derby winners regularly come back to deliver smashing performances in Baltimore: Funny Cide (2003) won the Preakness by nearly 10 lengths, Smarty Jones (2004) won by 11 1/2, Big Brown (2008) by 5 1/4. In 2012, I'll Have Another and Bodemeister finished 1-2 in the Derby, then ran much faster in the Preakness and finished 1-2 again. None of them bounced. When Derby winners have flopped in Baltimore – such as Orb in 2013 and Super Saver in 2010 – the explanation may be that they benefited from perfect trips at Churchill and didn't get such an easy setup at Pimlico.

Despite such evidence, trainers remain fearful of the 14-day layoff, and the Preakness has suffered as a result. Some of the greatest races of all time have been rematches between the 1-2 finishers in the Derby: Affirmed vs. Alydar (1978), Alysheba vs. Bet Twice (1987), Sunday Silence vs. Easy Goer (1989). But now, more often than not, well-regarded losers don't come back for a rematch. "The last two years have very definitely been a struggle for us," said Tom Chuckas, president of the Maryland Jockey Club.

The conservative management of top horses not only hurts a sport that need its stars to race against each other; it can hurt the trainers and owners who think they're being prudent by not competing.

::DRF Live: Reporting and insight from the Preakness draw 6-7 p.m. ET on Wednesday

When he opted to skip the Preakness last year with Normandy Invasion, Porter said, "Our goal is to have a fresh horse" for races at Saratoga in August. But after passing up a golden chance to win a Triple Crown race, Normandy Invasion developed a foot abscess that prevented him from running at Saratoga; he was out of action for the remainder of his 3-year-old year.

Perhaps skipping the Preakness will work to the long-term advantage of Untapable and the Derby runners who are absent from Baltimore. But patience and prudence are not necessarily rewarded in racing, as the example of Normandy Invasion.

[Silver Charm]

Miff, Mr Beyer has been in a bad and controversial mood here for about oooohh 9 days. Lets start with:

1) The Derby Speed Figure of his. Plenty of Debate already and I am going to stay out of something others like yourself know a lot more about it than me.

2) Initially before the Speed Figure became a topic, Beyer pretty much challenged Steve Asmussen to run his Filly in the Preakness. I pretty much dismissed it as Speed Figure hype, the girl can beat the boys so do it. Also knowing that Asmussen had been forced down this Road once before and was not gonna have any part of it.

3) Now this Story about how Spacing is hurting the game. And naming Names!!

The fact is the Preakness Fields are hurting. And when you begin naming Big Browns year, Barbaros year, etc these are all recent. So NOW THE BEYER STORY on Untappable makes sense. They NEEDED a Star in the race, she was it and its not gonna happen for the obvious reasons the Trainer stated. Perhaps Travers or Haskel Day!

The problem isn\'t the Spacing but the Hard Headedness of the Baltimore legions like Beyer to accept the fact the Preakness Spacing is poor. What has always been the excuse for not moving it back another week???The harbors open that week and its boating season!! That\'s old school set in your ways and hurting your product crap. This Post is long enough but if someone wants to dress up in their suit or formal dress and hat and go to the races, they will. If someone wants to hit the waters and sun and ski they can watch the damn race on their PHONE!!! Times have changed....Wake up, adapt and build on strength!!!

[miff]

Silver,

Beyer admits that the current horse is more fragile than ever and,without question,lasix causes a longer recovery time in many horses(weight loss mainly)

Spacing is something that defies any one answer if one just looks at horses winning back on short rest and others that run holes in the wind off long spacing.

Trainers at the top level far more prone to give their horses more time than less so you have to assume the horses need it.

The Kool Aid drinker automatically assumes that 3 weeks is better than 2 weeks and 4 better than 3 and so on but statistically there is no evidence that more is better.



Mike

[moosepalm]

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The Kool Aid drinker automatically assumes that 3
> weeks is better than 2 weeks and 4 better than 3
> and so on but statistically there is no evidence
> that more is better.
>
>
>

Miff, would you say there is a cumulative effect, as in too many races closely spaced, can set a horse back, as opposed to just the two races in two weeks phenomenon?  Doesn\'t one also have to consider effort, such as a quick turnaround following a big top.  Of course, that may not apply as much to developing three year olds.  All of which suggests it\'s probably not a one size fits all approach.

[miff]

Moose,

At the lower level of the game,shorter spacing has shown to be less relevant than one would think,but still a horse by horse situation.Recovery does not come in a bottle, it\'s inherent.

At the higher level, it is rare that see a graded stakes type even attempt to run back in two weeks,except in the TC series.Quantifying the cumulative effect is an exercise in futility as the TG product will demonstrate. Some implode from the cumulative effect of running fast, others pair, pair, pair(CC has run 4 fast consecutive races and now has to run fast again with 2 weeks spacing)

Again, the TC series fairly unique with very young horses going farther than they ever ran before.Couple that with shouldering an impost that is extreme relative to  their physical development.

Any horse that can win the TC has my admiration regardless of how fast they run while doing it.


Mike

[TGJB]

As soon as I saw Andy\'s piece last night I felt a post coming on.

First, we ran studies on spacing into the Derby for the seminar, which can be accessed in the Archives. They showed clearly that those with 5-6 weeks rest have run better than those with less rest.

But more importantly, Andy makes the same mistake Bill Finley did when he looked at short rest for stake horses in an article a couple of years ago. The issue is not how they run on short rest-- it\'s how they do after that.

Just look at the list of horses in Andy\'s article. Rachel is the exception, she did a lot more that year, though she may have paid for it the next year.

But the others, how did they do going forward after they came back on 2 weeks in the Preakness? Smarty? Oxbow? I\'ll Have Another? Bodie? Orb? Super Saver? Big Brown?

I guess Funny Cide is in a gray area-- but very few horses that run in both races are as good after it.

And if you go back into history, every one points to Onion and Conquistador Cielo wining GI\'s on less than a week\'s rest. But it took Onion over a year to make another start, and CC was never the same.

More recently, you have to go back maybe to Victory Gallop to find a horse that ran well in all three TC races and had a career afterward. Why is it different now? Maybe Lasix, maybe because they are so much faster and it takes a toll on bones and ligaments, maybe because people breed to sell, not race. It\'s an interesting question. But regardless, Andy is right that racing needs stars. We need to space out the Triple Crown-- not to make it easier to win, but to keep the horses the public follows around longer.

[Caradoc]

Leaving aside Funny Cide, the horses he mentions in support of the argument started a grand total of four races after running in the Derby then the Preakness.  Only one of those, Big Brown, won another stakes, a Grade I.  Funny Cide did run a few more campaigns, winning a Grade I himself as well as a couple of minor stakes. That\'s it.  Five horses, four subsequent stakes wins.

But the argument goes off the rails about Normandy Invasion, who is barely larger than a pony and needs plenty of time between races.  To suggest that his connections should have struck \"when the iron is hot\" is to not understand proper horse management, or anything about that horse. That the horse was laid off then developed foot problems at Saratoga is not evidence of anything. If Chad Brown reads Andy, I\'m sure he is somewhere now laughing very hard.

[moosepalm]

Well Andy\'s theory may be full of holes, but he could have buttressed his case with other examples if his point was looking at the long haul.  Just within the past few years, horses like Goldenscents, Will Take Charge, Shackleford, Animal Kingdom, and Mucho Macho Man, raced in both the Derby and Preakness.  I\'m not suggesting that the two week spacing does not have long term consequences, but I\'d be curious to see a more in depth study than the cherry picking Andy or I just did.

[vagrant]

Several horses since Victory Gallop contested all three legs and ran very well thereafter: Medaglia d\'Oro, Curlin, Hard Spun, Animal Kingdom, Shackleford and Will Take Charge.

Considering how few horses even enter all three races, that\'s not a bad hit rate.

[vagrant]

Throw in Mucho Macho Man too. And Point Given.

[coachbowlin]

Curlin had a very nice career after finishing 3rd, 1st, 2nd in all three Triple Crown races. Keeping in mind how many horses that run in all 3 TC races and are essentially used up, his career becomes even more of a remarkable achievement. Granted he was VERY green in the Derby.

[Mr. Freeze]

Smarty, Oxbow, I\'ll Have Another, Bodie, Orb, Super Saver, and Big Brown have something in common. They won the Derby (with the exception of Oxbow who won Preakness and Bodie who ran huge in both races) and they were all retired quickly because every loss after the derby decreased their value as a stallion dramatically.

[miff]

\"First, we ran studies on spacing into the Derby for the seminar, which can be accessed in the Archives. They showed clearly that those with 5-6 weeks rest have run better than those with less rest\"


....ahem, you may want to run a study of how horses with more the 3 weeks rest have done in the Preakness for the last 13 years..... hint they\'re 0-70...more rest is better??.... Not in the Preakness lately!

[justwin]

Miff,

0-70 is certainly a large enough sample but how many of these were overmatched. What were the odds of those horses? Most of the good ones ran in the derby. To me that is not enough without the proper data.

George

[miff]

Don\'t know if it\'s even correct, stat geek sent it to me.0-70 speaks volumes.

You must consider Derby participants ran back in two weeks mostly after \"efforts\" so as the theory goes, the horses with more rest should have had a \"rest\" edge.Possible all 70 were overmatched.