New Column from Beyer

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Scuds, your use of punctuation and the space bar is much appreciated

or are you dictating posts to someone?

I can write o.k., but I don't type well. I am gestalt ( if that can be an adjective.)

[Cannon Shell]

I find it amazing that virtually no one has any clue what they are talking about (including Beyer) yet everyone agrees with them. As I said on Steves show yesterday, It is like saying the best way to make the country better is to fix the economy. Hello, no kidding what exactly is the plan? What about details? Should we get rid of medications like gastrogard that treat uclers? Because ulcers can surely have an effect on performance. What about medications that are used on horses joints like Adequan, Legend or Lubrysn? They help a horse with joint issues? The thought that "medicating" horses makes them weaker breeding stock is laughable. No amount of any medication changes a horses genetic makeup. They will produce or not produce dependant on genetic factors that we dont really understand. There is no genetic dependancy on Lasix. If Rampillion never makes it to the races because she hurts herself the odds of her being a good or bad producer are the same. If she makes it to the races and turns out to bleed and is given Lasix, there is no more chance that she will produce bleeders if she is given lasix or not. She will be bred though when maybe in times before the bloodstock boom she may not have been. That is the issue. If you are saying that horses that need heavy doses of medications to run will be kept from the breeding pool you may have a point. But just because well bred mares are prevented from running at high levels because they wont be given medications doesnt mean they wont be bred or wont become top class producers. The same argument could be used that a horse like Personal Ensign was bad for the breed because she was allowed to race after major surgery that surely wasnt available in the 50's. You could say that she was inheirently weak because her back leg broke yet modern medicine allowed her to recover and become a legend and a hugely successful producer. The fact is that she would have been a great producer if she had bowed a tendon and never ran.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It is like saying the best way to make the country better is to fix the economy. Hello, no kidding what exactly is the plan? What about details?

That's a simple one. Replace Bush with just about anybody and that problem is solved.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

I disagree, and I think the fairest track (of the three) is usually Belmont. I think Churchill wants no more Giacomos. Their "tight" tracks on big days means it's very difficult to get the same winner of both the Kentucky Derby, and the Belmont. If you look at these races run at Belmont(lately,) you're going to see horses earning their wins in the stretch. They must be able to finish up. I think it's the best dirt track in the country,and I would play it if they didn't have the New York breds in the 6th / 9th races. That's like putting orange juice in beer.

The day Giacomo won at CD the track was REALLY tight. I don't have the times handy to prove that out but it was definitely fast and fair to all running styles. Don't forget how fast they went up front in that race, with some very questionable 10F pedigrees. Nobody ever called Street Sense a fainthearted frontrunner, and I don't think he would have won the Belmont last year, either.

I agree that Belmont Park is a tremendously fair track on 95% of days, however.

If I have some time later tonight I'll get a chart together of the average winners' lengths beaten at the 1/2 mile pole at each distance at each track, I'm guessing they won't be much different between CD and Bel.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by philcski

I agree that Belmont Park is a tremendously fair track on 95% of days, however.

I agree with that statement generally. The problem is that on most of the recent Belmont Stakes Days, the Belmont racing surface has been just as souped up as we frequently see at Churchill on Derby Day. In 2004, it was particularly pronounced, with Bear Fan running 1:14.2 in the Vagrancy, Speightstown running 1:08.0 in the True North, and Fire Slam going 1:20.4 in the Riva Ridge (now Woody Stephens). Similarly fast tracks in 2005, when Limehouse went 9F in Brooklyn in 1:46.3 and Woke Up Dreamin' got 6F in 1:08.1, and in 2006, when Jazil covered the 12F in 2:27.4, and a horse like Anew won the True North in 1:08.

[sumitas]

Not to be repetitive but the Spa was souped last year and for years has favored speed.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by sumitas

Not to be repetitive but the Spa was souped last year and for years has favored speed.

Yes, there were a few days where the track played fast (and 2YOs set records), but the past few years, the Spa main track has been viewed as "demanding" and played "fairer" to more running styles than anytime that I can recall. It's certainly nothing like the speed-favoring oval that I grew up on in the 70s and 80s.

[tiggerv]

Originally Posted by sumitas

Not to be repetitive but the Spa was souped last year and for years has favored speed.

Not to let facts get in the way of your agenda but Saratoga played about as fair as a track can play last year other than at the 5.5F distance where you would expect speed to be heavily favored.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by sumitas

Not to be repetitive but the Spa was souped last year and for years has favored speed.

The only thing repetive for you in this post is that the information given is incorrect.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I find it amazing that virtually no one has any clue what they are talking about (including Beyer) yet everyone agrees with them. As I said on Steves show yesterday, It is like saying the best way to make the country better is to fix the economy. Hello, no kidding what exactly is the plan? What about details? Should we get rid of medications like gastrogard that treat uclers? Because ulcers can surely have an effect on performance. What about medications that are used on horses joints like Adequan, Legend or Lubrysn? They help a horse with joint issues? The thought that "medicating" horses makes them weaker breeding stock is laughable. No amount of any medication changes a horses genetic makeup. They will produce or not produce dependant on genetic factors that we dont really understand. There is no genetic dependancy on Lasix. If Rampillion never makes it to the races because she hurts herself the odds of her being a good or bad producer are the same. If she makes it to the races and turns out to bleed and is given Lasix, there is no more chance that she will produce bleeders if she is given lasix or not. She will be bred though when maybe in times before the bloodstock boom she may not have been. That is the issue. If you are saying that horses that need heavy doses of medications to run will be kept from the breeding pool you may have a point. But just because well bred mares are prevented from running at high levels because they wont be given medications doesnt mean they wont be bred or wont become top class producers. The same argument could be used that a horse like Personal Ensign was bad for the breed because she was allowed to race after major surgery that surely wasnt available in the 50's. You could say that she was inheirently weak because her back leg broke yet modern medicine allowed her to recover and become a legend and a hugely successful producer. The fact is that she would have been a great producer if she had bowed a tendon and never ran.

Chuck, I think you're taking one sentence in the article and treating it as though it were the entire article. I don't think Beyer was focused on breeding so much as on saying that the difference between American racing and racing everywhere else in the world is its dependence on drugs- and I didn't read references to ulcer medications; he referred to steroids, which, I would argue, do produce a result in a horse (or person, for that matter) that is not dictated by their genes, and increases a likelihood of injury (too much muscle for the bone). He was also talking about sore horses being medicated so they run harder than they would if they were able to feel that they were sore, thereby increasing the likelihood of injury. His argument, as I understood it, was that the 1970's drive to legalize medication in the US has not brought any of the benefits it promised (larger horse fields, more races) and in fact has been a failure as far as racing is concerned (smaller fields, fewer starts and possibly more breakdowns).

On top of that, he wasn't saying medication "makes" horses weaker; he was saying that medication enables weaker horses to race sucessfully, and thus have a chance to succeed enough to be given a chance at stud, thus passing along their genetic weaknesses. And in fact, I don't think he mentioned broodmares at all, who frankly, don't have the large scale effect on a breed the way a stallion can. I don't think I've read any articles discussing Eight Belle's dam; it's all been Unbridled's Song and his soundness issues. Yes, a filly with good bloodlines can have a breeding career, even with no races, but a colt with no races or good wins is not nearly as likely to do so.

Also, what does a filly returning to races after healing from an injury have to do with horses running on medication? The PE analogy makes no sense- though I could see one possible argument against even that point- saying that if she never raced she might not have produced quite as well as she did because she would have had less access to the best stallions for her, but I honestly have to say I don't know enough about breeding to know if that would have been the case.

I think the point of the Beyer article is that the American permissiveness on medication hasn't resulted in any positive things for the racing industry, not that giving horses drugs changes their genetic makeup.

[slotdirt]

Beyer has yet another column out today on IEAH.

[cmorioles]

They have very strict rules for which horses can breed in Germany, and they are getting better and better horses there, particularly at long distances.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Chuck, I think you're taking one sentence in the article and treating it as though it were the entire article. I don't think Beyer was focused on breeding so much as on saying that the difference between American racing and racing everywhere else in the world is its dependence on drugs- and I didn't read references to ulcer medications; he referred to steroids, which, I would argue, do produce a result in a horse (or person, for that matter) that is not dictated by their genes, and increases a likelihood of injury (too much muscle for the bone). He was also talking about sore horses being medicated so they run harder than they would if they were able to feel that they were sore, thereby increasing the likelihood of injury. His argument, as I understood it, was that the 1970's drive to legalize medication in the US has not brought any of the benefits it promised (larger horse fields, more races) and in fact has been a failure as far as racing is concerned (smaller fields, fewer starts and possibly more breakdowns).

On top of that, he wasn't saying medication "makes" horses weaker; he was saying that medication enables weaker horses to race sucessfully, and thus have a chance to succeed enough to be given a chance at stud, thus passing along their genetic weaknesses. And in fact, I don't think he mentioned broodmares at all, who frankly, don't have the large scale effect on a breed the way a stallion can. I don't think I've read any articles discussing Eight Belle's dam; it's all been Unbridled's Song and his soundness issues. Yes, a filly with good bloodlines can have a breeding career, even with no races, but a colt with no races or good wins is not nearly as likely to do so.

Also, what does a filly returning to races after healing from an injury have to do with horses running on medication? The PE analogy makes no sense- though I could see one possible argument against even that point- saying that if she never raced she might not have produced quite as well as she did because she would have had less access to the best stallions for her, but I honestly have to say I don't know enough about breeding to know if that would have been the case.

I think the point of the Beyer article is that the American permissiveness on medication hasn't resulted in any positive things for the racing industry, not that giving horses drugs changes their genetic makeup.

You are buying into a argument that makes no sense. First of all of course mares individually dont make as much difference as stallions do individually but lets face it, if there are 35000 foals there are at least 35000 mares needed to produce them. The fact that stallions covered 40 to 50 mares per year in the 60's seems to have escaped everyones attention. A stallion now covers three times that amount meaning a bad stallion is having three times the effect of a good stallion. But a stallion that has weaknesses is still going to have weaknesses regardless of medication. You want to say they wouldn't be breeding? Fine but most of the well bred horses are going to get a chance somewhere. I find it amazing that everyone simply talks about the stallions.

This argument of allowing weaker horses to pass off genetic weakness is bunk. You say he was talking about steroids but I want to know where to draw the line. Like I said about PE, if she never ran after she broke down originally would she have been the same success as a broodmare? Of course she would have. Her return to the races was due to modern technology and medicine, in the 50's she would never have raced again. So why is that technology that allowed an obviously "weaker" horse to return to the races and succeed not be the same as Lasix allowing a horse who bleeds to do the same? Is bleeding an inheirent trait? Is "brittleness" a real trait? Or rather the real cause of most soundness issues, confirmation issues to blame? The whole medication is weakening the breed crowd never brings in anyone from outside of racing to verify what they are saying. Why is that? Because they would rather spew opinion rather than truth. The trend of lesser starts began long before the medication door was opened. A fact that is ignored rather routinely. Everybody says that the tracks are getting harder but Jerry Brown has shown at least some documentation that that is not the case. But it fits the argument better if it the tracks are getting harder, something else to blame. People want to say that more horses are breaking down than ever yet there is no proof that is the case.

So if i treat my horse with hyperbaric oxygen to keep it from bleeding, shockwave and adequan to keep its joints sounder, gastrogard to keep its ulcers from cropping up, RVI and Bodybuilder for its muscles and the horse goes out and wins a bunch of races and becomes a stallion it is bad for the breed? Because in 1950 none of these things were available and the subtraction of one may have caused my horse not to perform and hence not been a stallion prospect. Or I could say that my horse needs Lasix or steroids to do the same and then we are howling because those help "enhance" his performance and will in turn "weaken" the breed. So are we saying that all modern techniques that help a "weaker" horse succeed should be eliminated? We should simply let the bleeders bleed? Or whenever a horse has any infirmity just turn them out? Because if "weaker" horses are being bred and creating "weaker" horses, where exactly do we draw the line? Who determines what constitutes weakness? The generalizations used by Beyer and others are simply an agenda that has been pushed strongly recently without much rational except that it sounds right. That and the other countries are doing it. And yet virtually all of Coolmores Irish stallion roster is made up of American Bred decendants of Northern Dancer. And the euros are putting in more american style tracks and buying up our bloodstock at record levels. All products of "medication weakened" breeding.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I think that that was what he was getting at.

Read the next sentence. How much influence can individual stallions have anyway? What about the tens of thousands of mares producing the foals? How will you prevent them from breeding? Hell people would rather buy out of unraced mares than low success ones anyway.

Not to mention that Native Dancer, a horse from the 50's, is getting a lot of the blame. Was it medication then?

I am not saying that regulation of medication is a bad thing but i am saying that this is way overblown.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I agree with that statement generally. The problem is that on most of the recent Belmont Stakes Days, the Belmont racing surface has been just as souped up as we frequently see at Churchill on Derby Day. In 2004, it was particularly pronounced, with Bear Fan running 1:14.2 in the Vagrancy, Speightstown running 1:08.0 in the True North, and Fire Slam going 1:20.4 in the Riva Ridge (now Woody Stephens). Similarly fast tracks in 2005, when Limehouse went 9F in Brooklyn in 1:46.3 and Woke Up Dreamin' got 6F in 1:08.1, and in 2006, when Jazil covered the 12F in 2:27.4, and a horse like Anew won the True North in 1:08.

Wow THE SLAM is back!!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Wow THE SLAM is back!!

A guy whose opinion is generally very good told me he thinks that Fire Slam will be a good stallion. He wouldnt tell me why.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

A guy whose opinion is generally very good told me he thinks that Fire Slam will be a good stallion. He wouldnt tell me why.

I think the guy is spot on.. Where is standing in Turkey or Paraguay?lol

Speaking off Stallions that have have fallen out of favor Grand Slam is currently a bunt

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

I think the guy is spot on.. Where is standing in Turkey or Paraguay?lol

Speaking off Stallions that have have fallen out of favor Grand Slam is currently a bunt

FL

I always liked GS. Almost bred a mare to him but even at the reduced price he was still too rich for me.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You are buying into a argument that makes no sense. First of all of course mares individually dont make as much difference as stallions do individually but lets face it, if there are 35000 foals there are at least 35000 mares needed to produce them. The fact that stallions covered 40 to 50 mares per year in the 60's seems to have escaped everyones attention. A stallion now covers three times that amount meaning a bad stallion is having three times the effect of a good stallion. But a stallion that has weaknesses is still going to have weaknesses regardless of medication. You want to say they wouldn't be breeding? Fine but most of the well bred horses are going to get a chance somewhere. I find it amazing that everyone simply talks about the stallions.

This argument of allowing weaker horses to pass off genetic weakness is bunk. You say he was talking about steroids but I want to know where to draw the line. Like I said about PE, if she never ran after she broke down originally would she have been the same success as a broodmare? Of course she would have. Her return to the races was due to modern technology and medicine, in the 50's she would never have raced again. So why is that technology that allowed an obviously "weaker" horse to return to the races and succeed not be the same as Lasix allowing a horse who bleeds to do the same? Is bleeding an inheirent trait? Is "brittleness" a real trait? Or rather the real cause of most soundness issues, confirmation issues to blame? The whole medication is weakening the breed crowd never brings in anyone from outside of racing to verify what they are saying. Why is that? Because they would rather spew opinion rather than truth. The trend of lesser starts began long before the medication door was opened. A fact that is ignored rather routinely. Everybody says that the tracks are getting harder but Jerry Brown has shown at least some documentation that that is not the case. But it fits the argument better if it the tracks are getting harder, something else to blame. People want to say that more horses are breaking down than ever yet there is no proof that is the case.

So if i treat my horse with hyperbaric oxygen to keep it from bleeding, shockwave and adequan to keep its joints sounder, gastrogard to keep its ulcers from cropping up, RVI and Bodybuilder for its muscles and the horse goes out and wins a bunch of races and becomes a stallion it is bad for the breed? Because in 1950 none of these things were available and the subtraction of one may have caused my horse not to perform and hence not been a stallion prospect. Or I could say that my horse needs Lasix or steroids to do the same and then we are howling because those help "enhance" his performance and will in turn "weaken" the breed. So are we saying that all modern techniques that help a "weaker" horse succeed should be eliminated? We should simply let the bleeders bleed? Or whenever a horse has any infirmity just turn them out? Because if "weaker" horses are being bred and creating "weaker" horses, where exactly do we draw the line? Who determines what constitutes weakness? The generalizations used by Beyer and others are simply an agenda that has been pushed strongly recently without much rational except that it sounds right. That and the other countries are doing it. And yet virtually all of Coolmores Irish stallion roster is made up of American Bred decendants of Northern Dancer. And the euros are putting in more american style tracks and buying up our bloodstock at record levels. All products of "medication weakened" breeding.

I think you are over thinking this.. Medical advances aren't bad nor should they be precluded from race horses.. If you have a horse that can only be outstanding because of medication and would otherwise be ordinary or not even a runner then breeding to him or her becomes a bit more dodgey. Breeding sound to sound has to be more beneficial long term then breeding unsound and fast to unsound and fast.

it's all BS anyway nobody is going to buy slow sound horses because they are sound and hence the likelyhood of the breed being rebuilt on this premise is retarded.

BTW nobody breeds 150 mares to a crappy stallion for to long..The only way they get 150 to 250 mares long term is by producing.. You think Fu Peg is going to keep getting 200 mares if he doesn't start to have results on the track that warrant such demand?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

FL

I always liked GS. Almost bred a mare to him but even at the reduced price he was still too rich for me.

Florida geez people will take a shot on anything I guess. I guess if you want a 6f 7500 claimer he is your guy.

I think you can get a great deal on any reasonable mare to Grand Slam..