Assault

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Some good points obviously.
My question is, what did you think of the job that Tim Ritchey did with Afleet Alex in '05? It seemed like Ritchey took much more of an "old-school" approach than most trainers do. Not only did he give the colt all of those long slow works, he also started the colt's season in a sprint like they often did in the past. It seemed to work out pretty well for AA.
As a trainer yourself, do you think more trainers should use those older techniques more often, or was that just a case of a system that worked well for one particular horse?

He did a great job the horse made a ton of money and was syndicated.. When you succeed how can you question the methodology?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Some good points obviously.
My question is, what did you think of the job that Tim Ritchey did with Afleet Alex in '05? It seemed like Ritchey took much more of an "old-school" approach than most trainers do. Not only did he give the colt all of those long slow works, he also started the colt's season in a sprint like they often did in the past. It seemed to work out pretty well for AA.
As a trainer yourself, do you think more trainers should use those older techniques more often, or was that just a case of a system that worked well for one particular horse?

The horse broke down and never raced past June of his three year old year. Is that successful training? Is it possible that the horse may have been better and lasted longer if he had not been trained in that style? That he was doing well despite the methods not because of them?

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by freddymo

He did a great job the horse made a ton of money and was syndicated.. When you succeed how can you question the methodology?

I think you might have somehow misunderstood my post.
I completely agree that he did a great job with Afleet Alex. My question for Chuck was simply whether or not he thought that type of training could be used effectively with a lot of horses, or if it was just Ritchey finding something that would work for Afleet Alex specifically, but might not work for very many others.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The horse broke down and never raced past June of his three year old year. Is that successful training? Is it possible that the horse may have been better and lasted longer if he had not been trained in that style? That he was doing well despite the methods not because of them?

its also possible that his injury had nothing to do with how he was trained.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The horse broke down and never raced past June of his three year old year. Is that successful training? Is it possible that the horse may have been better and lasted longer if he had not been trained in that style? That he was doing well despite the methods not because of them?

That's a fair point. I guess there are two ways to look at the Belmont Stakes that year. On the one hand, Afleet Alex seemed to have a level of fitness and stamina in that race that one could reasonably give Ritchey credit for. On the other hand, it was the last race he ever ran, and I guess one could also blame Ritchey's techniques for that.
I tend to think the first rather than the second one is true, but I don't really have anything solid to base that on.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I think you might have somehow misunderstood my post.
I completely agree that he did a great job with Afleet Alex. My question for Chuck was simply whether or not he thought that type of training could be used effectively with a lot of horses, or if it was just Ritchey finding something that would work for Afleet Alex specifically, but might not work for very many others.

The horse made 12 starts 4 grade 1 wins 2 g2 wins and very good derby effort..

Whatever Ritchey did, However Ritchey did it is was certainly in the horses best interest. Half of AA wins are G1 and G2 race? HELLO that is pretty fn good

Horses aren't robots what works for one may or may not work for another..

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

its also possible that his injury had nothing to do with how he was trained.

Likely not possible

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Why would you open your barn to anyone? And respectfully how many mordern trainers have learned there craft from great horseman from the "post modern" (whatever that means) times? How many great trainers from 1947 are still around. look there is no doubt some of what you suggest is true but let's face it its a lot easier to medicate and succeed especially when you know no better. if that is all you have known then that is what you do. this business that the breed is different is really a bit far fetched.. Evening Attire's dam has thrown 4 that have races 50 times and 3 that will have raced 70 times.. What breed is she? Should we expect that her daughters will produce fragile foals that can only race 5 times a year because they are part of the new breed?

I would open my barn to anyone because i have nothing to hide and I find that when I actually show people things in reality they get a much clearer picture than all these theories that get passed around.
Respectfully, I did learn from a trainer that was around during those golden days and much if not most of what I know about racehorses, training and changing techniques is from him. Therefore i would conclude that I DO know better than just to medicate but according to you 'traditionalists' we should still practice such medical techniques as bloodletting. Of course when we want to pinfire a horse like was done in the old days we are told that is a barbaric and ineffective technique.

Obviously Evening Attire's Dam is an abberation. Cherry picking one mare out of 75000 active mares to prove your point is a bit of a stretch no?

Next time you are at the Hall of fame in Saratoga or anywhere else where you can see pictures of old time horses, take a look at the horses from yesteryear. Then take a look at the modern ones.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

its also possible that his injury had nothing to do with how he was trained.

Possibly but that type of injury is usually a repetative stress injury and obviously he had more stress than the normal horse.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by freddymo

The horse made 12 starts 4 grade 1 wins 2 g2 wins and very good derby effort..

Whatever Ritchey did, However Ritchey did it is was certainly in the horses best interest. Half of AA wins are G1 and G2 race? HELLO that is pretty fn good

Horses aren't robots what works for one may or may not work for another..

Track record in the Sanford too. Wasn't Affirmed the last horse to win the Sanford and the Belmont?

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Likely not possible

why?

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Possibly but that type of injury is usually a repetative stress injury and obviously he had more stress than the normal horse.

But if there was not a stallion deal involved, would it have been career ending?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

The horse made 12 starts 4 grade 1 wins 2 g2 wins and very good derby effort..

Whatever Ritchey did, However Ritchey did it is was certainly in the horses best interest. Half of AA wins are G1 and G2 race? HELLO that is pretty fn good

Horses aren't robots what works for one may or may not work for another..

The horse never raced past June of his 3 year old year and this is good? I find it hilarious that Afleet Alex is the best example of a sucessful "tough" training program. The horse broke down. He did not have a long career. What exactly am I missing here? We arent talking about his sucess we are talking about the durability of the modern day horse and horses that make 5 or 6 starts at 3 and break down are poor examples, arent they?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

But if there was not a stallion deal involved, would it have been career ending?

He was back in training that fall and was reinjured. That is not a good sign.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

why?

Because it doesnt fit with his theory and there is no way to prove either way?

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

why?

I think he might have meant that it was "likely" that it had nothing to do with it rather than merely "possible."
But who knows? I haven't really been able to understand anything freddymo has posted in this thread.

[freddymo]

Chuck my thoughts are pretty simple. Concolour has produced a few gals which have been or will be bred. I just want to know what breed are these going to be the old TB's or the new TB's? Moreover should we or should the future trainer/s expect to get fragile offspring to train or hardy stock that you can expect to run often and stay relatively sound? Looking forward to this answer..lol

[King Glorious]

I also have never understood the great amount of praise that was heaped on Ritchey for his methods when they didn't produce anything different than what we see from plenty of others and that's a 3yo champion that doesn't complete his season. Whether the injury was a result of his training or whether it was totally a fluke thing is irrelevant at this point. The horse still only raced 12 times and was done by June. People always talk about guys like Lukas, Baffert, and Zito but their horses usually last longer than that.

In my opinion, these horses today are different. They can't be trained the same way that horses of yesteryear were. They can't be raced the same way either. But at the same time, they probably don't need to be babied to the extent that they are. I think that's the challenge; finding that middle ground. Knowing when to push the throttle and when to back off. I think that if more horses had their throttles pushed earlier and more often as 2yo's, they would be better off for it as 3yo's and 4yo's. But I think it's silly to make obvious changes to the breed and still ask them to do the same things that the past horses did. Would it make sense to start breeding 5'7" guys for the NBA and still expect them to dunk like Michael Jordan and Vince Carter on a 10' basket?

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I think he might have meant that it was "likely" that it had nothing to do with it rather than merely "possible."
But who knows? I haven't really been able to understand anything freddymo has posted in this thread.

i took a stab at it, but wasn't confident either.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Possibly but that type of injury is usually a repetative stress injury and obviously he had more stress than the normal horse.

So you don't buy into the theory that it was the stumble in the Preakness that started the injury?