Crazy Ideas

Originally Posted by whodey17

If you didn't race two year olds, then we would only get to see horses race for one or two years (age 3 and maybe age 4). Two year old racing adds a great deal of excitement to the sport.

You are correct.

What about shoving everything back a year? When the horses have developed. Run the TC races at 4... Cool no? And better for the animals.

But there would be a cost, to start with. The title of the thread is crazy ideas. I dont think this is actually that crazy. Just thinking about the animals at the expense of money for a year.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Are there ever attempts to weigh the money against what is over the line cruel to the animal? Seems to me there has been a long history of this conflict. With the two year olds...

The "2-year-old" conflict, specifically, however, seems to stem from those that do have experience training 2-year-old horses (in any sport - cutting, reining, racing, jumping, etc); and those that do not.

There are many published studies regarding development of the immature athlete (try google) - it's not rocket science, nor all that new. Bone remodels appropriately to needed stress/strain in a positive way; cardiovascular and pulmonary changes must occur; metabolically enzyme systems adapt to streamline physiology based upon requirements ...

The most dangerous thing you could do, for a potential racehorse that you wanted to run at 3-4-5 years of age, would be NOT to run it at 2-3 years of age. Those are the horses that never develop the physical characteristics that make them athletes, as their bodies are never asked to develop what it takes.

"Good" horsemen bring animals along at their own rate, in a positive way, as their physical and mental abilities mature into increased athleticism. Bad horsemen don't. Watch every year as the new 2-year-olds come out, see how they are trained, where they are placed, etc.

I can't see painting all 2-year-old racing with the broad brush of "bad". It hasn't proven out. In fact, it's been proven opposite - a good, appropriate athletic foundation is the best insurance for a longer, healthier career.

Originally Posted by Kimmeastar

I thought you said they shouldn't be running two year olds.Now you say they should be running.WHich is it?

Read again.

I said two year olds need to run. They will run on their own for gosh sakes.

RACES... Where they cant stop when they should be stopped.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by pgardn

And why are my concerns false? Your data and experience with this?

Because every professional that has responded in this thread, and the few I have spoken to privately, has stated clearly that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.


I do, however, enjoy your stuff on rock and roll message boards.

[Linny]

The fact is that with horses making fewer starts per season, racing is just far less competitive than it once was. From the fans point of view, it's great to see good horses knocking heads over and over but those days are GONE.

I'm not sure if monetary incentives are enough because they cannot compete with the extraordinary values of colts as breeding prospects. Protection of the investment has become the watchword. When horses races 10-15 times a year, losing 5 or more times per season was not unexpected or a tragedy. Now it seems that one loss is cause for retirement to "protect the investment" from losing any more value.

The exceptions are horses like Tiznow or Albert the Great, very talented colts with moderate pedigrees for which the breeders are not screaming.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Because every professional that has responded in this thread, and the few I have spoken to privately, has stated clearly that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.


I do, however, enjoy your stuff on rock and roll message boards.

Where did people post that I have absolutely no idea what I am typing about? I missed that post.

I just know some large animal vets, some trainers from a small track, and the equisterian types of riders that dont understand the chances taken with two year olds.

So I pose this as a question that is way too radical apparently and never discussed... ? that in itself is interesting.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Where did people post that I have absolutely no idea what I am typing about? I missed that post.

I just know some large animal vets, some trainers from a small track, and the equisterian types of riders that dont understand the chances taken with two year olds.

So I pose this as a question that is way too radical apparently and never discussed... ? that in itself is interesting.

Your thought is reactionary, and while obviously there are some threads of truth within it, taken as a whole it is pretty much a perversion of the truth. Personally I find a naive selectivity about what is wrong with racing, while ignoring the similar supposed wrongs, to be hypocritical. But, hey, that's just me.

Originally Posted by Riot

The "2-year-old" conflict, specifically, however, seems to stem from those that do have experience training 2-year-old horses (in any sport - cutting, reining, racing, jumping, etc); and those that do not.

There are many published studies regarding development of the immature athlete (try google) - it's not rocket science, nor all that new. Bone remodels appropriately to needed stress/strain in a positive way; cardiovascular and pulmonary changes must occur; metabolically enzyme systems adapt to streamline physiology based upon requirements ...

The most dangerous thing you could do, for a potential racehorse that you wanted to run at 3-4-5 years of age, would be NOT to run it at 2-3 years of age. Those are the horses that never develop the physical characteristics that make them athletes, as their bodies are never asked to develop what it takes.

"Good" horsemen bring animals along at their own rate, in a positive way, as their physical and mental abilities mature into increased athleticism. Bad horsemen don't. Watch every year as the new 2-year-olds come out, see how they are trained, where they are placed, etc.

I can't see painting all 2-year-old racing with the broad brush of "bad". It hasn't proven out. In fact, it's been proven opposite - a good, appropriate athletic foundation is the best insurance for a longer, healthier career.

Never said dont run them. I said run them in a controlled manner. Where they could be pulled up. Like in training when they go wobbly. When an animal is exhausted and the legs go, you are required to drive them through in a race in which they have a chance to make themselves and people money.

And of course trainers of two year olds that run them are going to say go with it. Thats how they make money. Im talking about weighing this against the health of the animal. And BTW apparently thinks the discussion is completely absurd.

Pile on. Its easy to go with the majority. Anyone care to take my side? Or its just completey absurd to think running two year olds in competitive races might not benefit the animals as much as hurting them.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by pgardn

You are correct.

What about shoving everything back a year? When the horses have developed. Run the TC races at 4... Cool no? And better for the animals.

But there would be a cost, to start with. The title of the thread is crazy ideas. I dont think this is actually that crazy. Just thinking about the animals at the expense of money for a year.

horses already have the longest generation interval of any domesticated breed of animal...like it or not horseracing is a business first and foremost...pushing things back a year is not good for business. and there are plenty of other breeds and disciplines that train and show 2YO's competitively...

[Riot]

Pgardn, you may find this interesting. Highlights mine:

Bone. December 2006;39(6):1322-30. Kristien Verheyen1, Joanna Price, Lance Lanyon, James Wood 1 Epidemiology Unit, Animal Health Trust, Newmarket, United Kingdom. kverheyen@rvc.ac.uk

Abstract
In order to gain insight into those training regimens that can minimise the risk of fracture in athletic populations, we conducted a large epidemiological study in racehorses. Thoroughbred racehorses provide a suitable model for studying fracture development and exercise-related risk factors in physically active populations. They represent a homogeneous population, undertaking intensive exercise programmes that are sufficiently heterogeneous to determine those factors that influence injury risk.

Daily exercise information was recorded for a cohort of 1178 thoroughbreds that were monitored for up to 2 years. A total of 148 exercise-induced fractures occurred in the study population. Results from a nested case-control study showed a strong interactive effect of exercise distances at different speeds on fracture risk.

Horses that exceeded 44 km at canter (< or =14 m/s) and 6 km at gallop (>14 m/s) in a 30-day period were at particularly increased risk of fracture. These distances equate to ca. 7700 bone loading cycles at canter and 880 loading cycles at gallop. Fifty-six fractures occurred in the subset of study horses that were followed since entering training as yearlings, when skeletally immature (n = 335).

Cohort analysis of this data set showed that, in previously untrained bones, accumulation of canter exercise increased the risk of fracture (P < or = 0.01), whereas accumulation of high-speed gallop exercise had a protective effect (P < 0.01). However, increasing distances at canter and gallop in short time periods (up to one month) were associated with an increasing fracture risk.

All training exercise involves a balance between the risk of fracture inherent in exposure to loading and the beneficial effect that loading has by stimulating bone cells to produce a more robust architecture. Results from our study provide important epidemiological evidence of the effects of physical exercise on bone adaptation and injury risk and can be used to inform the design of safer exercise regimens in physically active populations.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Your thought is reactionary, and while obviously there are some threads of truth within it, taken as a whole it is pretty much a perversion of the truth. Personally I find a naive selectivity about what is wrong with racing, while ignoring the similar supposed wrongs, to be hypocritical. But, hey, that's just me.

A perversion of what truth?

And this is not a thread about what is wrong with racing as a whole. Just one little aspect that has been brought to light to me by others that are around horses. And are interested in their longterm health in their "profession".

I actually think its neat how incredibly fast some two year olds can run. It is amazing.

Originally Posted by paisjpq

horses already have the longest generation interval of any domesticated breed of animal...like it or not horseracing is a business first and foremost...pushing things back a year is not good for business. and there are plenty of other breeds and disciplines that train and show 2YO's competitively...

There are a lot of things sacrificed for a year, in hopes that profits will be larger later. Its not like racing is operating beautifully as a business currently.

I love this stuff by the way.

Pile on.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by pgardn

I love this stuff by the way.

Pile on.

I love the posters that post factually inaccurate information, and then when professionals expose its flaws, play the martyr act.

That's the stuff I love!

[Riot]

When an animal is exhausted and the legs go, you are required to drive them through in a race in which they have a chance to make themselves and people money.

I understand the concept that as racing (greyhounds, horses) is a public gambling sport, and thus the public must be protected from fraud, I think it absolutely not true that two-year-olds that are put on the track for their first races are always, "driven through" just because it's a race. Watch the maiden races. Plenty of horses in there just for "training", and to try and have positive racing experiences.

Pile on. Its easy to go with the majority. Anyone care to take my side? Or its just completey absurd to think running two year olds in competitive races might not benefit the animals as much as hurting them.

"To race or not to race" two-year-old TB horses is not a black and white, "take my side or not" concept, clearly it is grey, and that is supported by much scientific evidence quantitating both risk and necessary benefit.

Originally Posted by Riot

Pgardn, you may find this interesting.

All training exercise involves a balance between the risk of fracture inherent in exposure to loading and the beneficial effect that loading has by stimulating bone cells to produce a more robust architecture. Results from our study provide important epidemiological evidence of the effects of physical exercise on bone adaptation and injury risk and can be used to inform the design of safer exercise regimens in physically active populations.

Cool. So training them appropriately at two years old is benificial given the right amount of rest, etc... In fact it is better for them which was already obvious. You must use muscles and bones so they develop properly. Part of why living in zero gravity would really screw up a young horse, just like old John Glenn.

So we dont necessarily have to race them competitively, and still keep them healthy.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by pgardn

There are a lot of things sacrificed for a year, in hopes that profits will be larger later. Its not like racing is operating beautifully as a business currently.

I love this stuff by the way.

Pile on.

you refuse to listen to the very sound data that riot has presented and you don't like the idea that as a business model it won't happen....what exactly are you looking for?
Obviously there are limits to what a 2 YO can do but if you look around you will see them competing in reining competions and barrel racing, they cut cows, saddlebreds and morgans will be shown in harness and under saddle, standardbreds and racing quarters are running...about the only thing people don't do with a very young horse is jumping because that IS bad for them.

[blackthroatedwind]

Out of curiousity, when you buy yearlings or 2YOs, does the cost of training them for a year or two, without racing them competitively, ever seem like too much? Don't get me wrong, I think your real life actions are admirable, but I just wonder if you ever have second thoughts? Believe me, I am most appreciative of the money you put into this game as an owner, and how you coordinate it with your immense care for the animals, but I'm wondering if at least sometimes you don't consider approaching it as more of a business.

Originally Posted by Riot

I understand the concept that as racing (greyhounds, horses) is a public gambling sport, and thus the public must be protected from fraud, I think it absolutely not true that two-year-olds that are put on the track for their first races are always, "driven through" just because it's a race. Watch the maiden races. Plenty of horses in there just for "training", and to try and have positive racing experiences.



"To race or not to race" two-year-old TB horses is not a black and white, "take my side or not" concept, clearly it is grey, and that is supported by much scientific evidence quantitating both risk and necessary benefit.

I agree with the maidens. But two year olds that show promise and have big money on them... I have seen them driven through. But thank you for a reasonable well thought out response instead of just totally dismissing everything I have said as reactionary.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Out of curiousity, when you buy yearlings or 2YOs, does the cost of training them for a year or two, without racing them competitively, ever seem like too much? Don't get me wrong, I think your real life actions are admirable, but I just wonder if you ever have second thoughts? Believe me, I am most appreciative of the money you put into this game as an owner, and how you coordinate it with your immense care for the animals, but I'm wondering if at least sometimes you don't consider approaching it as more of a business.

Your sacrcasm is endearing and so exquisitely executed in a subtle manner.

And I too am appreciative of your thoughts as a owner of large stocks of two year olds.

I of course greatly appreciate owners putting on the show at their expense. If they did not, I would not get to see the animals run which I enjoy a great deal. I think owners that really love the animals have already questioned themselves about my reactionary ideas. Making them, reactionaries in thought only. There has never been any discussion about this.

[Riot]

Cohort analysis of this data set showed that, in previously untrained bones, accumulation of canter exercise increased the risk of fracture (P < or = 0.01), whereas accumulation of high-speed gallop exercise had a protective effect (P < 0.01). However, increasing distances at canter and gallop in short time periods (up to one month) were associated with an increasing fracture risk.

I wanted to requote the study, above, I posted. I want folks - anyone who rides or trains any horse that's reading this - to catch the marked significance and importance of that last sentence, regarding daily training patterns of young horses.

The take-home being: you need to give young horse bone the appropriate time to remodel and repair.

Doing so builds stronger, safer bone. Not doing so, does not.