NY Times Article: Breeding for Durability

[Anne FS]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/sports/othersports/11breeding.html?ref=sports

"The Hancocks have been raising racehorses for four generations and not too long ago, Arthur III kept to a rule he learned from his father, Bull Hancock Jr.: Never breed to a stallion with fewer than 25 career starts."

[but now]

"....You got to survive and make money, and you do that by breeding something fashionable that people will buy,” said Hancock, who has sold half siblings of FuPeg for $1 million to $4 million. “I cannot afford to breed the kind of horses that I once did.”

So horsemen are getting what they pay for: pedigrees that produce precocious, fast and fragile runners."

[Cherry]

Well, part of the problem is the colts are so valuable for breeding that most of them are taken off the track as three year olds.... Hard to find a three year old that has had 25 starts.... ;) :yes: And if you do try to keep a horse on the track after three insurance is so costly it doesn't pay to keep running the horse....

The industry is essentially killing itself.... :uhoh: It's easier to dummy down the standards than it is to try and educate the horseowners! I guess this is what happens when you "let greed be your guide".

[Roxy SM]

Very interesting article, thanks for posting!

[poltroon]

I think "greed" adds in a value judgement that's not always appropriate. Purses may be high, but expenses are going up, too. I doubt that Hancock has changed his rules because he wants an extra Lamborghini - instead I think he's changed his rules because otherwise he can't be sure he'll be able to pay his staff and his other expenses.

So the answer isn't so much that 'mean people need to be less greedy' but that the game has to be changed so that there are more rewards in the long term interest of the sport. Like, for example, instead of funnelling all the money into purses for the Kentucky Derby, what about creating a big purse for the next recordbreaking winning streak (consisting, say, of only graded stakes races)? What about developing a classic race for horses that is run at the end of the 4 year old year?

The problem is that even people who see the problems and might prefer to aim for longer careers and more soundness can't lose their shirt doing so.

[Florida Fan]

Yes, times have really changed. You see our industry run more like corporate businesses. A game that originally focused on the priority of the horse and its wellfare, now focuses on races filled for the racing secretary. And a lot of the newcomers are not actual start-from-scratch horsemen. As for breeding---Bull Hancock is of course correct, but like I said, it is now a more corporate industry. Don't think he cares about a new car, just needs to be competitive in the sales. England is a great example--years ago, they bred very substantial individuals, a very nice horse, but got left in the dust in the competetive field of global races. They changed breeding, and like us they opted for major winner to major winner---now they are more competetive in all aspects....having to forgo substance as a priority. I don't think it is total greed, but if you race horses, you have to win/make money. It is very expensive day money just to break even for love of the sport. So, like a friend of mine said, and I quote, "You're either in the game or out."

[jpeg]

I usually just lurk on this forum, but I've wanted to start a thread asking about this exact issue...

Could there be some kind of "incentive fund" started by those at the top of this industry that would bring back breeding for substance over speed, just like poltroon suggested. It would obviously take some time before real results/change would be seen, but isn't it almost necessary for the racing industry to invest in ideas like this to keep from imploding? And when I say "those at the top of this industry," I'm talking about the Hancock's, Stronach's, etc., breeders who could personally weather the financial commitment to get it started and keep it going. It seems like there are quite a few people at the top of this sport - not just breeders - who could never lose their shirts doing anything.

**my disclaimer here: I'm not involved in racing at all (which I'm sure you can tell), but I regularly lurk on this forum to educate myself on all things thoroughbred. I have three OTTB's...a passionate, life-long TB loyalist who grew up riding back in the day when no one knew what a warmblood was. My main concern in life is seeing TB's go on to other careers - life after the track. I apologize in advance for my racing naivete.

[Pronzini]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/sports/othersports/11breeding.html?ref=sports

"The Hancocks have been raising racehorses for four generations and not too long ago, Arthur III kept to a rule he learned from his father, Bull Hancock Jr.: Never breed to a stallion with fewer than 25 career starts."




I'm sure Arthur was sincere about what he told the Times but his memory stinks. Here are some of the stallions at Claiborne from the Bull Hancock era--and yes, Claiborne bred to every one of these at some time.

Nasrullah --- 10 starts
Sir Gaylord --- 18 starts
Sir Ivor --- 13 starts
Herbager --- 8 starts
Drone-- 4 starts
Hoist the Flag --- 6 starts
Le Fabuleux-- 11 starts
Reviewer -- 13 starts

My point--none of this is new. The reason Sir Gaylord, Drone, Hoist the Flag and Reviewer had so few starts: they all broke down. Hoist the Flag almost didn't make it. Drone (son of Sir Gaylord) got his chance because he was a wickedly fast Claiborne homebred. Years later, Seth Hancock would stand the brilliantly fast cripple Danzig (3 starts) and his son Boundary (8 starts) sire of Big Brown.

[LaurieB]

I usually just lurk on this forum, but I've wanted to start a thread asking about this exact issue...

Could there be some kind of "incentive fund" started by those at the top of this industry that would bring back breeding for substance over speed, just like poltroon suggested. It would obviously take some time before real results/change would be seen, but isn't it almost necessary for the racing industry to invest in ideas like this to keep from imploding? And when I say "those at the top of this industry," I'm talking about the Hancock's, Stronach's, etc., breeders who could personally weather the financial commitment to get it started and keep it going. It seems like there are quite a few people at the top of this sport - not just breeders - who could never lose their shirts doing anything.

**my disclaimer here: I'm not involved in racing at all (which I'm sure you can tell), but I regularly lurk on this forum to educate myself on all things thoroughbred. I have three OTTB's...a passionate, life-long TB loyalist who grew up riding back in the day when no one knew what a warmblood was. My main concern in life is seeing TB's go on to other careers - life after the track. I apologize in advance for my racing naivete.

I'm not trying to be snarky here, just honestly baffled. The thing that I can never figure out about proposals like this one is...we're talking about racehorses. If the idea is to reward substance over speed, well, how do you tell who wins? It's obviously not the first horse under the wire. Is it the one who races forever, ie, most starts? In that case, the "winner" would likely be some low level claiming horse who connections would rather go after an incentive fund than offer him a well deserved retirement.

I'm assuming that can't be the point, so could someone please explain to me how it's supposed to work?

Also, just an aside for those who think owners that retire TBs are being greedy: at Big Brown's new assessed value, his insurance premium is now $3,000,000 per year.

[jpeg]

Point taken...what I meant by "substance over speed" was breeding horses that can go longer distances rather than those that are sprinters. But, again, I'm just trying to educate myself, so even that might still be illogical, I'm guessing.

Honestly, I realize I'm out of my depth over here, and I'm not trying to irritate anyone. But you're right LaurieB, what are we really talking about? In your opinion, what does durability mean? Is old-time TB vs. modern TB just a false perception us outsiders have? What do YOU think the problems are in the industry?

[carol_okc]

well, consider such staples as the JCGC -

I remember growing up it was THE RACE at two miles, and it meant something! I remember screaming my head off as Nashua came down the stretch...and unbelievable Kelso winning it 5 times at the full 2 miles! Yes, it was (and I guess it still is) 3 and up, WFA, but if it were 4 and up, and back to 2 miles, and still commanded that million-plus purse - it would be a start!

[Drvmb1ggl3]

What is Oldtime Tb vs Modern Tb? How were they different, and if anyone is going to answer that can they please supply some statistics to illustrate what they mean.
We do know that horses make less starts per year than in decades past, but can that be squarely placed at the foot of breeding? There are a zillion other factors that could be responsible for that, the number of horses in training, training methods themselves, prize money. Is it really so bad that horses get more time off?

Also people seem to be under the impression that more horses breakdown these days. What evidence is there to suggest that? From reading historical accounts they had more than their share of breakdowns and fatalities back in the day, but if some one wants to show me some numbers to show me otherwise, I'm all for it.

The JCGC may have been 2 miles, but the lion's share of races in the US have always been sprints. Go back and look at old charts and race cards. The majority of the races were dirt sprints. There were a few token distance races, but they were not the meat and potatoes races.
Now I love a staying race as much as the next man, give me the Ascot Gold Cup (2½m), the Prix Cadran(2½m), the Tenno Sho(2m), or the Melbourne Cup(2m) any day... love those races... but get this, horses break down in those races too. Does no one remember Media Puzzle at Ascot a couple of years ago? Or are memories that short?

[Glimmerglass]

There have been a recent rash of articles on this subject

Another: Baltimore Sun, May 11, 2008 "On the fast track to a 'crisis'?; Some say breeding horses for speed leads to injuries" (http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/horseracing/bal-sp.breeding11may11,0,3462293,full.story)

Excerpt

"We are not in crisis, but we are approaching a crisis situation at a relatively rapid rate," said Dr. Larry Bramlage, the attending veterinarian at last weekend's Kentucky Derby.

[Nick Zito]: "We know that. You can't blow one out on Tuesday and race him on Saturday, like Calumet used to do. You can't run them every week like they used to do. You look at the 2-year-olds of years ago, they ran every week. They just don't make them like they did. That's obvious."

[jpeg]

Drvmb1ggl3, this is what I meant by "old-time TB vs. modern TB":

(from the NYT article)

"Dr. Larry Bramlage, an equine surgeon, says a supercharged auction market is even transforming the physical attributes of modern thoroughbreds. When horse racing was a pastime rather than a business, families like the Whitneys and the Vanderbilts and breeding farms like Calumet and the Hancocks’ Claiborne made stallions out of the horses who had performed well and over time.

It was the era of Iron Horses like the 1941 Triple Crown champion, Whirlaway, who made 60 starts in his career; and the 1946 champion, Assault, who raced as a 7-year-old. In fact, the 11 Triple Crown winners together made 104 starts at age 4 or older and won 57 of them.

“You used to see a taller thoroughbred, narrow chested and bit knock-kneed, who could run forever, but not as fast,” Bramlage said.

Affirmed, who in 1978 became the 11th and most recent Triple Crown champion, was perhaps the epitome of this body type. He raced 29 times, won 22 and sired more than 80 stakes winners and 9 champions. Over the past 30 years, billions spent on horses — $1.1 billion alone at auction last year — has put a premium on what Bramlage described as a "toed-in, wide-chested, lighter-bone horse built for speed."

[BansheeBreeze]

Alot of the problem of breeding though is the breeders aren't keeping the horses. I forget how it works exactly but aren't there races that pay purse money to the breeders? Well, why not limit those breeder funds to 4+ races? Or tracks decreasing the purses on 2 year old races and putting that extra money into 4 + races or some distance races. My god it's practically impossible to find 1 1/8 dirt allowance or claiming races. I think the BC Dirt Marathon is a start, but at the same time, almost a joke. 1 1/2 race is considered a marathon? Sad times are these.

[ArtilleryHill]

<<Also, just an aside for those who think owners that retire TBs are being greedy: at Big Brown's new assessed value, his insurance premium is now $3,000,000 per year.>>

For reference, the deal for his breeding rights is estimated to be $50 million, and if he covers a book of, say, 110 mares (a figured now considered a "limited book" by many in the industry, especialy if he doesn't shuttle to the Southern Hemisphere) at a stud fee of, say, $50,000, he'll make $5.5 million a year.

[Drvmb1ggl3]

Drvmb1ggl3, this is what I meant by "old-time TB vs. modern TB":

(from the NYT article)



Citation, Whirlaway ran more often, not because they were inherently more sound than the top horses of today, but because there was more money in Racing than Breeding back then.
There were plenty of horses that broke down in the old days or went to stud after a small number of starts, somebody already listed some of those horses earlier in thread.... Calumet and Clairborne horses to boot.
Perception and reality are two different things. There is no reason a Curlin or a Hard Spun couldn't make the same number of starts as the Iron horses of yesteryear, if people would just race them.

and the 1946 champion, Assault, who raced as a 7-year-old.

You know why Assault raced as a 7yo? Because he was infertile, that's why. He was taken out of stud duty after he failed to put mares in foal. Recent Derby winner, Funny Cide (who like Assault hade no stud value) raced as a 7yo. So maybe times haven't changed as much you think.

[Drvmb1ggl3]

There have been a recent rash of articles on this subject
[Nick Zito]: "We know that. You can't blow one out on Tuesday and race him on Saturday, like Calumet used to do. "

Sure you can. As Terri has mentioned on several occasions, it's not unusual to see horses run twice in a week in GB and Ire, in an effort to beat the handicapper.
Maybe conditioning isn't what it once was.

[Acertainsmile]

Alot of the problem of breeding though is the breeders aren't keeping the horses. I forget how it works exactly but aren't there races that pay purse money to the breeders? Well, why not limit those breeder funds to 4+ races? Or tracks decreasing the purses on 2 year old races and putting that extra money into 4 + races or some distance races. My god it's practically impossible to find 1 1/8 dirt allowance or claiming races. I think the BC Dirt Marathon is a start, but at the same time, almost a joke. 1 1/2 race is considered a marathon? Sad times are these.


To answer your question, yes...most states (didnt look it up) have breeder bonuses, and stallion bonuses that are paid out.

[sporthorsefilly]

IMHO Another BIG price that has been paid by the Thoroughbred industry, is that in breeding for speed, the market to the show ring has all but been lost. Show horse people do not want "fast" horses, which may also have "hotter" personalities. This is creating a "throw away" society in the Thoroughbred industry.

In the 60's I had a grandson of Fighting Fox (Gallant Fox - Bull Dog Line) He was a lovely horse, who could go all day and trot 4'9." The rise of the warmblood is based on the trainability and also rideability that is now nearly lacking in modern Thoroughbreds.

[DickHertz]

I'm only 32...

Does anyone know when they started working 2 year olds in 9 seconds for a furlong so they can bring big money at auction (to a dumb buyer)?

I think the 2 year old sales are killing the sport. So many of these babies come back from the sale with a multitude of physical & mental problems. I don't know if this has anything to do with ruining durability / breeding, but these sales are not good for the industry IMO.

[Equilibrium]

Yes, I hate to harp on about training regimes, but quite frankly I was aghast when I moved here and saw some of the things horses did until I realzied it's all just different.

One of the first guys I galloped for use to use a farmers place which had massive hills. Serious inclines. These fields were filled with horses and cows. And yet we galloped up these hills about 3 or 4 times and it was a steady 1/2 mile up this incline. When we first arrived at the place I thought, WTF. Fields had rocks too. No horses ever had leg problems nor did they get stone bruises.

NH horses who never run under 2 miles can sometimes run twice during a festival and be perfectly fine.

Our 2yo's and older horses come back every fall for a vacation. One 2yo made 6 starts, client horse that we bought, won 3 and didn't have a pimple on him. Went back and won twice as a 3yo and is now running still as a 5yo.

Horses typically breeze twice a week here, Wednesday's and Saturday's. Not all out speed like at home, but quick enough. And there is no day's off after breezing except on Sunday's when all the horses have off. Well usually unless they are running on Monday. All horses had a blowout before running and some flat horses that were a bit goofy breezing would instead jump a couple of hurdles as a blow out. Weird I know but pretty sound horses.

My 2yo homebred ran second on a Thursday and won on a Wednesday. The difference being she had a couple of light hacks in between and was turned out every day. The gallop she trains on every day is woodchip with a good incline at the end of it. She's completely sound, hasn't missed an oat, and goes out to the field bucking and kicking every day. They are out using their muscles instead of sitting in a stall all day after training hard. And as a side note turn out does have it's perils. My only other 2yo decided he'd practice for a future jumping career today. My trainer recently split his paddock with new post and rail. I guess he liked the other part better because he jumped over it taking the top rail. He has 2 cuts but is otherwise fine. He got some bute so while he's not close to a race, he would be out of the racing picture for at least 20 days anyway so the bute clears his system. But given the choice, I'll take the turnout option every time.

So while a lot is made about not racing 2yo's not doing this not doing that. I think it's the bigger picture. Better breeding choices. Commercial isn't all bad as long as your mare fits said commercial stallion. Raising your babies on proper nutrition with as much turnout as possible. Maybe the fact that our 2yo's aren't asked for blistering speed at any stage of their training helps. They're properly conditioned for the speed if it's needed, but it's never asked for in the morning. Maybe the simple fact all our horses get a 3 month break from racing helps too. I just don't know. Horses break down here as well but then horses get killed galloping around in paddocks. If you fall off a curb and break your ankle no one says, geez your parents were bad stock. The big difference is horses cannot not be patched up like us humans can for the obvious reasons.

Breeding for durability. The trend here now is going back towards horses who are getting a distance of ground. It wasn't when I came here. Galileo is flying when typically an English Derby winner could expect 2or3 years at stud before being sent of to stand for NH breeding. Horses like Dylan Thomas, Galileo, High Chaparral are all horses who have had careers as 4yo's and even more so in Dylan's case. I used High Chap on one of my mares this year because while he isn't the hottest of commodities I know there's durability, great bone and conformation, and lots of things I thought my mare could use. The resulting foal will probably never set the world on fire as a 2yo but wanted a bit of longevity there. Then there's the other end of the spectrum. A horse named Dark Angel is standing his first year in Ireland. He's only 3 and won a couple of good races last year. The reason for his retirement, didn't think he'd improve in his 3yo year so they thought they'd retire him on his merits. I bet people are flocking to him as well. One of my mares wouldn't go near him.

Enough yapping!
Terri

[Drvmb1ggl3]

Horses typically breeze twice a week here, Wednesday's and Saturday's. Not all out speed like at home, but quick enough. .................................................

Maybe the fact that our 2yo's aren't asked for blistering speed at any stage of their training helps. They're properly conditioned for the speed if it's needed, but it's never asked for in the morning.

These are two pertinent points worth discussing.
There seems to be an obsession with the "bullet" workouts in US racing. Now, the likes of Zito and Dutrow may be saying you cant race a horse as often nowadays, but then theyre out there firing bullets in the morning... couldnt they save that for the racetrack, and race more often? Id say it takes almost as much out of a horse as a race. Train at home, leave the racing for the track, is what I always heard growing up.

[Glimmerglass]

Just one of my suggestions, but a lot of the changes will have to come from adjustments within the American Graded Stakes Committee. In particular if they pull back (in time, of course, as nothing happens in a day or single session) on the number of graded stakes races for 2-yrs and 3-yr olds (pdf of all graded 2008 US races) (http://www.bloodhorse.com/pdf/2008GradedStakes.pdf).

I myself would like to see an intentional shift in the reduction of graded 2-yr old races and granting more of that status to specifically 4-yr old and up races. With those black type races becoming fewer for 2 and 3 yr olds it will be just one more effort towards keeping the older stallions racing at least for another year.

Further I'd love to see some sort of multiple-stakes race bonus program [with the NTRA or better yet a breeding organization putting up the insurance premium to buy the prize coverage] for 4yrs+ that also entices keeping runners in the game. E.g., $5M for the winner of the Woodward Stakes, Jockey Club Gold Cup, and maybe the MassCap. With it adjusting the JCGP back to being its rightful 1 1/2mi distance.

That way a top flight 4-yr old (or older) could look at going to the Dubai Classic, then returning to the US for the late summer "triple crown" and then to the Breeders' Cup Classic. A winner of those 5 races would bank over $10M in purse winnings. Does anyone think that money like that would hold the attention of a Street Sense or Hard Spun to run at 4-yr if they could've done it over again?

[WhiteCamry]

So the answer isn't so much that 'mean people need to be less greedy' but that the game has to be changed so that there are more rewards in the long term interest of the sport. Like, for example, instead of funnelling all the money into purses for the Kentucky Derby, what about creating a big purse for the next recordbreaking winning streak (consisting, say, of only graded stakes races)? What about developing a classic race for horses that is run at the end of the 4 year old year?


For starters, they could brink back the Handicap Triple Crown, with purses on a par to those of the 3yo variety.

[WhiteCamry]

well, consider such staples as the JCGC -

I remember growing up it was THE RACE at two miles, and it meant something! I remember screaming my head off as Nashua came down the stretch...and unbelievable Kelso winning it 5 times at the full 2 miles! Yes, it was (and I guess it still is) 3 and up, WFA, but if it were 4 and up, and back to 2 miles, and still commanded that million-plus purse - it would be a start!

Second the motion!

[Drvmb1ggl3]

If one laments the lack of distance races in US racing, the Aussies seem to be heading in the same direction. Depsite their most famous race, the Melbourne Cup, being a 2mile handicap, they seem to be carding more and more sprints and their breeding industry has followed suit.
This has prompted leading Aussie trainer, Gai Waterhouse (and the most successful female trainer in the world, she has something like 70 odd G1s to her name) to write a letter to authorites criticising this trend, here's a quote from the Racing Post...


Waterhouse blames lack of opportunity for dearth of quality stayers in NSW

. GAI WATERHOUSE, who last summer brought top Australian sprinter Bentley Biscuit to contest the King's Stand Stakes and July Cup, has sharply criticised the racing programme in New South Wales for being too speed-biased.

As an example, Waterhouse singled out last Sunday's card at Gosford, where she said six of eight races were run over 1100 metres (5 1/2f) or less.

“It dismays me to see programmes as weak as Sunday's Gosford meeting where six of the eight races were of 1100m or less,” the leading trainer wrote in a letter to Greg Rudolph, general manager of Racing NSW. “What is happening to racing in NSW?”

“When there are no middle-distance races programmed, there is no chance of developing that type of horse.”

Waterhouse said the middle-distance runners from New South Wales were disgraced in last year's autumn carnival.

“Already we have the weakest stayers in Australia, one only had to see from the carnival how the Melbourne and New Zealand horses shamed us in most of the 1600m plus (1m-plus) events,” she wrote.

Although Australian racing is best known for the 3200m Melbourne Cup – ‘the race that stops a nation', run at Flemington Racecourse in Victoria – most of the country's stallion-making races are staged over much shorter distances. Some are for two-year-olds, such as the 1200m Golden Slipper, won this year by the Waterhouse-trained colt Sebring.

In response to the letter, Rudolph told racenet.com.au: “We are giving it some further consideration, and a proper analysis of statistics and we will be replying to Mrs Waterhouse in due course.”

[Vitriolic]

If one laments the lack of distance races in US racing, the Aussies seem to be heading in the same direction. Depsite their most famous race, the Melbourne Cup, being a 2mile handicap, they seem to be carding more and more sprints and their breeding industry has followed suit.
This has prompted leading Aussie trainer, Gai Waterhouse (and the most successful female trainer in the world, she has something like 70 odd G1s to her name) to write a letter to authorites criticising this trend, here's a quote from the Racing Post...

At every entry box I have seen (20 years), most mile or mile and a sixteenth races need to be shortened to 6 or 7 furlongs to fill. The owner of a router doesn't appreciate paying for a horse who never gets to run where he could be competitive so what does he buy next time? Nothing makes an owner madder than to have races repeatedly not fill.

One track wrote a mile and a sixteenth race for older horses who had never won at a mile or over. It filled with front runners who couldn't get the lead anymore going short.

How could this be rectified? Ban races under a mile???

[bobbybobby]

i agree with dick,the 2 year old sales have ruined the race horse.....look at the number of crippled horses from these sales....there is more money spent on vet bills for 1 breeze show than 5 months at the track....why would you inject the knees,ankles, hocks,stifles on a baby to breeze 1/8 mile...i think it is stupid....but people pay big money for these things....it needs to stop more than governing the tracks..............

[WhiteCamry]

At every entry box I have seen (20 years), most mile or mile and a sixteenth races need to be shortened to 6 or 7 furlongs to fill. The owner of a router doesn't appreciate paying for a horse who never gets to run where he could be competitive so what does he buy next time? Nothing makes an owner madder than to have races repeatedly not fill.

One track wrote a mile and a sixteenth race for older horses who had never won at a mile or over. It filled with front runners who couldn't get the lead anymore going short.

How could this be rectified? Ban races under a mile???

Or the powers-that-be could fatten the purses for longer races.

[SleepyFox]

IMHO Another BIG price that has been paid by the Thoroughbred industry, is that in breeding for speed, the market to the show ring has all but been lost. Show horse people do not want "fast" horses, which may also have "hotter" personalities. This is creating a "throw away" society in the Thoroughbred industry.

In the 60's I had a grandson of Fighting Fox (Gallant Fox - Bull Dog Line) He was a lovely horse, who could go all day and trot 4'9." The rise of the warmblood is based on the trainability and also rideability that is now nearly lacking in modern Thoroughbreds.

I know this is somewhat tangental to this thread, but I felt compelled to answer the above point b/c I have heard similar statements from others. What I think you are forgetting is that the Thoroughbred is a breed created for racing. Show and other uses are great and some do breed for those pursuits, but a racehorse breeder is breeding racehorses. That said, few breeders fail to recognize the importance of temperament. You can have the fastest horse in the world, but if it doesn't have the mind to go with it, you have nothing. So, no, we're not going to breed for uphill conformation and lofty gaits - that would be foolish. But, we're also not deliberately breeding for a "hotter" horse - that would also be foolish.

I want to address a few more points but am having trouble with quotes...

Bullet works - bullet and/or fast works make owners happy - that's why guys like Dutrow, etc. love them. Fast works make owners choke a little less when they open that bill. ;) I'm not speaking of Dutrow specifically here, but what do you do when the owner starts complaining? Show him a fast work - pretty much guaranteed to calm him down. I know I'm cynical, but I do have a point.

Breeders' awards - these are already structured to promote breeding a sounder horse capable of a greater number of starts and more longevity. Not everyone who breeds TBs is breeding for the commercial market and of those commercial breeders not all of them are breeding for the high profile commercial market. My point is - arguments about breeding for the "flavor of the year" instead of a solid racehorse aren't focused on the entire industry - just a segment.

What has changed about breeding is that more and more people are breeding soley to sell. These commercial breeders aren't going to race the horses they breed - they are looking to produce a big, good looking, correct foal that will sell well as a weanling, yearling or 2yo. They may get breeders' awards, but their real profit is in the sales price. Are they going to deliberately throw soundness out the window? No. But, their goals are different that those of someone breeding to race. My opinion is that we need more people racing horses and less people breeding and selling. ;)

Number of starts per year: be careful here - people complain about how infrequently a horse starts but then in the next breath complain about some horse being run too frequently. Same thing with age. I will say this - where I run, it's taking 4 - 6 weeks to draw in. Fields are full and horses are standing in the barns unable to get in. Or, as someone else mentioned, at more normal tracks, you may not be able to get a race to go very frequently. There are a lot of reasons a horse doesn't make many starts.

Spring versus distance: what does this have to do with soundness? I'm not sure the two really go as hand-in-hand as people think.

To Equilibrium Nice post - thank you. :yes:

[ArtilleryHill]

SleepyFox said:

<<What has changed about breeding is that more and more people are breeding soley to sell. These commercial breeders aren't going to race the horses they breed - they are looking to produce a big, good looking, correct foal that will sell well as a weanling, yearling or 2yo. They may get breeders' awards, but their real profit is in the sales price. Are they going to deliberately throw soundness out the window? No. But, their goals are different that those of someone breeding to race. My opinion is that we need more people racing horses and less people breeding and selling.>>

HEAR, HEAR!

Also regarding fewer annual average starts per year, another reason to be careful with that statistic is that, while unsoundness certainly can lower that statistic, so can other things. Such as the economics of the game. If you have a colt like Big Brown who becomes hot off of four starts and ends up being the subject of a $50 million stud deal, then, well, you're probably going to retire him sooner than you would if he were a more average runner, even if he stays sound. Fillies with fashionable pedigrees and a halfway nice record are worth a lot these days in the auction ring, so, once you've established she has a value, you might opt to take her off the track and cash out by sending her through the auction ring while the market's hot--and thus she ends up with fewer starts than she would in another era or with another pedigree.

That is not to say that Thoroughbred breeding isn't biased toward speed and early-maturing horses; it is right now. Just a reminder than even stats that appear black and white can be influenced by a lot of variables.