Why does it appear that Modern Racehorses
are less Sturdy?
by John Tuckfield | May 1, 2011
Why does it appear that Modern Racehorses are less Sturdy?
It has often occurred to me that, in a general sense, all trainers carry out their
work in a similar fashion. This I thought was because, over time, the practice had
been so finely honed that best practice now approached perfection. The next
century will, therefore, focus on the evolution of communication skills so that
trainers occasionally actually tell owners what is happening with their horses.
Larry Greetham of Piplyn Lodge gave me a 1990 American
publication containing an article entitled 'A Short Course In Exercise Physiology'
by Tom Ivers. The Author claimed that: "After a decade of intensive research and
application with innovative training techniques, race horses, at least, have repaid
that investment of time, thought and hard work with some $14 million in purse
winnings from scientifically conditioned animals."
This being the case it could be expected that this improvement would be
manifest. However, the winning times of U.S. triple crown winners has not
improved at all in the last 70 odd years, which initially seems to contradict any
belief that a more scientific approach has achieved very much at all. Indeed the
reverse is true. The modern cohort of U.S. racehorses not only seem to be no
faster, but also start less and get injured more often.
Why? In an excellent article, "Do We need a Sturdier Racehorse?", Bill Finley
attempts to identify the cause.
One potential answer is modern breeding practices. Despite our attempts to
breed the best to the best, many believe we are ending up with a less sturdy
animal. However, this is questioned by genetic experts, because the time frame
is simply too short to result in such an abrupt change in a whole population.
Genetic trends move at a much slower, almost glacial, pace. However, there are
examples when rapid changes do occur in species brought about by sudden and
dramatic changes in their environment. This is a relatively recently recognised
and poorly understood phenomenon, known as epigenetics. Examples are the
famine in Holland in World War II and China in 1958-59, which lead to children
being born smaller, shorter-lived and more prone to disease.
It is difficult to identify what changes in the recent lives of thoroughbreds could
have been so dramatic as to have accelerated such a genetic change, however,
John Holloman has pointed out that the selection process in Australia has
become significantly more concentrated. The market dictates a need for early
maturing, sprinting types. Speed is essential; soundness only desirable. We have
reduced the stallion population considerably with new found access to the most
sought after international stallions, who cover vastly larger books of mares. The
result is a significant shrinking of the gene pool of a species already inbred by
design. Six years ago we visited Robbie Horne's stables at Maraylya and he was
already warning of the dangers he saw in this market obsession with speed that
results in the out-breeding of bone density. It is probably the case that only a
change in the market, producing a higher demand for soundness, will dictate
breeders to create sturdier horses. An owner is unlikely to make money from a
horse, however brilliant, that breaks down and only runs a couple of times so
there may well be such a point. The owner of Three Chimney Farm, Robert Clay,
has said that he has already seen some movement in the direction of durability
and away from speed and brilliance.
There is also the financial lure of the breeding barn. Owners are concerned with
the residual value of their charges. Thus the best horses go on to breeding
careers after only brief racing lives. There is a marked preference for brilliance
over durability in the market place and breeders respond to these market
dictates. Among the top 25 leading sires by 2010 progeny earnings there were
12 who never won a race at 9 furlongs or longer and five of those who never
won beyond 7 furlongs.
Another issue to be considered is the use of drugs, because the author is looking
at outcomes in the USA, where drug use has been far less regulated than in
Australia. Again there are contrary views. One trainer suggests that the use of
drugs, rather than making horses run faster, have longer careers and get hurt
less, has had the exact opposite effect. Another argues that this doesn't explain
horses breaking down after only one or two starts when long term use of drugs
could not possibly be the issue.
In the U.S. there is widespread use of the short-acting diuretic Lasix, which has a
significant impact on the recovery period and thus reduces the number of
potential starts. Initially used to prevent bleeding in horses, it was found that
some horses improved dramatically when treated with it. It is now used on almost
all American racehorses, regardless of susceptibility to bleeding. Bill Finley is
nothing if not thorough in his search for the truth. He conducted an experiment on
himself, using Lasix in his own exercise regime. I doubt that the effects on a
middle aged (he's 49) seven-minute mile man proves much, but he was slower
under Lasix and didn't notice any improved bounce back. He just spent more
time in the toilet and lost a heap of weight.
The use of Lasix is so entrenched in the U.S. that it appears unlikely that there
will ever be a return to drug-free racing, but as this is illegal in Australia it can not
be the reason for any similar reduction in the sturdiness in our stock.
There is a view that economics is the culprit. High end trainers need to keep their
win rates up and so only run their horses when they have a good chance of
winning. Anyone who has ever watched American ball sports on the television
will have soon realised that Americans are obsessed with sporting statistics.
Some times I think that they enjoy watching the statistics more than the play that
they represent.
Are racing surfaces the culprit? It is too early to tell whether synthetic tracks
replacing the traditional dirt tracks in America will result in lower breakdown
rates. Lower frequencies occur in countries where they race on turf. They may be
having an effect on times; deeper tracks requiring more effort to run at the same
speed. However, the track superintendent at Churchill Downs, who has been
employed there for 38 years, says the track is no different than when he started.
Notwithstanding all the unsatisfactorily answered issues mentioned above, it
seems that the most favoured opinion on the apparent inferiority of the modern
thoroughbred is that modern horse management has changed dramatically.
Therefore, let us return to this, which is at the very heart of the Tom Ivers
writings.
Ivers argues that the goal of exercise is to develop a strong unbreakable
structure of bones, tendons, ligaments, cartilage etc, that will prevent injury when
event specific exercise is taken on, together with the development of an above
normal cardiovascular system.
He advocates a slow, gradual exercise build up so that the horse's body learns to
tolerate and master the increased levels of stress. He acknowledges that the
animal needs time to recover from particularly tough workouts, perhaps three to
five days, but warns against total rest, suggesting instead continuing, but lighter
work, during this recovery period, which allows the debris from damaged tissue
to be flushed away and any soreness and stiffness to be avoided. After the
recovery period further and even tougher workouts can be undertaken,
progressively increasing fitness. He warns against going too fast too early and
the perils of being too kind after tough workouts. Slow progressive conditioning
with hard and easy days is the way to avoid injury.
This conditioning process allows structural and cardiovascular development to
precede race specific muscle fitness development. Ivers suggests 90 days long,
slow mileage build up for structural development, followed by 90 days work at
two-thirds speed for cardiovascular development, leading to 90 day tough, race
specific workouts, now made possible by the structural and cardiovascular
achievements in the first 180 days. Of course economics becomes an issue
when city training cost exceed $100 a day plus extras. Few owners will be willing
to make such a huge investment. If a shorter time frame is required Ivers
suggests the available time still be split in similar proportions.
Of course, appropriate nutrition should support the workload. He suggests that
the horse should not lose weight during training, merely redistribute itself.
There is a particular quote which I think sums up the theory perfectly: " All
exercise performed by the horse at moderate speed is, as far as bone, tendons,
ligaments, cartilage and facia are concerned money in the bank. All peak
performances withdraw from the bank. If there is a lot of reserve stacked up in
the bank, then these withdrawals do no harm and, in fact, encourage additional
reserves after brief recovery periods."
All this seems to be totally logical. It is the way that all athletes train. Why then
does it seem not to be achieving the desired result in America thoroughbreds? It
should be pointed out that there is an 'old school' of thought that maintains that
not racing a horse too frequently is a fallacy and they point to a number of
notable examples of horses that apparently thrive on regular racing. Secretariat
had his colours lowered on two occasions in 8 weeks by different horses, each
backing up in less than a week. The 1941 triple Crown campaign of Whirlaway
included 20 starts with a Derby Trial win on the Tuesday before the Kentucky
Derby and an allowance win between the Preakness and the Belmont. Today,
top level horses run less frequently. Ghostzapper won the 2004 U.S. Horse of the
Year on just 4 starts. This year's Belmont field contained neither the Kentucky
Derby, nor Preakness winner.
Many disagree and cite figures that identify what is known as the 'bounce theory',
which states that horses coming off a top effort need time to recover, or they run
poorly at their next run. One trainer said " When I see what trainers did years ago
it makes me scratch my head; if I tried to do that with my horses they would all be
on the farm".
If there is a difference in management practice that has resulted in a weaker
animal, it has been suggested that it may be because of the way 2 year olds are
currently raced. In 1964, 52% of the U.S. foal crop raced and averaged 6.9
starts. From 2004-2009 only 30% started and averaged only 3 starts. It is
claimed by a prominent vet that horses that make their first career start as a 2
year old earn twice as much as those who begin as 3 year olds and show less
predisposition to injury and have longer careers. He hypothesizes that "...it is
easier for a horse to adapt to training when begun at the end of skeletal growth
which takes advantage of the established blood supply and cell populations. If
you wait longer, until age 3, the musculoskeletal system is allowed to atrophy at
the end of growth because of lack of training stimulus."
The problem is far worse in the US where small fields are having an effect on
gambling revenue. Hollywood Park has had to cancel racing on a number of
occasions and Saratoga has had to lower its standards to include conditioned
$10,000 races to pad out their meetings. Fears have been expressed that
Europeans will stop buying American bred horses because of their perceived
fragility. The public will not flock to the races when uncompetitive fields result in a
dominant favourite with four or five challengers.
When I had a brief discussion with John Holloman on this subject, he suggested
that while things at the top may have flattened off, it certainly wasn't true towards
the bottom. He points out that the time run to win a maiden at Hawkesbury today
would have been good enough to win a Class Three when he started training. He
also suggested a further issue might be that modern trainers where not what one
might call horsemen like those of old. They may have many other attributes, but
that unidentifiable horseman's insight, almost sixth sense, learned from
generations working and living with hoses is missing.
Whatever the answer, I hope the foregoing promotes some thought and I look
forward to receiving feedback to include in later editions of the Newsletter.
