What's your view on training young Thoroughbreds for racing? - Page 3
 
 

       The Horse Forum > Keeping and Caring for Horses > Horse Health

What's your view on training young Thoroughbreds for racing?

This is a discussion on What's your view on training young Thoroughbreds for racing? within the Horse Health forums, part of the Keeping and Caring for Horses category

     
    LinkBack Thread Tools
        04-06-2009, 08:17 PM
      #21
    Weanling
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mayfieldk    
    There is some crazy crap in the AQHA world. I can kind of see their ruling though--if you bought a baby to show and THEN realized that it was N/H, it's not fair to you to not be able to show it--you didn't breed it. I must agree, something has to be done to start to limit the N/H horses. Invest in Vital Signs, a BIG name pleasure horse winning furturities and congress titles, is N/H. And they're still breeding him! ARGH. I wonder if they charged more for a N/H horse to be registered... if that would convince people to stop breeding them?
    I see your point as far as buying a horse you don't think is diseased... but, I still think they shouldn't be allowed to show Halter. Western Pleasure, Cattle Work, English Flat, Barrel Racing.. etc... would be totally fine, and I think they should still be able to attend AQHA sponsored shows and compete for points, but not in Halter, where that beefy physique means so much =)

    As far as I know, I think they are beginning to phase out registry of N/H horses. Hopefully someone who is more familiar with the AQHA could help me out with this... but I think you are required to get a HYPP test done on any offspring who has at least one parent that is N/H. If that was the case, then the seller/broker should be honest with the potential buyer and tell them that the results for the HYPP test havent come back, and blah blah blah. But, as we all know, the horse world isnt exactly brimming with honest horse folk ;) This is total wishful thinking on my part! =)

    The sad thing is, I can look up websites and find a VERY obvious ACTIVELY diseased N/H stud whose semen is selling for upwards of 15,000 to 30,000. Ontop of that the babies... even the N/H... are selling for 50,000 dollars! They often say "price may change with results of HYPP testing" Yeah, the price will stay the same high price if the results are N/H... but if they come back N/N it'll triple in value! Urgh!! It makes me absolutely sick!

    Oops! It seems i've strayed off topic! Sorry, i'll stop! =)
         
    Sponsored Links
    Advertisement
     
        04-06-2009, 08:53 PM
      #22
    Weanling
    The AQHA has no restrictions on N/H horses, they talked about it but that's as far as it went. You can show H/H or N/H horses you cannot reg. H/H horses any longer but any that were already reg. Can be shown.
         
        04-06-2009, 09:39 PM
      #23
    Foal
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mayfieldk    
    Woo! Do we have a LOT of opinions being thrown around here, by people who've never been on the track. ;) I used to ride/train racehorses and OTTBs with a jockey, and have been 'backstage' on the philly race track plenty of times. So I haven't just talked to people or watched the internet; I've been there.


    Skippy!:

    I kinda think that if we let them grow up more, we wouldnt see tragedies like Eight Belles, Barbaro, Ruffian, etc. Furthermore, im not sure if this was true or not.. but I heard that Steroids are "not illegal" in the Race Horse world. That kinda ticks me off (if its true)... so the people who choose to -not- drug their horse probably wont have a winning horse.. either its mandatory, or against the rules in my opinion.

    I'm sure some steroids are legal in racing--just like some steroids are legal in barrel racing. It's amazing what the barrel racers are allowed to take and still compete, so don't slam racing like they're the only ones. ;) Drugs usually play a BIG role in the smaller cheap races with the crap horses--they're on every thing imaginable; often times their nerves are blocked so they can't feel pain when they're running.

    And for those who say "But they LOVE to run!!"

    Some of them do love to run. Some of them love to race, love winning and being in the front. And some trainers don't whip the crap out of them--as I recall, Seabiscuits FIRST trainer didn't like whipping horses and had fired jockeys for it. Seabiscuit was one of those horses who he couldn't figure out, and ended up trying the whip as a last resort--and Seabiscuits first trainer was a VERY Big Name kind of guy.

    He MUST run the circle. Counter-Clockwise. Always.

    Not really. Horses run the turns on the left lead, and then switch to the right lead for the straights--so it's not like they're permanently running and beating down the same legs for one lead. And when they train, then breeze counter-clockwise, and warm-up and canter/jog going the other way.

    And I've seen plenty of times when the horse didn't 'wanna', and the jockey ate dirt. ;) Running around a circle for a few minutes is probably kinder then the rollkur used on dressage horses for hours, or the western pleasure horses with permanently tight muscles, spur scars, and dead mouths.

    Please correct me if im wrong... but Seabiscuit had awful conformation, not-so-hot breeding, etc.. but wasn't he retired from racing at the age of Seven? (grantid, yes, he died of a heart attack or something like that at the age of Fourteen) but my point being the horses of the past were a heck of a lot heartier, even with bad conformation. :p So.. what has happened since Seabiscuits death in 1949(?) I think a lot of it has to do with people breeding these race horses to be at their peak in the first 5 years of their life. Any years after that is a bonus... especially if they are worthy to stand as stud.

    There were plenty of race horses being trashed, shot, and broken down on the race track--you just didn't hear about it then. It has always been a dangerous sport, for the rider and for the horse. There isn't that much wrong with the breeding of these horses--it's the training. (Take a look at funny cide--the gelding is still working on the track with babies, and he's seven years old and 'retirered.' For every horse like Barbaro, you can come up with THOUSANDS of horses who are old and are sound--take a look at all of the OTTBs in eventing!) Take a look at CJs post, I think she's got it down.


    County:

    They do it because that's what horse fans and people want. People complain about it but spend millions betting on them and watching them on TV. Every time you spend a dollar or watch them on TV your supporting the system.

    Incorrect. It has nothing to do with what 'fans want'. We want to see the Kentucky Derby... Not three year olds running. We don't care about the age! If we stopped watching the races on TV, trust me... they'd still be breaking them at one--if not more so then before.

    Sarah murphy:
    how about instead of attacking the trainers that race these 2 and 3 year olds. You consider the tracks who write the classes?? Go get a racing program and check to see how much the 2 year old race goes for, then look at say a $10,000 claimer that is mostly filled with horses 5 and up and see how much they go for! Huge difference.

    All the money to be made is for horses aged 2 to 4. So its not the trainers and owners to be blamed. This is a business and in order to make money you need your horses to race where the money is.

    Again, incorrect. The trainers and owners are to blame! Horses are raced at such young ages because of the money involved in training and care. To keep a horse until he was three or four, without ANY knowledge of how he would race, is very expensive. Trainers and owners don't want to put out the money for a horse for three years (Imagine the food, vet bills, farrier bills, Etc. For just one horse, let alone hundreds!) only to find out that he is slow and hates running! Training horses at one is the fastest turnover for investments (and when you see what some of these horses go for--millions of dollars--you can see why it's an investment!), and therefore... the races are catered to the 2 and 3 year olds, because this is the time that trainers are going to be running most of their horses. If the horse can run for two years and make millions of dollars, who cares if he isn't sound at 5 years old? Is it really any different from GP dressage horses who appear on the international scene for two years and then disappear due to 'complications' (Read: stress related injuries because they were pushed beyond their limits)?

    Horses are expensive to take care of--the faster a trainer can turn around and make profit on the horse, the less money they are going to lose.

    I'll never agree to it, however--this the way the racing world works as of now.
    I also have "been there" and am "there" right now. I own standardbreds, my husband is a trainer and we have been racing for years...

    We race the horses at two years old because that is where the money is, they make all the series for 2 to 4 year old horses. It has nothing to do with caring for a horse for a couple of years. You think people that can spend $100,000 on a yearling that has a 30% chance of actually making it are worried about feeding it for a couple of years???seriously? racehorses are no more expensive to care for than say a riding horse untill you get into training them, so what difference does it make if you start them at 1 or 2? Not much in cost.

    We buy our babies as yearlings usually in the summer or fall, bring them home and train them to accept the harness and jogg. They go slowly, and are jogged alittle bit farther every week. Around the october they are checked by the vet...(xrays, ultrasound, etc. ) We make sure they are sound before actually training. They all REGARDLESS get time off before training starts, and they are usually ready to qualify in the late spring. This is the way the majoirity of training facilitys run.

    Only about 30 out of every 100 standardbreds actually make it to the track as 2 year olds. The majority of the rest usually qualify as 3 year olds.

    All horses grow differently and mature at different ages.

    And I am correct, in saying that the industry that creates the "grassroots series" the "little brown jug" the "red mile" all races made for 2-4 year old horses is the root of the problem! If they switched their standards and made the qualifying age 3, it would drasticly(sp?) increase the chances of more horses making it to the track sound. No matter how much we care for these horses you do have some that break down! It can't be helped, and happens in every equine sport.

    And one more thing.....to say that trainers in thoroughbred and standardbred racing do not care if the horses break down as long as they make money first, is about the stupidest statement I have heard. If you are promoting your buisness by saying "your horse MIGHT make money but wont last long" how many owners are going to intrust you with their investment???? The goal is to get a GOOD reputation as a trainer. That means caring for your horse the best you can to get the most from your horse. You don't want your owners to buy one horse and get out of the business after that. Owners are what keep the buisness alive!

    By the way, standardbred trainers only get 5% of all the money the horses make. Drivers get 5% of the purse $ that horse made, and the owner collects the other 90%!
         
        04-07-2009, 02:39 AM
      #24
    Yearling
    Sarah murphy,

    In my experience (which is decent, since I live in NJ and we are a hotspot for standard bred racing too!) the two are not the same.

    You think people that can spend $100,000 on a yearling that has a 30% chance of actually making it are worried about feeding it for a couple of years???seriously?

    Yes. Take an economics class. If an owner puts out 100,000 (which is somewhat 'basement bottom price' for a racehorse considered for the kentucky derby or other high class races), they want to put as LITTLE as possible out to get the best return. ...Why would you want to shell out 30,000 dollars for two to three extra years if you didn't have to? Just because people have money doesn't mean they want to just throw it away! The idea that they 'wouldn't care' about the money it costs to have a horse boarded, trained, and vetted at those kind of facilities is completely ludacrious. Of course they care--the sport is ABOUT money, not the horses. The difference in starting them is probably around 30,000, if not more. And that's 30,000 that an owner could have in his pocket.

    And I am correct, in saying that the industry that creates the "grassroots series" the "little brown jug" the "red mile" all races made for 2-4 year old horses is the root of the problem!

    Why would they make races for older horses if all of the trainers are shipping out 2-3 year olds? It's not even about speed--an older more experienced horse will almost always beat a younger talented one, so that's not in the equation either. This is when trainers are marketing their horses. This is a sport about money and times, not about horses--so it is always going to cater in this direction.

    'And one more thing.....to say that trainers in thoroughbred and standardbred racing do not care if the horses break down as long as they make money first, is about the stupidest statement I have heard.'

    Then I suppose you don't understand this industry!

    Look at Smarty Jones, love. Prime example. That horse raced for two years and made plenty of money. The owners retired him sound. THE MONEY IS IN THE BREEDING. Not the racing! Standardbreds are often raced longer; but they do not bring in as much money in the breeding shed as a horse like Storm Cat would. So again, don't be as quick to compare.

    There is no need for a horse to run longer then two-three years, which is why if the horse breaks down, it isn't a big deal. They run hard, run fast, make as much money as possible, and are then retired. This isn't about watching your horse race until he's done with it for the sporting aspect of it ;) If all of the trainers cared as much as you claim they do, then they'd stop running and breaking these horses down at 1! MONEY. It's all about Money.

    Don't get me wrong, there are some trainers out there that love the sport and love the horses (Like Eight Belles jockey: A quote on what he said about the vets putting her down on the track: "They had to take us down." us!), but we're talking about the majority here.
         
        04-07-2009, 10:12 AM
      #25
    Weanling
    A friend of mine bought a 3yr old TB gelding straight off the track, his record wasn't bad but what got me was his age, at 3 he had already been running for a year when most of my horses were just learning what a saddle was. To me as it seems with the other posters this is way too young to be started for something so strenuous. What makes it even worse is some owners will opt to have one put down as to treating an injury because of cost it's like they run them to death, break down their young bodies till they can't go anymore then dispose of them when if they had given them even just one more year of development the horse could have ran better, been stronger and lived longer..it's all so heartbreaking.
         
        04-07-2009, 10:56 AM
      #26
    Weanling
    And your freind and others who buy those horses help support the system by giving an outlet for those horses and funds to keep the next crop going.
         
        04-07-2009, 11:52 AM
      #27
    Started
    Country- what is your alternative? If they don't sell them they would kill them and that isn't ok with me. I saved to ottb's and I would do it again a million time if I could. I don't get what point you are trying to make...
         
        04-07-2009, 02:06 PM
      #28
    Weanling
    My point is if someone wants it to change they shouldn't support the current system. If you want to save them that's fine but don't expect them to change anything if money continues to go in their pocket.
         
        04-07-2009, 02:12 PM
      #29
    Trained
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by county    
    My point is if someone wants it to change they shouldn't support the current system. If you want to save them that's fine but don't expect them to change anything if money continues to go in their pocket.
    Wouldn't you be supporting them more by going to the tracks or buying from a breeder than you would rescuing?
         
        04-07-2009, 02:22 PM
      #30
    Started
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by county    
    My point is if someone wants it to change they shouldn't support the current system. If you want to save them that's fine but don't expect them to change anything if money continues to go in their pocket.
    so you are saying that we should just let them die? I agree that nothing is going to change but I don't understand how it should be taken out on the TB's- it's not their fault. I didn't pay much for either of my mares so they didn't make money off of me ...
         

    Thread Tools

    Similar Threads
    Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
    Training Young Foals Equus_girl Horse Training 7 03-05-2009 02:52 PM
    Training young filly Velvetgrace Horse Training 6 02-28-2009 10:12 PM
    Young Horse Training JayDee1608 Horse Training 1 10-24-2007 10:14 PM
    Training Barrel Racing. Thisskyeishuman Horse Training 11 10-08-2007 05:44 PM



    All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:34 AM.


    Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
    Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
    Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0