mlb encourages pitchers to wax up on EPO and other PEDs.
defintely manny paciaua, and mma/ufc/wwe stuntmen are waxed.
mlb encourages pitchers to wax up on EPO and other PEDs.
defintely manny paciaua, and mma/ufc/wwe stuntmen are waxed.
You'd be surprised how many people aren't on PEDS at all outside of the heavyweights in combat sports.
jjjjjjjjjj wrote:
The turf records for North America are faster than the dirt records. Spectacular Bid ran 1:57 4/5 for 1 1/4 on dirt in 1980, while Hawkster ran 2:22.xx at 1 1/2 on turf in 1989.
Many of the North American records have not improved in the past twenty years.
http://www.horsehats.com/horse-racing-records.html
Similar thing with quite a few running records. Times not improving after development of tighter drug testing.
The biggest difference as I have pointed out previously is the depth is now far better. Freaks such as Man O'War, Pharlap etc would now run into numerous horses of equal ability in any year.
DMSO is harmless. Please show us any negative information regarding DMSO.
Runningart2004 wrote:
Look especially hard at the winners sired by Mr. Prospector and his line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._ProspectorEven many Derby so-called "cinderellas" have Mr. Prospector blood so I'm not sure how much you can call them a cinderella.
Over the years if you did nothing but bet money on the Mr. Prospector line you'd probably be a very rich man.
Alan
As great as Mr Prospector has been as a modern breed shaper, 2d(with a bullet) world wide only to Northern Dancer, you would go broke quickly backing all his descendants. In any quality race field there will be a big % of starters descending from the Mr P line. In fact it is quite likely some race fields would have 100% descendants. Certainly here in Australia I have seen fields that have 100% Northern Dancer descendants.
But you are right, few "poorly" bred horses are far removed from the "blue blooded" lines.
Ray wrote:
Black Cavier better than Luskin Star was back in the day?
She's racing on saturday at Doomben, taking on the giant Hay List for a 4th time. Hay List is a superstar sprinter -14 from 19 so far. She has flogged him in all their meetings. She may cop quite a heavy track at Doomben.
She has never been fully extended in her 12 for 12 career. Carried topweight and smashed them in the Newmarket Hcp.
Luskin Star was a great 2yo. Poor decision making meant we didn't see the best of him at 3, they tried to make him a middle distance horse. Should've kept him to the sprints at 3.
They are rating Black Caviar as better than Vain.
The thing is she is faster than those great horses of the past by quite a chunk.
The modern Australian sprinter is far superior to the sprinters of the 60s,70s and 80s. If she had ever been let go she would have smashed records. As it is she barely stretches out for 400m and runs within fractions. Of course these days the Australian tracks are kept softer than in the past too (for horse welfare).
Fastest times in English Derby decade by decade.
1950-59. 2.35.4 - Crepello '57
1960-69. 2.36.4 - Psidium '61
1970-79. 2.35.0 - Snow Knight'74
1981-90. 2.33.8 -Kahyjasi '88
1990-99. 2.32.3 - Lammtarra'95
2000-09. 2.33.2 - Galileo '01.
Arc de Triomphe.
1950-59. 2.31.9 - La Sorellina '53
1960-69. 2.29.0 - Levmoss '69.
1970-79. 2.25.5 - Three Troikas '79
1980-89. 2.26.3 - Trempolino '87
1990-99. 2.24.6 - Peitre Celebre '97
2000-09. 2.25.0 - Bago '04.
Belmont Stakes
1950-59. 2.26.6 - Gallant Man '57
1960-69. 2.27.2 - Stage Door Johnny '69
1970-79. 2.24.0 - Secretariat '73
1980-89. 2.26.0 - Easy Goer '89
1990-99. 2.26.0 - A.P.Indy '92
2000-09. 2.24.7 - Rags To Riches.
There's an excellent paper on this subject at the free, fulltext link below. The author describes how horses and dogs, despite breeding, have essentially reached their biological limits. They aren't likely to get faster.
Humans haven't reached our limits yet, but we're getting closer. Mark Denny's predictions for "ultimate" track running records are about the best you'll find, in my opinion.
Mopak,
You're pretty much spot on. I've been a runner for 40 years and worked in the thoroughbred industry nearly as long.
My belief is that the thoroughbred - having been selectively bred for 300+ years and around 30-35 generations - reached a peak of development in the shape of horses like Secretariat and Dr. Fager (in the U.S. at least) around 30-40 years ago. Since then the very best horses haven't got any faster, but the gap between the best and the rest continues to close.
Pretty much the same thing has happened in the 800m., in which we've seen a couple of tenths taken off Coe's record in 30 years.
We'd might have seen the same thing with the longer middle-distance events had it not been for the emergence of the Africans. It's probably starting to happen now - witness the 3000m. the other night with 16 runners between 7:25 and 7:35.
Thoroughbred don't have exactly the same response to training, and we're never going to see them on 100 miles a week of base mileage, or 20 x 400m, but mature horses could certainly do more than they traditionally do in the U.S. At the cutting edge in Europe they are now using heart monitors and taking lactate level.
Horses are started as 2 year olds. Even at that point they are not fully developed. This is like starting with a 12 year old kid and by the time they are ready to try for the triple crown they are 14 or 15. There is one year to develope the engine, train the horse, and prepare it for the demands of racing. All they have time to do is race prep and minimal conditioning. Many places do use swimming treadmills to help condition the animals without impact.
I often wonder if they didn't allow any racing until 3 or 4 year olds how that will change things? I can't help but think we would have less break downs.
In trotters, horses continue to race much longer. Here is a study looking at performance and age in 159 trotters.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9306062
Even though thoroughbreds are thought to be at "Prime racing age" at 3, I am curious how the game would change if the triple crown was changed to 4-5 years. Just a thought. It would allow for a greater influence with training.
Cavorty wrote:
Mopak, You're pretty much spot on.
Near the end of his life, Arthur Lydiard was training horses like humans. The trainers laughed at him until Art's horses started winning. It can be done but probably the trainer's fear of losing their job is bigger than the desire to learn new methods.
Sooo, how come no one has suggested the possibility of training race horses at altitude, or having them sleep in an altitude barn?
Sometimes when they finish up a great tempo workout, I bet they literally 'run to the barn'.
Total Knob wrote:
It also affects the way that races set up - if you don't care about time all you have to do is train for the cruise and finishing kick (like Olympic races rather than rabbited WR attempts in athletics terms).
Lack of time bonuses mean that a horse who is winning easily (which is also a horse likely to be close to a WR) isn't going to be "ridden out" fully (which is also why more than half of the recognised WRs have been set in claiming races - which are the equine equivalent of the local 5k). Any jockey who rode a horse out when winning by 10 lengths would be immediately sacked by the trainer, because it (a) to do so would exponentially increase the risk of injury, and (b) make the horse's recovery that much longer (if the jockey "wraps him up" when the race is won, the horse might be able to race again in 10 days versus a month to six weeks if the horse is ridden to exhaustion chasing a meaningless time - I can remember that when Elliot Walden won the Belmont with Victory Gallop, he put up his "day rate" for a horse in his stable to $300+ - that alone is an incentive to race as frequently as possible).
One point about the training, and why horses don't benefit from training like humans; horses carry a "reservoir" of around 30% of their total volume of red blood cells in their spleen, which is released by the fight or flight mechanism (adrenalin). This ability isn't actually "trainable", but it does help to explain why horse races set up the way they do. The longer the horse can "cruise" without going into oxygen debt means more energy saved for the "kick" which carries you clear of your rivals. It also, IMO, explains the high injury rate in racehorses, since, in full "race mode" their muscular system puts out far more power than their tendons/ligaments/bones are used to handling - resulting in a highly increased likelihood of breakdown if they take a funny step, or get bumped, or step in a hole.
The problem is that you can't train to activate that system a little bit, it is an on/off switch, not a gradual release (you'd have to sit on a real racehorse going at full speed to understand), and if you activate the system too often you are going to "sour" the horse and he won't want to run.
Interestingly, Graham Motion, the trainer of Animal Kingdom, trains his horses at Fair Hill in Maryland, and I know he sends the young horses out to trot and canter on the trails in the parkland around the training center as much as he possibly can. I don't know if he has a better or worse injury record than other trainers, but it certainly seems to be working for him in terms of results.
One final point about Tom Ivers - he talks a good game about how trainers should use interval training etc., but at the end of the day Ivers has been in the business for 20-30 years and never won anything better than a claiming race. If results speak louder than words, then Ivers should definitely shut up!
You should do some research before you run your mouth. First of all Ivers has been deceased for several years, and secondly he was strictly an author and consultant due to health reasons-- you have no idea who worked with him. Your know-it-all attitude is typical of the equine industry.
Fit Racehorse wrote:
he was strictly an author and consultant
Ah, "an author and consultant" - isn't that just another way to say "someone who can't do the job"?
"Steeplechasing (it's not called National Hunt any more - not very PC) is more about jumping ability, which is why you see so many Selle Francais horses winning races - on the flat against a Thoroughbred they'd be blown out of the water, but they jump so powerfully and quickly that it gives them a real advantage."
Not called National Hunt anymore? Someone had better tell the sport then, apparently they've forgotten. "Jump racing" if you prefere, but certainly not steeplechasing, as that only makes up half of the sport anyway. A larger and large number of Jump horses are Flat bred these days (in fact I think the last 5 winners of the Champion Hurdle had successful careers on the flat), and if if they are NH-bred, they're still thoroughbreds. To suggest they'd be blown out the water by the flat horses simply isn't true - last year's Ascot Gold Cup winner could only finish 3rd in one of the Novice Hurlde races at the Cheltenhma festival in the same year. It's ludicrous to suggest it's only down to jumping. There are any number of horses who can jump a fence beautifully but wouldn't get within a country mile of winning a Grade 1 hurdle/chase. Just in the same way that no human is going to win an Olympic Gold in 3000m SC or 400mH without being world class at that distance on the flat.
(PS - ukacoach, yes it's Paul Nicholls yard. Denman just pips Kauto for me, but have a huge soft spot for both. Big Buck's now looks like he'll be even better than both those, absolute machine.)
Midwest runner chick wrote:
Horses are started as 2 year olds. Even at that point they are not fully developed. This is like starting with a 12 year old kid and by the time they are ready to try for the triple crown they are 14 or 15....
I don't like this analogy - 3 year old thoroughbreds are far more developed than a 14 or 15 year old human. Although, as others have rightly pointed out, they probably reach a peak at 4 or 5, the very best 3 years olds can really serve it up to the older horses. Depending on the race, they'll get a small weight allowance but, in recent years, horses like Zarkava, Sea The Stars and Curlin have won the world's biggest all-age races (the Arc and the Breeder's Cup Classic) aged 3. You wouldn't see a 15 year old anywhere near an Olympic final, let alone a medal, on the track.
I'd put it more like this - a 2yo is the equivalent of maybe a 16/17 year old. Not always the case, but often the best 2yo's are the most 'forward' for their age (i.e. the most physically developed), who then get swamped as a 3yo when the others catch up. A 3yo would be like a 20/21 year old. The very best of them can compete with anyone, but the majority won't peak until 24/25/26 years old
Not called National Hunt anymore?
I think someone already did; when I was a kid, this page was produced as an annual booklet, and was entitled "A Guide to National Hunt racing":
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/goracing/Guide/Jumpracing/Jumpracing.aspTo suggest they'd be blown out the water by the flat horses simply isn't true
Since I didn't suggest that, I'll agree it isn't true, and I'll suggest you go back and read what I've written (since you cut and paste it into your own post that shouldn't be too hard, but I'll give you a clue; look at the words "Selle Francais" and see if you can get the drift.).
Depending on the race, they'll get a small weight allowance
I wouldn't call 3.5 kilos a "small" weight allowance - but since you've decided that you know everything there is to know about horseracing, I'll let you get on with making a fool of yourself.
Little touchy per chance? Not too sure I remember declaring that I 'know everything about horse racing', but since you bring up the Selle Francais issue again (which I was going to assume was a mistake on your part), can you kindly tell me when any of this breed has run in a race under rules? They're show jumpers, if I'm not mistaken. National Hunt horses are, almost exclusively, thoroughbreds. A very select few (and always bred in France) are not, and known as AQPS.
3.5 kgs is completely relative, but when you're talking about about 500kgs+ of thoroughbred, it's the difference between maybe 2 lengths on a racetrack - those 3 I mentioned would've still have won their races comfortably carrying the same as the older horses, which is the only point I was trying to make (i.e. that a 3yo does not equate to a 14 or 15 year old human). Wind your neck in
AQPS (Autre Que Pur-Sang - or "Other than Thoroughbred") is the generic name for Selle Francais, Anglo-Arab, Standardbred, etc. - anything other than a Thoroughbred.
Since you ask me to name a Selle Francais that has run under rules, will The Fellow do? As you can see, he was a registered Selle Francais:
http://www2.france-galop.com/FGWeb/domaines/chevaux/cheval_genealogie.aspx?L=en
.
I was Francois Doumen's amateur rider when The Fellow was running, and we had Ucello II, Ubu III and The Fellow in the stable at the same time, all Selle Francais.
Francois trained on Le Lion at Chantilly, and I would ride a very talented, but difficult horse by the name of King Mister in his works while Adam Kondrat would ride The Fellow, and usually Cristophe Aubert would come in to ride Ucello.
In breezes on the flat King Mister could run the legs off the other two, but when it came to the races, he couldn't get near them; it's difficult to explain until you've actually done it, but take it from me, it is ALL about jumping ability.