tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8711985.post7815310978460518271..comments2024-03-05T05:38:22.024-05:00Comments on Left at the Gate: Talkin' BreakdownsAlan Mannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12570505944559196118noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8711985.post-26500393034603208362008-02-06T20:46:00.000-05:002008-02-06T20:46:00.000-05:00The chat that Alan linked to is just one of two Br...The chat that Alan linked to is just one of two Bramlage chats on Bloodhorse. The second was posted the following week. There's a bit of fluff in them, but overall they were exceptionally informative, at least for me. I commend the full chats to anyone who has the time.<BR/><BR/>BitPlayerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8711985.post-26629800422813055512008-02-06T19:42:00.000-05:002008-02-06T19:42:00.000-05:00Just don't try to tell those old time KY breeders ...Just don't try to tell those old time KY breeders that "improvement of the breed" was merely a political "sound bite" for the Saratoga locals in 1863. Improvement of the breed achieved the main goal: A better, sounder racehorse. Breeding for lucrative auction sales was not the main goal of early thoroughbred horsemen but rather it was to produce the most consistent stakes winners on the racetrack. Stakes winners brought status, multiple stakes winners by the same stud or out of the same mare brought the highest possible status to the stud or mare. I don't recall that breeders were interested in breeding to make a killing at the yearling sales, probably because the Dubai sheihks of the day were still nomads living in tents. Breeding was to produce the soundest "stayers" to win as many rich stakes as possible, not studs that would bring exorbitant stud fees and offspring that would command equally exorbitant auction prices. The best bred horses were thought to have the best chance to win lucrative stakes races, simple as that, thus "improvement of the breed". That was the game. Not sure when all of that changed but certainly by the 1960's and '70's speed began to take over as the be-all, end-all of thoroughbred breeding, auction prices began to skyrocket in the 80's, and somewhere along the way "speed"- and ever higher prices- became the only thing that mattered at the auction sales. Improvement of the breed went the way of the 5 cent cigar. Now, did racehorse breakdowns increase as speed came to dominate the pedigrees? Many suspect that is the case but don't know if there is empirical evidence to support the hypothesis. Anyone know? /S/Green Mtn PunterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8711985.post-17103227644430593942008-02-06T17:36:00.000-05:002008-02-06T17:36:00.000-05:00If I recall correctly, Landon Manning made the poi...If I recall correctly, Landon Manning made the point in his book The Noble Animals that the "improvement of the breed" phrase was mainly a political tool to make the introduction of horse racing in Saratoga a more palatable proposition to citizens than a plain old gambling attraction would be. Worthy words, yes, but I'm not sure that the goals of those early horsemen were any more noble than those of today.Teresahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03118955760148482020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8711985.post-70929260266980279762008-02-06T16:50:00.000-05:002008-02-06T16:50:00.000-05:00I think it's a very useful comment from Bramlage; ...I think it's a very useful comment from Bramlage; I doubt the casual fan understands that you can't simply start training a horse at 3 or 4 to be a racehorse -- they need to be doing serious training from quite a young age to build up the strongest skeleton possible. <BR/><BR/>There are some great studies that suggest that more 'old school' (and European) training methods were perhaps more effective at this goal than the light schedules we see in some barns these days. The whole '2 year olds are too young' argument doesn't hold much water against them. (A quick search of Google Scholar for 'thoroughbred bone density' or related keywords turns up plenty of articles).<BR/><BR/>Drugs and bad breeding, on the other hand, can open up an entirely different set of circumstances.Superfectahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13160193760814449962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8711985.post-22239353215712486342008-02-06T16:28:00.000-05:002008-02-06T16:28:00.000-05:00Glad you agreed Bramlage's comments were worthy of...Glad you agreed Bramlage's comments were worthy of sharing - just wanted to clarify that I wasn't the one who asked this question. Bramlage's answer has really stuck with me since reading it, and comes to mind every time I see this discussion now.Erinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04966895737564174215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8711985.post-8524867814950349922008-02-06T14:32:00.000-05:002008-02-06T14:32:00.000-05:00Thus "improvement of the breed" as the primary mis...Thus "improvement of the breed" as the primary mission of thoroughbred racing when it was the sport of kings, and others similarly affluent known as "sportsmen", e.g. the Whitneys, the Vanderbilts, the Phipps, et al. It's when racing became big business that breeding for anything other than speed went out the window and the problems really began. Drugs, steroids, and synthetic surfaces only serve to delay the inevitable breakdown of overraced, poorly bred horses and never get to the root of the problem. /S/Green Mtn PunterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8711985.post-88147551721499957132008-02-06T14:27:00.000-05:002008-02-06T14:27:00.000-05:00Now take that fragile skeleton, change its natural...Now take that fragile skeleton, change its natural structure further by introducing steroids, and ask it to carry the extra muscle mass associated with the use of those drugs and you see the result every day.<BR/><BR/>They run faster, bounce back quicker but do not last very long. <BR/><BR/>Excellent as a business model, not so excellent for the horses.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com