Triple Crown Times Have Not Improved in 70 Years, Why?

Last week, the Thoroughbred Daily News published a 20 page article entitled “Do We Need A Sturdier Racehorse? You can access the entire work of Mr. Bill Finley at this link (free registration required):

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/restricted/pdf/magazine/Do%20We%20Need%20A%20Sturdier%20Racehorse.pdf

Basically, the question asked was: What makes today’s racehorses start less and get injured more often compared to the horses of the ‘old days’? Reasons commonly given range from breeding, to drugs, to economics, to racing surfaces.

Admittedly this is a very complex subject. But one thing we do know, at least in the Triple Crown races, is that horses ARE NO FASTER today than they were 70 years ago. Not one bit faster, despite our best efforts to breed ‘the best to the best’ over several generations. Please reference above chart. (Raw data available upon request.)

Speed is a misnomer. No horse carries his top end speed for more than a few seconds in any race. I chart these efforts via onboard GPS system, much like Trakus does at Keeneland and other facilities. Stamina is what is missing from our horses these days, the ability to hold 95% of top speed for several furlongs.

Is it in the breeding?

YES
Arthur Hancock: “We are breeding a weaker horse, we are breeding a chemical horse.”
Mr. Hancock shares the opinion of many horsemen today. However, a leading equine geneticist disagrees:

NO
Dr. Ernest Bailey of the Gluck Center at the University of Kentucky: “Many breeders believe that horses have become less durable. I do have some reservations. 40-50 years is a very short time to manifest such an extensive change in the population. The onset of the problem is fairly abrupt, and is more consistent with a change in management. Gene frequencies change at a glacial place.”

Is it the drugs?

YES
Trainer Gary Bizantz: “The veterinary community misled the American racing industry into thinking that increasing the amounts of medication we gave these horses would do numerous good things. It would make them run faster, their careers would be longer, field sizes would be higher, and they would get hurt less often. One hundred percent of what they said has gone the other way. Everything.”

NO
Nick Zito: “How can you be over-medicated when a horse is just starting? If I end up with a horse that only races once or twice I can’t blame that on drugs.”

Is it the economics?

Trainers of big money horses, with big money owners, have to keep their winning percentages up over 20% in order to remain marketable, so they run their horses infrequently, and only when they have a good chance to win. Their main concern is residual value after a racing career ends. But what about claiming trainers at lower levels? Why do they follow the same pattern?
Breeders are in the business to sell horses and make money. I can’t blame them for breeding horses that people want to buy – and people want to buy a Super Saver, who wins the big black type race and is off to the breeding shed. Super Saver never had a published work over 5 furlongs in his brief career.

Is it the surfaces?

Bob Baffert and others think so. In all fairness, just a few years into the synthetic experiment, it’s probably too early to tell. The article goes on to mention how the bases of dirt tracks have changed over the years. Other countries racing over turf as opposed to dirt, generally report lower breakdown figures.

What is missing from the equation?

Back to Dr. Bailey, “Perhaps someone can identify a management change or a dietary supplement that has been universal and potentially devastating to the current generation of horses?”

Many old timers, and myself, believe that ‘management change’ is the current trend of trainers to train and race their horses much less frequently than in the past.

Hall of Famer Allen Jerkens: “The biggest change in racing is that people are of the opinion that you shouldn’t run horses very often. I can’t understand it. What’s going on, it’s a fallacy.”
Mr. Jerkens beat Secretariat twice within 8 weeks, once with Onion and once with Prove Out, both were running back in a week or less.

Trainer Ben Jones and Whirlaway: 1941 Triple Crown campaign included 20 starts including a Derby Trial win the Tuesday before the Kentucky Derby. Also, an allowance win BETWEEN the Preakness and the Belmont.

On the flip side, Todd Pletcher and others disagree, often referring to the Ragozin figures which are given credit for identifying the ‘bounce theory’, which states that horses coming off a top effort need time to recover, else they will run back poorly.

Adds trainer Chris Englehart: “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.”

I agree 100% Mr. Englehart. The key lies in the 2 year old season. If you miss that window of development, you will have to wrap your horses in duct tape to keep them sound. Here is the data to back that up:

A Jockey Club study showed that despite conventional wisdom, modern trainers are not pushing their 2 year olds hard enough. In 1964 a whopping 52% of the foal crop raced and averaged 6.9 starts, but from 2004-2009 only 30 percent started and averaged but 3 starts per horse.
Prominent vet Larry Bramlage: “Horses that make their first career start at age 2 earn twice as much as those who begin racing careers at age 3. In addition, these horses show less predisposition for injury. These data strongly support the physiologic premise 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 the lack of training stimulus.”

A very detailed exercise regimen was found by Dr. Nunamaker at the New Bolton Center along
with Dr. John Fisher, DVM, a trainer based out of Fair Hill Training Center in Maryland:

http://horsetrainingscience.blogspot.com/2010/08/ideal-2-year-old-training-program.html

I have talked to dozens of trainers over the years, and found just one who follows such a program.

We all are regaled with the many successes of today’s super trainers. Multiple graded stakes winners and winning percentages up near 25% are common, yet we rarely see what happens to the hundreds of horses given to these trainers that never make the headlines.

Blogger Frank at RatherRapid took the time to document some findings that seem to show injury rates well over 50% from these stables:

http://ratherrapid.blogspot.com/2009/01/trainer-summariesa-continuing-post.html

The great irony is: Early race specific exercise and racing is obviously beneficial, but nowadays 2 year olds rarely breeze further than 5F, make 2-3 starts beginning in late Fall, and are then spelled. This ‘management’ dooms them to making fewer starts than the old timers, and running race times equal to those of the 1930’s, despite all the veterinary and technological advances of the past century.

If I had a horse in training, and I wasn’t a billionaire, I’d send him to this guy:

Gary Contessa: “I believe in watching a horse train, and if the horse is doing well, why not run them? Mighty Irish ran 4 times last month and that owner made money with a sub-par horse because of it. But she was good to go, so I ran her, otherwise I could have ran her once a month and lost money.”

Traditional Horsemanship gets Zenyatta beat

Synthetic horses were 0-10 on the dirt at CD until Race 9 when longshot Dakota Phone broke the skid.

Much like Zenyatta, he had a career mostly on synthetic with just 2 dirt starts.

But unlike the great Z, he got a fast work over the dirt surface this week prior to her start. A 3F move on Wednesday, just 3 days prior to his start in the BC Dirt Mile, which is one of my ‘tricks’ to squeezing out a few extra tenths come raceday, best used by Carl Nafzger with Unbrided:
http://horsetrainingscience.blogspot.com/2010/10/nafzgers-secret-with-unbridled.html

Another trick is to break away from that stupid TV-friendly post parade and knock off a few 14 sec furlongs. Dangerous Midge did so in the BC Turf, perhaps by accident, and then came home a big longshot winner:
http://horsetrainingscience.blogspot.com/2010/03/using-exercise-physiology-to-handicap.html

Back to Zenyatta’s heroic effort-

15-20 lengths back at the first turn, Jerry Bailey said it took her several seconds to get used to the track. Why not get her used to the track during a 6F work last week in the morning under the lights?

6F in 1:11 flat put her 10 lengths further back than she had ever been on dirt at OP.

Blame kept in front through the gallop out after the wire, didn’t shy away like females did for the past 2 years when hooked, but then again he ain’t Rinterval.

Commentators act like nothing could be done, she just didn’t like the dirt – well they all ran over the same surface, the difference is that other horses had the experience. She could have had it, but was kept at home instead so as to not interrupt her routine.

This is a game of inches, and you have to do all you can to put those inches in your column. A nice blow out 3 days before is one such edge.

Another edge is familiarizing yourself with a foreign surface, not just one race over dirt in the last 2 years against a field of 6, that isn’t good enough.

I’m not just guessing at this stuff, I collect GPS, heart rate, and blood lactate data on horses during training hours on a variety of surfaces. Through appropriate training on a surface, they can improve by 10% or more. All she needed was another couple of feet and she makes history.

Traditional horsemanship, where you keep your horse psychologically happy instead of physiologically primed, came back to haunt the Sherriffs camp. You simply cannot play that game with the synthetic wrinkle thrown into today’s game. Would you take Goldikova into the BC Classic on dirt after a career on turf, of course not! Not without a prep and a month of training over the surface, that is.

People realize that turf is different from dirt, and would never skip from one to another without much preparation, why treat synthetic differently?

One key principle of exercise physiology is that of Specificity. You get what you train for, in other words. Go back 10 years when all was dirt and this point is moot. But now we have ProRide, Cushion Track, and Polytrack and the rules have changed.

Blame won 3 other big races at CD and had the homecourt advantage, but could still only eek out a victory by a neck. Zenyatta is the better horse in my opinion, but could have been managed a bit better with respect to the surface question.

The streak is over Mr. and Mrs. Moss, give her a break, unretire her again, bring her back in CA next spring, head East for some dirt action against the boys, and win this thing next year by 4 lengths. Please. Then you can have your well deserved Horse of the Year award and go down as one of the best ever, regardless of gender.

Run this race again in a month and Zenyatta finishes on top in her customary style. She earned more respect from me today than she did in those other 19 wins, by far.

Zenyatta works vs the competition

Some hope here-

Looks like Mr. Sheriffs has made some adjustments, as many of her works the past month have been 6F in length, with one 7F thrown in. On synthetic of course.

By contrast, Blame has been on poly at Keeneland and only going the traditional 4 and 5F distances. Likewise for QR and others on dirt.

I assume, that many of them also gallop out another quarter quite aggressively.

From elsewhere in this blog I have criticized her chances based on lack of experience on dirt, but his seemingly minor adjustment may give her some help come raceday.

Synthetics are like a trampoline says Zenyatta's exercise rider

"She’s terrific," added Willard. "She couldn’t be training any better. She loves the dirt. I knew it two years ago, and I knew it going into Hot Springs (for the Apple Blossom at Oaklawn Park). She drives off it. It doesn’t have the trampoline effect like the synthetics."

Better than from the horse's mouth!

By the way, that Apple Blossom in which she was so dominant timed at 1:13 for 6F, while Saturday will be around 1:09 for 6F on a similar surface. So, Z will use much more energy to be close - or be 15-20 lengths further back than usual.

Ragozin, Thorograph, Beyer, all point to a disappointment for the legions of Zenyatta fans this weekend - and her backers believe that she transcends numbers/statistics. Gotta love this sport in that she finally gets to prove which side is right.

Some of you know, I collect physiological data on horses during exercise. Most of my data comes from Churchill and Keeneland, I've never been out West. From these numbers, horses breezing on synthetic experience much smaller lactic acid build up than those on dirt.

Amazingly, it takes 6F on polytrack to even get close to the lactic acid dealt with after just 4F on dirt. So after 6F of the BC, Zenyatta will likely be in uncharted lactic acid territory for her and still have a half mile left to go. Ouch. She is indeed the greatest racemare ever if she can overcome this against such a quality field.

Don't just take my word for it, get out there yourself and feel the differences.

Run 400m on blacktop(CD), again on your local high school rubber track(poly), and again on grass(turf). They will feel markedly different, both during the run and in the days after - and the stopwatch will differ greatly.

Why Zenyatta Loses Big on Saturday

I debated a week before posting this, and decided to go ahead and risk looking like an idiot. First of all, I hope she wins and cements her HOY and status as one of the best ever. But that won’t happen on dirt.

Politics aside, synthetic and dirt are different, not good or bad, just different. Many of her rivals in the Classic have prepped the last few months on the hard surfaces out East, while she has remained in CA racing and training on the synthetic. Now if she was out there breezing a mile I would be happy, but 6F on synthetic is like 4F on dirt in what it takes out of a horse – not enough in my opinion.

Imagine taking batting practice against fastballs for a month, then all of a sudden seeing a curveball. Unless you are supremely talented, you likely need some practice in order to hit the curve as well as the heater. Different neurological coordination is required, different firing and relaxing of the muscles, different eye/hand coordination, etc.

Granted, she went to Oaklawn and won on dirt this spring, but none of those females have won a G1 this year and the Beyer pace figs rated the Apple Blossom as the slowest in 26 years.

Furthermore, she has a one dimensional running style not suited towards a speed favoring track. She has made her living walking out of the gate, laying 10 lengths back, and coming home strong. Essentially she runs a negative split, where her final quarter or half mile is faster than her first. Physiologically, that is the most effective way to maximize her effort – but she will not be allowed that luxury in the Classic, she will have to battle the lactic acid buildup in the final eighth like everyone else – only this will be the first time in her life having to deal with that pain.

Other trainers out West have started to see this perspective, after synthetic babies went something like 0 for 50 in the Kentucky Derby the past few years. Bob Baffert, for instance, took Looking at Lucky to Oaklawn for the dirt in March, and again took him to Hoosier Park last month for his final prep before the Breeders Cup.

Why did Sheriffs not do the same with Big Z? She won’t even get to Churchill until Tuesday, a few light gallops over the track and boom, it’s racetime.

At some point, the Mosses seemed to indicate that Zenyatta would travel East in 2010 and make the rounds on the dirt circuit, but that never happened. Why not, at the very least, bring her to Louisville a month early and get in several works over the surface?

Her handlers seem to think she is 10 lengths better on dirt, but I bet you there are 100+ trainers who think their charges are ready to excel next weekend, and only about 10 of them will be correct.

She is extremely talented of course, and if she can overcome the handicap of spending 99% of her life on a surface different than that at Churchill, she deserves the accolades she will surely receive with a rousing victory.

But, I see her running out of time to make that patented move and finishing out of the money.

Come November 7th I will either be a prophet or a bozo. Put your vote in the comments below, along with any suggestions about something embarrassing I can post as punishment should she win by 5.

Nafzger's Secret with Unbridled

"The Derby is a day away. It's Friday. Time for me to use what I considered a small secret weapon with this particular horse. I had done it with him in nearly every race of his career, but had kept it secret from the press.

A day prior to each of his races, instead of just galloping him for exercise, I would have the rider gallop about a mile and then quicken the pace to do the last half in 52 and change - a light breeze.

I kept that a secret race after race because if he would have thrown in a dull effort, the critics would have said it was because he'd been breezed the day before.

But, Unbridled could do a half in 52 and change and not really be extending himself. Instead of squeezing a drop from the lemon, I was merely adding to the potency of the contents."

-from Traits of a Winner, by Carl A. Nafzger

Very smart fellow, he may not know why it worked, but it did and he kept it quiet to avoid the media onslaught of second guessers.

Now, if you are reading this you likely don't have Unbridled in your barn and a half in 52 the day before a race will be way too much. Try a quarter instead, or 3F 2 days out, etc.

The key is to empty the spleen and fill it with new, oxygen rich blood cells just prior to raceday.

Many, many such 'uncharted' works are taking place out there every day - not too mention routine gallops ending in a few 13sec furlongs. None of this makes the DRF, so don't read the form and think you know everything that goes on behind the scenes to condition a horse.

What can Thoroughbred Trainers Learn from Standardbred Conditioners?

For once in my life, I’ll try to stick to the facts and keep my opinions to myself, at least until a later date.
The fact is that harness racing times have improved markedly over the past 70+ years, while thoroughbred times have lagged well behind.

To keep things simple, I decided to use the winning times in the Kentucky Derby and the Hambletonian – the two feature races for each discipline, please see above table:

Both races feature a landmark effort to break the 2:00 barrier; first accomplished in the Derby by the immortal Secretariat in 1973, with the corresponding harness racing effort coming from Emily’s Pride in 1958 – both carding a 1:59 (for the purposes of this piece, I have rounded off all fractional times downward to the nearest second).

From the above chart, starting in 1930 standardbreds have improved winning Hambo times by 7.9%, while thoroughbreds of the same period have improved Derby winning times by just 1.8%. If you start analyzing the data at the time of the breaking of the magic 2:00 threshold the differences are even more striking – 7.0% for trotters vs. an imperceptible 0.08% for thoroughbreds.

So, we have seen a roughly 500% greater improvement in Hambo winners versus Derby champs. Those of you who have read my work before know of my interest in the training aspect of the game, so let’s take a look at all the variables that may hold some answers to the above discrepancy.

Training and racing frequency

Thoroughbreds these days are lucky to get 6 starts per year on average, yet standardbreds often race weekly – even needing to qualify prior to racing. Thoroughbreds, taking into account a few weeks off from speedwork after a race, may see 12 sec/furlong paces for a half mile every 10-14 days. Standarbreds train in an interval fashion, working miles each week at race pace of 14 sec/furlong.

Use of technology

Thoroughbred trainers are avid users of the stopwatch, and sometimes the scales. Standardbred practicioners have utilized heart rate monitors, lactate analyzers, resistance carts, etc. for long before I entered the picure.

The first standardbred trainer I met was training a thoroughbred here at Churchill Downs, a former $5,000 claimer. After a few interval sessions at 1 mile with the HR/GPS monitor, his horse went on to win his next two route races by a total of 29 lengths – and was eventually claimed away for $50,000. Now with a new trainer and using the same old methods, that horse has done very little since.

A Lexington-based equine rehab center with a modern hyperbaric chamber reports that after harness races at the Red Mile, she gets a line of vans with sound candidates for post race treatment in order to enhance recovery. Despite being closer to Keeneland, thoroughbreds never make the trip unless a horse is injured.

Drugs, namely Lasix and Bute

Lasix became raceday legal back in the 80’s for thoroughbred racing, and starts per career numbers have fallen ever since, while Derby winning times have remained stagnant. The Hambo outlawed raceday Lasix and Bute in the early 90’s, yet times have continued to improve at the same rate.

Pre-race warm up

Nonexistent for most US thoroughbreds, their pre race routine consists mainly of walking in the post parade followed by a gentle trot next to the pony before entering the gate. Standardbreds often warm up a few miles prior to completion, with several furlongs of race-pace efforts.

Other factors

All thoroughbreds start from a standstill, while trotters get a rolling gate, which is much easier physiologically on the Hambo competitors.
Thoroughbreds also travel much faster than the trotters, which can cause more skeletal and soft tissue problems.
In US racing, most thoroughbreds have to start quickly and come home dead tired, while trotters actually often complete final quarters faster than the first ones.
Add these factors together and you can see that thoroughbred racing is probably tougher on the equine athletes, which can explain a higher injury rate – but not a lack of performance improvement.

Parting shot

I have one client, a self made millionaire here in the US, who insists to me that all big time TB trainers have a very good grasp of equine exercise physiology – but the numbers just don’t bear that out.

Somewhere, someday a thoroughbred owner/trainer is going to copy the training methods of the standardbred guys, instead of the thoroughbred elite, and make history. Only then will everyone else copy his practices and we’ll see Derby winning times in the mid 1:50’s on a consistent basis.

Maybe it will be us in 2020?:

http://horsetrainingscience.blogspot.com/2010/09/thoroedge-racing-partnership-only-drug.html