Racing Welfare: The Horse Comes First

[Exploding Chestnuts]

Bonkers2, do you believe the racing industry is perfect and there is no room for improvement at all? I suspect you don't. Would you like it to change for the better? Maybe not, if that means potentially disruptive changes. However, I see "giving racing a hard time" (at least in areas where improvements could be made) as one of the main motivating forces for change. It doesn't mean the people who criticize are necessarily anti racing.

I don't believe the UK racing industry is perfect, no, but it has a high level control, if one wants to put it that way. There are several organisations which run racing, allocate races, decide on race conditions, check stabling, staff, training, security etc etc, so that in general the horses are well looked after, raced and trained on the best facilities. Of course there will be a few debates, a few unneccessary interventions, and in some cases not enough intervention, but the UK is relatively free of drugs, and the horses get a better deal than in the US of A for example, where so many never see beyond a track, from their first race to their last, and where certain drugs are permitted.
I am trying to be realistic, I don't hold such strong views about racing of two year olds as some on here, though it comes under the heading of "it would be nice if horses first ran at three", its not going to happen.
The whole racing industry is geared to breeding the winner of a Classic Race, of which there are few.
There are a number of other major races which are targetted for both prestige and for prize money. Sponsors are found to provide a lot of prize money, though the owners have to pay a significant amount to enter the Classics.
Breeders may hope to find another Saddlers Wells / Northern Dancer, horses which changed the breeding lines for many generations, and reversed the trend of breeding from US stock http://www.ownerbreeder.co.uk/2011/05/tribute-to-sadlers-wells/

Part of the excitement and the preparation for the more important races means finding from the newly broken two year olds those which can run in good races at two and then at three, and then go to stud or to win more races.
If for example the UK decided to ban two year old racing, it would just mean owners would send their horses to France, its as simple as that. They might also send them to countries who already have a shadowy history of horse preparation, and where drug testing may not be possible, so effectively you have given those who wish to cheat, eg by using steroids, a free pass.

It is not illegal to organise racing outside the BHA and the Jockey Club, it happens all over the UK, we know it as flapping, the courses are not as safe as the licenced tracks, it is an amateur sport, the horse are not drug tested, but as the only real money to be made is from betting, there can be a bit of skullduggery. Not everyone does it to make money of course. The horses are often ex racehorses, and they are all in handicaps, so they don't run two year olds, as they would not win due to the fact they are carrying essentially the same weight as a five year old.

 

[fburton]

You make some good and interesting points, Bonkers2, and I appreciate your taking the time to do that.

 

[marmalade76]

Why are horses run at two? I can't believe a two year old could be faster than a three or four year old, is it that way just because that's the way it's always been or is there a particular reason why? Surely if they changed the age for the big money races there wouldn't be a mass exodus to France?

 

[ester]

No but you can start comparing them to their peers at 2 I guess.

 

[Exploding Chestnuts]

Two year olds are raced against their peers, never against three year olds, however there is a big difference between a foal born 15th January and one born15 July, so that early foals will always be favoured particularly when they are racing as two year olds.
The first big meeting of the year will see precocious types winning good races. This year it was Golden Horn [a three year old horse] who won the Derby [only 3 year old horses may enter], after puting on a brilliant show in his first race of 2015, but he had already had some racing experience as a two year old. It merits a whole page on wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Epsom_Derby
The story of how this horse came to win the Derby is fascinating to those who follow racing, involving big money, a top trainer, an owner who was persuaded against his better judgement to supplement [a £75,000 entry fee]. The trainer would not have been confident of winning this classic had he not had the horse in training and been able to run him at two.
The structure of the racing is to some extent set in stone. The classic races have been running for hundreds of years, and they set the best of the best against their peers, the winning horses will usually become stallions, like Frankel, where the moneys involved are huge, the mares he covers are the best of the best in the hope that they will recoup the costs of breeding and the costs of owning.

 

[marmalade76]

Yes, I know they are not raced against three year olds. So it's for experience and to sort the wheat from the chaff and the big money races at three so the colts can be packed off to stud as soon as they become stallions. Not good enough reasons really, 'cause as far as I can tell all these reasons are money related but as you say, unlikely to change 'cause that's just the way it's always been.

 

[Exploding Chestnuts]

Why are horses run at two? I can't believe a two year old could be faster than a three or four year old, is it that way just because that's the way it's always been or is there a particular reason why? Surely if they changed the age for the big money races there wouldn't be a mass exodus to France?

The racing calendar follows a general format year after year, with the bigger races attracting the best quality entries but also the entry fees are bigger, and the race conditions may require certain qualifications, this is to ensure that in most races there is an element of competition, which is what makes it interesting. It is not possible to change the conditions of the Classics, they are set in stone, otherwise we can't compare horses year on year.
Other important races will also have regular sponsors who do not want conditions changed dramatically, so although the GN is not the same "gamble" it was forty years ago, and both the horses and the jockeys now need to qualify, the essence of running four miles over big fences remains.
There are good races for two year olds too, and the whole of the breeding industry, the sales preparation, the sales, the ownership and the race sponsorship revolves around producing two year olds ready to run in their second year.

 

[Exploding Chestnuts]

Yes, I know they are not raced against three year olds. So it's for experience and to sort the wheat from the chaff and the big money races at three so the colts can be packed off to stud as soon as they become stallions. Not good enough reasons really, 'cause as far as I can tell all these reasons are money related but as you say, unlikely to change 'cause that's just the way it's always been.

Not all colts are sent to stud as soon as they have won a few good races, but there is a big financial risk that the horse will be defeated, so his value will plummet, also there are risks inherent in racing which could lead to eg a leg breaking, and this is less likely to happen at stud than if the horse is in training.
Frankel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankel_(horse) was raced after he had already proved himself superior, but we think that was due to the generosity of his owner Prince Khalid Abdulla, with respect to the ill health of the trainer, Sir Henry Cecil. Its not all about money , emotion takes a big hand in it: the whole of the racing community was overjoyed to see Henry Cecil back where he belonged in the winners enclosure after several sad years in the wilderness. The cry went up "Three cheers for Sir Henry" "hip hip hooray" tears were shed when he died and when his widow was able to take up the reins and win some top races with his horses. There is a lot of emotion involved, people put their all in to the game, and not in the hope of making a million, it is their whole life, for better or worse, for richer or poorer.
The moneys involved at the top end are beyond even the most generous lottery winner, far more, and no one can just throw money into the pot year on year.

 

[Alec Swan]

Bonkers2,

a series of excellent posts.

Alec.

 

[Exploding Chestnuts]

Bonkers2,

a series of excellent posts.

Alec.

I think you were the only one with the stamina to read them thru Alec.

 

[imaginegenerous]

Two year olds are raced against their peers, never against three year olds, however there is a big difference between a foal born 15th January and one born15 July, so that early foals will always be favoured particularly when they are racing as two year olds.
The first big meeting of the year will see precocious types winning good races. This year it was Golden Horn [a three year old horse] who won the Derby [only 3 year old horses may enter], after puting on a brilliant show in his first race of 2015, but he had already had some racing experience as a two year old. It merits a whole page on wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Epsom_Derby
The story of how this horse came to win the Derby is fascinating to those who follow racing, involving big money, a top trainer, an owner who was persuaded against his better judgement to supplement [a £75,000 entry fee]. The trainer would not have been confident of winning this classic had he not had the horse in training and been able to run him at two.
The structure of the racing is to some extent set in stone. The classic races have been running for hundreds of years, and they set the best of the best against their peers, the winning horses will usually become stallions, like Frankel, where the moneys involved are huge, the mares he covers are the best of the best in the hope that they will recoup the costs of breeding and the costs of owning.

I think it's worth pointing out that some races are open to horses of 2 years and up (i.e. 2yo can race against older horses). It doesn't happen very often but one example is the Group 1 Nunthorpe Stakes which is a sprint open to 2yo and up. Kingsgate Native won as a 2yo against older horses a few years ago (incidentally he later retired to stud but proved infertile and was put back in training. He won a race earlier this year - I believe he is now 10 years old). The Group 1 Prix de l'Abbey in France, run on Arc day, is also open to 2yo as well as older horses. Superstar Leo finished 2nd as a 2yo in 2000. As a 2yo filly she would have received a weight allowance for both her age and sex. I think it's quite unusual to see 2yo pitched against older horses but it does happen on occasion, presumably the weight allowance can be very beneficial if the younger horse is good enough. I asked a vet several years ago (who had an involvement in treating racehorses) what his opinion on racing 2yos was. He felt that it depends very much on the individual horse and a good trainer will know when to ease up and take their time with those that are more backward. Going back to Kingsgate Native, he's raced 47 with races in every season since his 2yo year so he certainly seems to have thrived on racing. Interestingly, he still belongs to Chevely Park Stud who purchased him as a stallion prospect. Nice to see that they kept him despite his fertility issues.

Going back to an earlier point raised about unraced fillies/those with poor race records being bred from, there will certainly be plenty going to the paddocks. At least two of the last Epsom Derby winners in the last 15 years have been bred from unraced mares. If they have a decent pedigree (sometimes if they don't) there's a good chance they'll be bred from, rightly or wrongly.

 

[Exploding Chestnuts]

I think it's worth pointing out that some races are open to horses of 2 years and up (i.e. 2yo can race against older horses). It doesn't happen very often but one example is the Group 1 Nunthorpe Stakes which is a sprint open to 2yo and up. Kingsgate Native won as a 2yo against older horses a few years ago (incidentally he later retired to stud but proved infertile and was put back in training. He won a race earlier this year - I believe he is now 10 years old). The Group 1 Prix de l'Abbey in France, run on Arc day, is also open to 2yo as well as older horses. Superstar Leo finished 2nd as a 2yo in 2000. As a 2yo filly she would have received a weight allowance for both her age and sex. I think it's quite unusual to see 2yo pitched against older horses but it does happen on occasion, presumably the weight allowance can be very beneficial if the younger horse is good enough. I asked a vet several years ago (who had an involvement in treating racehorses) what his opinion on racing 2yos was. He felt that it depends very much on the individual horse and a good trainer will know when to ease up and take their time with those that are more backward. Going back to Kingsgate Native, he's raced 47 with races in every season since his 2yo year so he certainly seems to have thrived on racing. Interestingly, he still belongs to Chevely Park Stud who purchased him as a stallion prospect. Nice to see that they kept him despite his fertility issues.

Going back to an earlier point raised about unraced fillies/those with poor race records being bred from, there will certainly be plenty going to the paddocks. At least two of the last Epsom Derby winners in the last 15 years have been bred from unraced mares. If they have a decent pedigree (sometimes if they don't) there's a good chance they'll be bred from, rightly or wrongly.

Yes, of course there are various reasons why some mares are unraced yet are sent to stud, but when buying a brood mare nearly everyone will buy one which has run in, and run well in a decent race, this is because some trainers will not buy horses whose dams have not won. The better mares have black type ie have won or placed in the top echelons, and black type mares are the sort most breeders will buy over the run of the mill mare. Trainers will run fillies in Listed races to get black type as this enhances their value considerably.

 

[Alec Swan]

I think you were the only one with the stamina to read them thru Alec.

Not at all, it's to do with learning! Most of us on this thread have an interest in racing, but do we really understand the ethos and the protocol attached to the 'system' which is in place? I certainly don't!

Interesting thoughts from others too, whether they're in agreement, or not.

Alec.

 

[tristar]

lammtarra won the Epsom derby on his first race of his 3yr old season, and only ran once as a two year old, and to me he looked just like a novice pony down at the start, just shows they can come out at three and clean up .

breeding from mares who are not raced is a none subject as no one knows what they would have done if they had raced.

if I was buying a race brood mare for me it would be 50 50 the horse itself and its pedigree, if it hadn't raced and I liked it I`d still buy it, if it had won it would be the cream on the cake, but still would not mean she would produce class racehorses, as has been shown many times, perhaps there is a link between early racing as two year olds and failure as a brood mare.

 

[Exploding Chestnuts]

Quite an interesting page on Wikipedia on Lamtarra, who was not a sire of any particular note, with his stud fee plunging down to £2500 nfnf but nevertheless his bloodlines were of interest to many breeders. He was retired at his original owners stud.
I don't think there is a link between racing as a two year old and success as a broodmare, but to me a good mare should be a good size, sound, good feet and a no conformational defects, but good solid breeding lines are essential in a mare.
When buyers go through a catalogue they have to select those to see from the breeding, and from those who they can afford.

 

[Exploding Chestnuts]

An article in the Racing Post highlights concerns about prizemoney at the grassroots ........... where SIXTY per cent of horses who ran in 2014 failed to recover a single month's training fees from prize-money.
http://www.racingpost.com/news/live.sd

 

[Optimissteeq]

An article in the Racing Post highlights concerns about prizemoney at the grassroots ........... where SIXTY per cent of horses who ran in 2014 failed to recover a single month's training fees from prize-money.
http://www.racingpost.com/news/live.sd

Good article Bonkers - although no surprise to me. I was at the races yesterday chatting to some owners who were saying it is now getting too expensive to keep going (at grassroots level). I have seen a decline in the past couple of years in the number of owners keeping horses in training. I do wonder if the sport is becoming more 'elitist' as the costs will price the grassroots owner out of the market.
This raises a lot more questions than answers but it does highlight that many (grassroots) owners are not in it to make money as a primary objective.
On your point re brood mares - I did smile a little at the last sentence as I can rarely get the one I want re breeding for the price I can afford. I've somewhat given up on that score and will no longer breed. I know when I'm beaten!

 

[tristar]

i don`t see how size is a factor in a brood mare, either a racing mare or sport horse.

solid feet: while normally considered essential, the mare Bosra Sham had dodgy feet yet performed brilliantly on the racecourse, just thinking about Bosra Sham and Lammtarra gives me goose bumps, i would have loved to have owned them.

 

[Exploding Chestnuts]

I had a barn of mares which were going to Poland to set up a big stud, they were all the same stamp, a good frame and good legs, they had been selected by a top bloodstock agent, so I assumed he knew what to buy. Quite a few of the older mares which came back for covering showed wear and tear in their fetlocks, so from this I would want good feet and strong legs.
In racing, and in showing a good big un beats a good little un, they can cover more ground than smaller one, I don't mean oversize, just not undersized. As jockey weights are creeping up we probably need to have bigger bloodstock. Of course there are exceptions, Lady Rebecca was tiny, but she was sold for 400gns at one stage, and no one wants to sell a filly for that sort of money.

 

[tristar]

Northern Dancer was 15.2hh,
Hyperion was small `good things come in small packages`

a big horse may stride longer, but racing is all about speed not size.

 

[dominobrown]

Northern Dancer was 15.2hh,
Hyperion was small `good things come in small packages`

a big horse may stride longer, but racing is all about speed not size.

I work for TB breeder and in bloodstock now. When looking to buy he (and the people who come to look at the horses from DBS etc) always like the big ones, and I think if you looked there would be a correlation between a horses height and the price it make in the ring.
However you are right, when asked what is the best broodmare, it would be the small 15.1hh dark bay mare who was by far the best racehorse out of all the mares!!
I have my own theories about raced/ unraced broodmares. You would be surprised how many of them have been in training...

 

[tristar]

its common knowledge about a lot of buyers looking at the bigger ones, are they really more impressive? but maturity may be on their minds, confusing size with development, I don`t know! I`m not saying that, genuine talent for picking a horse, especially a yearling, is a gift, how many people truly have that gift?

I`ve open pondered about the unknown life of unraced mares and them being tried yet not racing, and also pondered about if some of them were raced at three or four for the first time, instead of two how they would have worked out by having the advantage of more time to grow up before racing.

when you say they like to look at the big ones it makes it sound like they buying by the pound!

in other spheres of the horse world there is active prejudice towards small horses, at risk of being executed, my opinion is it`s a cover for lack of being able to truly evaluate conformation and potential

 

[dominobrown]

Completely agree tristar, often the bigger horses have worse conformation and therefore don't stay sound, meanwhile the smaller ones are actually quite well put together and therefore sounder and have a better career, certainly in the case I mentioned above.

It is a breeders trick to get a well bred mare, send into training, and if she is useless/ not showing any inclination to brilliance, not risk racing her, as a bad record is worse than no record, not always the case... but common!
We have a couple of 2 year old fillies that I broke and have been sent back to summer with me as they are not going to make 2 year old racehorses, there is no point running them if they physically and mentally not ready for it. One in particular that has come back- her dam had all her best form over the age of 4, and she is a tall leggy type that needs to time to fill out, also she has one hell of an attitude! It does help that they go to an honest trainer who will do what's best for the horse and not just keep it for the training fees when as a 2 year old said horse is better out in a field (terrorising everyone else!)

 

[Clodagh]

Bosra Sham should never have been bred from, she raced so lightly as her hooves bled after running. She was incredible, my Dad's horse used to lead in the winners of the Guineas races and we always went to watch him, what a mare she was, but a cripple.

 

[tristar]

domino, its great to hear horses having time to come into themselves more before racing, I love the sound of `the leggy one with attitude.`



Clodagh, wish I could have been there too.

 

[Optimissteeq]

Perhaps I'm in a minority, but I don't class 15.2 as small - not for flat anyway. Jump horses do tend to be bigger. I've known 3 horses that were 'small' and they stood at around 14.2 to 14.3, that is small in my view and as they went up the handicap, they struggled to carry the weight.
A friend of mine that breeds horses had a lovely little mare that he decided not to breed from because she was so little and barely made 14.3 with shoes on.
There will always be exceptions of course, but they are generally just that.

Not meaning to argue by the way - just musing at the various opinions on small

 

[dominobrown]

We breed mainly National hunt horses, but do have 3 or 4 flat broodmares. Some of NH horses are over 17hh, one standing near 17.2hh so next to those 15.2hh is tiny!

We have one broodmare that is very small- was going to be a racing pony but is very well bred so became a broodmare- never produced a decent horse though...

 

[Alec Swan]

I'm reliably informed by a breeder friend, that there were only 630 NH bred foals which were registered with Weatherbys, in 2014. I wonder what that tells us.

Alec.

 

[Optimissteeq]

We breed mainly National hunt horses, but do have 3 or 4 flat broodmares. Some of NH horses are over 17hh, one standing near 17.2hh so next to those 15.2hh is tiny!

We have one broodmare that is very small- was going to be a racing pony but is very well bred so became a broodmare- never produced a decent horse though...

ah yes, can see how 15.2 would look tiny to a typical NH horse. I actually prefer NH to flat but seem to have somehow wandered off track a little into the flat world. Must find my way back...

 

[Alec Swan]

It would also be my view, though I accept that it deviates from the theme of this thread, that for blood to be maintained as an influence upon Event Horse Breeding, so it should be the reliable NH producing Stallions which should be given greater consideration. The 'stayers' and those that can jump are what we need, I suspect.

Alec.