# The racing industry - Opinions?



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

I have wanted to post a thread about the racing industry for some time to see what everyone thinks about the issue, after reading some of the arguments in the slaughter debate, I think this is an issue that deserves more attention than it gets, I am interested to hear any and all opinions.

Personally I think there are far too many horses produced each year which results in many ending up at slaughter houses, or worse, dying of neglect and/or starvation. People get very heated when the issue of slaughter arises but I feel that we are all pointing fingers in the wrong direction. The slaughter houses themselves are not to blame; they are merely a symptom of a much greater underlying issue: There are too many horses and not enough people and resources to adequately care for them.

Sure, Backyard Breeders are somewhat responsible and that is also an issue that also needs to be addressed. However, surely one of the main culprits is the racing industry, why is it that so many racehorses are allowed to be bred each year when so few actually go on to become winners themselves? Here are some interesting facts, the charts are taken from the Jockey Club website and reflect the number of thoroughbreds born each year, and the number that have at least one start as a two year old. There was a slight reduction in foals born in 2010 due to the economic recession however the figures are still staggering.
















Do the math: In 2007 almost 35,000 foals were born and in 2009 less than 5,000 made it to the track. That is less than 15% strike rate. And they aren’t even horses that necessarily won anything, just the ones that had at least one race. 

So why are so many bred? What is the _true_ value of nature versus nurture? Here is a hypothetical situation: Horse does wonderfully at the track for his entire racing career, wins millions. Stands at stud for a handsome stud fee. Who has the money to pay for the pricey progeny? People with money and (hopefully) knowledge. Where do they send the horse? The best trainer they can find. Best barn, best jockeys, best of everything. If the expensive progeny then goes on to have a successful racing career, is it because of their impeccable breeding or their excellent training and handling? Who’s to say? Regardless, the top sires in the world will continue to cover as many as 200 mares a season with the expectation that the progeny will be just as successful. Then there are all the _other_ sires who’s grandsire’s half brother’s cousin’s sire ran second in the Kentucky Derby in 1968. People can read all sorts of promising information from the most non-sparkling of pedigrees.

Here is an interesting article by two evolutionary biologists from the University of Edinburgh published in 2007:
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Racehorse winning secret revealed
Synopsis: They studied the stud fees, winnings and earnings of more than 4,000 racehorses dating back to 1922 and analyzed the success of their progeny. They found that offspring of expensive racehorses tended to win more over their lifetime however they found that “by far the biggest factor was the horse's environment - the way they were trained, the choice of races entered and which jockeys were employed” They concluded that only 10% of a horses lifetime winnings can be attributed to their bloodlines.

Now don’t get me wrong here, the racing industry is good for one thing – giving me a never ending supply of OTTB’s, my favorite type of horse in the world. If only I could take on all of them!

So, are we breeding too many racehorses? If so what is the solution? Breeding standards for sires? To be controlled by who? The Jockey Club? Or is the racing industry is just fine the way it is?


----------



## lacyloo (Jul 1, 2008)

Defiantly subscribing to this post.. Curious to see everyones opinions


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

You have to look at the bigger picture though. In Australia, for instance, the racing industry is the second biggest employer in the country. Take that away, or reduce it, and thousands of people are going to suffer. 

Obviously, it isn't as heated a debate here in Australia - not nearly as many horses end up in pet food.


----------



## Spastic_Dove (Oct 4, 2007)

I think the racing industrys biggest downfall is the fact that it is a business so for many that means the horses are disposable and they need to be raced early in order to find out if they're worth even putting the money into. I think that if horses were raced later, as well as bred for confirmation, not just speed, there would be less breakdowns which would be a big help. As far as breeding less race horses, I'm not sure how to make that happen as the chances of having a winner are so low that youre bound to have far more poor racers than good. 

So basically I think it is flawed, but not evil, cruel, etc. The race horses I've worked with personally have been some of the best treated horses I've seen -- They have to be in order to stand any chance of winning


----------



## AlexS (Aug 9, 2010)

This is so interesting and something I struggle with myself. Thank you for bringing it up and making me think more about it. And sorry in advance for my ramblings...

My dad, or more accurately, I, owned about 35+ TB race horses when I was a kid. My dad was the owner but he put the horses in mine and my sisters names when he realized after the first winning race that kids were not allowed in the winners enclosure (in England, at the time) but owners could not be refused. So my sis and I 'owned' about 35 race horses that I can remember, I am sure that there were more, but my dad now seems to not remember either, while I am sure he still does know. 

So I grew up at the track with a fanatical dad and spent all of my weekends there. In my teenage years I grew to hate it, but still loved a different aspect of horses, as I saw horses die right there at the track, in fact one of ours did. It is ironic that I would still do cross country, (eventing) where horses also die in our idea of a sport. Which is why it is interesting to me as I cannot quite make a balance in my head. 

My dad does not own horses any more, I suspect because he lost too much over the years, but he does still gamble and he is adamant that it is about the breeding. But yet, my mutt of a pony that I had as a kid won everything I asked of her in jumping, but in my dads mind this made sense as she 'had heart'.

Since I have been an adult and buying my own OTTB, the one I currently have shows the most potential, he was bred about above average, but he sucked on the track and only won $35k. which is not much. 

So I suppose what I am thinking as I am typing is that it is not a known thing to breed a horse with heart, all they can do is go with the best options available to them, which is breeding from form. 

As far as horse slaughter goes from the race industry, it is a business, so why spend 3 months or more trying to give a way a lame horse for free when they could get $50 for that horse. To them horses are like cattle to us. And if you could get $2k for a horse you will hold out for a few months and eat the board costs, but if it is not selling there is a math equation that takes place. 

So to me, I don't know what is ethical, if we ban slaughter and only allow dying naturally or euthanasia, then there will be horses who starve as people are not willing to spend the $$$, so what do we do, it is a bigger issue than a blanket statement. I don't like slaughter but I am beginning to think it is better than a horse going hungry for 6 months and then dying from neglect.


----------



## maura (Nov 21, 2009)

Great thread and great topic. 

I have a love/hate relationship with the industry.

sarahvr, great initial post and analysis, but I have one quibble:


> to cover as many as 200


 That coverage rate is not possible in American TBs because of the JC requirement that they be bread live cover AND the pressure to get all the mares in foal by March 1. 50 - 60 is more realistic, and that assumes that the stallion stands at a very well run establishment. 40 - 50 is pretty much the norm for a good stallion at a good stud. If the mare is still open in April, most owners will opt to leave her open for the rest of the year and try again in January, rather than have a late foal. 

However, my quibble doesn't affect your conclusion that 1.) we breed way too many TBs considering the demand, and a shockingly low percentage make it to the track. Yes, there is a "disposable" mentality; and a even more damaging mentality of "Oh, she couldn't break her maiden at the track? Well, she's got _____ in her pedigree, she can always be a broodmare." I can't tell you how many times I heard that or something similiar. Every time there's a cheap horse that makes good at the track (FunnyCide, for example) the amount of trash bred by folks hoping to hit the equine lottery goes up. 

Spastic Dove, I like your post as well. 

The simplest, cleanest way to improve the TB industry in my opinion would be to gradually move to eliminate 2 year old racing. Push the first race for 2 year olds back one month per year until the first race for 2 years olds is in September. This is for two reasons: most of the legitmate criticism of TB racing comes from young horses doing too much too soon and breaking down as a result. Not allowing a horse to race until it's 30 - 36 months old will also put some downward pressure on the trash breeding. By extending the time it takes to reap a return on a breeding or foal, you'll push a percentage of breeders out of the business. Yes, it will be a financial hardship on some and the industry will contract (I think it needs to), but the folks who will be pushed out by the slower return will mostly be the trash breeders or folks doing it on a shoestring. 

The second change I would like to make involves education. There are still a surprising, scary number of TB horsepeople who continue to use techniques like pin firing or blistering for no reason other than superstition and ignorance. For every intelligent, thoughtful, careful trainer out there; there's at least two yahoos. 

End rant. 

Thanks for posting this topic.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

Chiilaa - It is also a huge industry and employer of people here in the States and I don't advocate taking jobs from anyone. However the current situation in the jobs market here (and in Australia) has been caused by far greater economic forces than the expansion/contraction of a single industry and will not be solved by 'maintaining' current jobs - new jobs must be created but that is a thread for another topic and probably some other forum :wink:

Spastic Dove - Please don't misunderstand, I am not trying to paint the racing industry as cruel or evil, just that it may be a little flawed in its logic.

AlexS - Thanks for an insightful post

Maura - Thanks for the correction, I must admit I was looking at Aussie sires when I did my fact finding as they are the ones I really know best. Great post by the way, interesting idea too.


----------



## ShutUpJoe (Nov 10, 2009)

I don't think it'd be as bad if they bred for sturdier horses, instead of lighter ones, that would have more of a chance of being usable if they didn't make it to the track or were retired from it. I forgot where I heard this at but I think it's true and it's one of the reasons I'm sort of nervous about ever owning a thoroughbred as "they are 1000 pound animals with toothpick legs running 40 mph down a dirt track" (or something like that). Most of the horses awaiting homes in rescues have some kind of soundness issue because they are bred light and they were raced early. 

Zenyatta didn't start racing until she was three and look what she accomplished.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

^^Aha, you bring up another point that I want to address, related to what Maura suggested also - starting them later and being more selective with the horses that make the cut. Case in point: The Hong Kong racing industry. Basically many are started as 3 year olds but they are run longer (i.e. it is not unusual to see a horse still racing when it is 8-10yo) thereby getting more use out of each horse. I believe it is now law that the owners of the racehorse are responsible for rehoming them also. Of course a more isolated industry such as Hong Kong needs to be far more careful with the number of horses produced/used but it is and interesting model for other racing industries.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

Anyone else like to add suggestions and/or opinions?


----------



## Shimla101 (Nov 7, 2010)

I can't speak for America or Europe, or Australia.
But here in South Africa, it's definitely a case of breeding quantity over quality.
Which, I believe, has led to the generally 'weaker' specimin.
Here, we're not allowed to race on Lasix like you can in the States(as far as I know).
Inbreeding has always been my pet hate. I don't get how it can be allowed in animals, when it's considered taboo among people. It produces the same result, a weak animal.
Since the downturn in the economy, many people are not breeding like they were. I know of some of the larger stud farms simply culling broodmares that weren't up to a certain par in terms of proven ability and proven offspring. Which, in my opinion isn't a bad thing. Certainly kinder for them in the long run.

My biggest pet soapbox though is the shortsightedness of breeders. Not today, but the one's who took Northern Dancer, bred him to every mare under the sun and used his colts as Studs. *shakes head*. It might have been a good idea at the time, but no thought was given to what was going to happen 20 - 30 years later when the market was flooded with ND bloodlines.
I think TB breeders could take a leaf out of the Warmblood breeders book and introduce selected breeds. To bring new blood into the market, and generally create a stronger specimin.

WHICH, is all completely way off topic, I know.
It's early and I haven't had enough coffee yet.




> The simplest, cleanest way to improve the TB industry in my opinion would be to gradually move to eliminate 2 year old racing. Push the first race for 2 year olds back one month per year until the first race for 2 years olds is in September. This is for two reasons: most of the legitmate criticism of TB racing comes from young horses doing too much too soon and breaking down as a result. Not allowing a horse to race until it's 30 - 36 months old will also put some downward pressure on the trash breeding. By extending the time it takes to reap a return on a breeding or foal, you'll push a percentage of breeders out of the business. Yes, it will be a financial hardship on some and the industry will contract (I think it needs to), but the folks who will be pushed out by the slower return will mostly be the trash breeders or folks doing it on a shoestring.


^^^ Agreed!


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

Agreed on the inbreeding problem Shimla and Northern Dancer is one of the worst cases.

As far as it being a business and horses being disposable - I can understand that on some level.

However, it just doesn't make economic sense, given the statistics. So 15% of horses started as racehorses make it to the track as two year olds, that means that 85% didn't - what was the cost of training those other 85%?

An estimate from Proven Thoroughbreds puts the _average_ cost of training a racehorse for on year in the United States as $25,000. So, if a trainer has 10 horses, most likely 7 will not make it to the track, that is up to $175,000 lost. And the other three aren't necessarily winners either. Now obviously backyard trainers and owner/trainers will pay substantially less than this estimate, however the big name trainers command significantly more, hence $25,000 is only an _average_. Sure, some of this cost is recouped when the horse is sold after it has left the track, but really the money obtained from post track sales is like tears in a river.

So my point is this: Why breed so many substandard horses, send them to substandard trainers and lose all this money? Sure, it riles me because I am a horse lover but the business rationale is non existent. It amounts to buying a lottery ticket and being sure that you will win. Except the only thing you have to worry about when you throw away the lottery ticket is whether you remembered to put it in the recycling bin or not.

*Steps off soapbox*


----------



## NittanyEquestrian (Mar 3, 2009)

I too am a TB lover and I also have a love/hate relationship with the industry. My mare was started once as a 3 yr old, failed miserably, went home to grow up and was started twice at 4, once at 5 and again at 6 before her owner/breeder/trainer gave up on racing her. She's got the bloodlines, she's got fantastic conformation and never had an injury throughout her training and racing. She just has no desire to run that fast and HATES to get dirt thrown at her so she preferred to lope along behind the field clear of the jostling and debris from the other racers =P. 

She has since gone on to be spectacular in the H/J rings and is learning to event and do dressage. I got her off the track at 6 and she is turning 10 in 2011. 

That being said I've seen a LOT of poorly bred, badly conformed racehorses sink a lot of money down the drain before the owner/trainer finally decides to stop racing it. I think that there should be more control over those allowed to stand studs. There are just as many backyard TB studs as there are QH and grade studs. Just because it is papered doesn't mean it isn't a backyard breeding operation. If there were laws and fines in place, and/or a more stringent registration process (along the lines of some of the warmblood registries) where the young stock needs to be inspected and/or prove their worth before being admitted to the full stud book then I think there would be a push for higher quality breedings. I also think that AI would be a GOOD thing for the Jockey Club to work into their breeding program but they should limit the number of mares a particular stud can cover. Most breeders are limited by the live cover rule to only breed to studs in their area and sometimes the quality is not as good. If that same breeder was given the option to breed to Joe Schmoe's ND great-great-grandson next door or the current Breeder's Cup winner from the other side of the continent for comparatively the same amount of money then I believe they would take that opportunity and run with it. 

There will always be horses that don't make it on the track. Due to injury, lack of proper training, unforeseen circumstances or just simply that they don't have the "heart" to race. But if we continue to improve the breed and breed for quality and look to more outcrosses in bloodlines then those castoffs of the TB racing industry will have a brighter future because they will be higher quality, better made sport horse prospects and there will hopefully be less of them.


----------



## maura (Nov 21, 2009)

sara, there's a false assumption in your figures there. You're assuming that the 85% that don't make it to the track all undergo a year of racetraing before the decision is made to pull the plug, and that's simply not true. 

I would guess that only 60 - 75% of the TBs bred in the US even start race training, and many wash out in a couple of months. (Once again, my quibble with the figures doesn't undermine your underlying premise and statement of the problem - too many horses bred with too low a success rate.) One of my frustrations when working in the business was how many should have been washed out sooner - yearlings or two year olds that clearly weren't going to make it at the track that either the trainer wanted to keep collecting fees on or the owner was completely unrealistic about the horse's future.

In my area of Virginia, there are lots of TB studs standing that are bred to produce hunters, sporthorses and pleasure horses. They may be bred to TB mares and registered with the JC, but were never intended to be put in race training. 

One of the fabulous and ethical TB breeders and trainers that I knew (now retired) was disturbed by these numbers, and her approach was to break and train her babies with an eye towards their career after the track. They were started the way you'd start a sport horse or any other baby. If they clearly weren't going to make it at the track, or went to the track and came home, she would let them down and start the reclaim process herself so they could be sold as sport or pleasure horse prospects and she prided herself on rehoming and finding second careers for her horses. 

She was a fabulous source for young, inexpensive, correctly started horses. Attitudes like hers would go a long way towards changing the disposable mentality. However, she was successful in this regard because 1.) she didn't breed trash to begin with and 2.) she was realistic about horse's actual prospects. Those qualities are exceedingly rare.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

NittanyEquestrian said:


> She just has no desire to run that fast and HATES to get dirt thrown at her so she preferred to lope along behind the field clear of the jostling and debris from the other racers =P.


 
These are the types of OTTB's you want!!! Wish there were more of them around!



maura said:


> One of the fabulous and ethical TB breeders and trainers that I knew (now retired) was disturbed by these numbers, and her approach was to break and train her babies with an eye towards their career after the track. They were started the way you'd start a sport horse or any other baby. If they clearly weren't going to make it at the track, or went to the track and came home, she would let them down and start the reclaim process herself so they could be sold as sport or pleasure horse prospects and she prided herself on rehoming and finding second careers for her horses.
> 
> She was a fabulous source for young, inexpensive, correctly started horses. Attitudes like hers would go a long way towards changing the disposable mentality. However, she was successful in this regard because 1.) she didn't breed trash to begin with and 2.) she was realistic about horse's actual prospects. Those qualities are exceedingly rare.


I wish wish WISH there were more trainers like this around. I also wish that I could have bought an OTTB from her!

BTW - I had some real difficulty finding good figures on the internet to illustrate the point I was trying to make. It is true, the estimate of $25,000 for a two year old is probably excessive. But on the other side of the fence there are horses that are raced until they are five with very few, if any wins. Regardless, someone needs to be the voice of reason (that is you Maura) otherwise I would most likely get all wound up and carried away in which case the legitimacy of the argument would be lost in my rantings


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

Just to add, after working in the racing industry in both Australia and here in the States, the situation seems to be quite similar between the two countries. The only difference is that horses are slaughtered for pet food (used locally) and human consumption (sent off to Europe) in Australia, so the overload of thoroughbreds isn't as apparent.


----------



## maura (Nov 21, 2009)

Sara, first of all, my quibbles about numbers really don't detract from your core argument, which I agree with whole heartedly. 

And the figure of $25,000. is not unreasonable in the sense that training board for a TB on the farm, not the track, was $1000. month, or $30./day, back in the day when I was involved. So if I broke a long yearling in September, galloped him all winter, shipped him to the track in March or April, (training board at the track was $50./day, back in the day) got him his gate card and got him him first race in May or June, yeah, I think I'd have 25K in his training by the time he got to his first race. 

My quibble with numbers was that out of the whole foal crop, it's not a clean 15% are raced, 85% fail at the track. It's more like out of the whole foal crop, 75% may *start* race training, and there's a gradual attrition out of race training because of soundness, temperment and slowness issues until youi get to that 15 - 20% that get a gate card and race. So you can't say you have $25 grand invested in each and every one that doesn't make to the track.

The attrition would be much less gradual if owners and trainers were more realistic about horse's prospects. I galloped a lot of horses that I absolutely *knew* wouldn't make it at the track. Owners are starred eyed dreamers, and trainers have a huge financial incentive to keep collecting the per diem fees. 

Still doesn't change the fact that 1.) way too many are bred 2.) way too many aren't successful at their intended careers and that as a horseperson, there's something deeply disturbing about breeding 20 and getting one good one and tossing away the rest. 

I am also of the opinion that the way we condition race horses is crazy; and driven entirely by competitive financing, and that a lot of race related injury could avoided by changing training methods.


----------



## Shimla101 (Nov 7, 2010)

I have to say, I worked with probably one of the better trainers. Better, in that she actually cared about her horses and her owners were in the sport because they love it and they love horses and they have the extra cash to spend. They're not in it to make money.

I agree that training methods need to change, but I firmly believe that the heart of the issue is the lack of thought that goes into the breeding. In recent years there's been a large influx of South American bred TB's brought into the country who've raced quite successfully, and hopefully that's going to help improve the gene-pool somewhat.

All that said, I hate to say, but in my experience it's always the really good horses who injure themselves, or are prone to bleeding, or have some other problem.
We have a very good little horse here called Pocket Power, who I know for a fact has soundness issues (he's got the most appalling feet you've ever seen!)


----------



## WildJessie (Oct 15, 2010)

I am not completely in the know of the horse racing industry. But there are indeed the good the bad and the ugly in it. Some improvements do need to be made in the industry such as:Starting the horse later like at the age of 3 or 4(so they have matured and are full grown.) Zenyatta is a perfect example on how that can work. Race horses should be bred not only fro speed, but also for structure, temperament,and to be an overall good sound animal. There are other things to help improve the industry as well, but I can't think of them at the moment.

I want to become part of the horse racing industry, and will be one of the good guys, because I care for the horses.

I hate the race horse people who breed for $$ and don't care nothing of the animals. Those people should not be apart of racing at all, let alone part of the horse world.


----------



## PaintHorseMares (Apr 19, 2008)

maura said:


> The simplest, cleanest way to improve the TB industry in my opinion would be to gradually move to eliminate 2 year old racing. Push the first race for 2 year olds back one month per year until the first race for 2 years olds is in September. This is for two reasons: most of the legitmate criticism of TB racing comes from young horses doing too much too soon and breaking down as a result. Not allowing a horse to race until it's 30 - 36 months old will also put some downward pressure on the trash breeding. By extending the time it takes to reap a return on a breeding or foal, you'll push a percentage of breeders out of the business. Yes, it will be a financial hardship on some and the industry will contract (I think it needs to), but the folks who will be pushed out by the slower return will mostly be the trash breeders or folks doing it on a shoestring.


I'm not a big racing fan mainly because of racing 2 year olds, and I also think this would be a great step in cleaning up the racing/breeding business.


----------



## Shimla101 (Nov 7, 2010)

WildJessie said:


> Zenyatta is a perfect example on how that can work.


 
The thing is though, horse's like Zenyatta are few and far between. You know how it's been mentioned how 1 in every 20 horses bred will race? Well, of those 1's....probably 1 in every 1000 is a Zenyatta, regardless of what age they're raced from.
I've known horses here to race as 2 year olds, get 2 or 3 group 1 wins under their belt before they hit 3, only to continue til they're about 4 or 5. 
I'm not advocating the racing of two year old horses. But while I believe they're too young, we also have to remember that this is the sport for which they were created. That while the *majority* of juvenile TB's can't cope with the workload and the stress, you do get the odd few who DO.
I think if Trainers were less under pressure from their owners, then you'd find that the balance of horses in training would be raced when they were READY, irrespective of what age the horse is.
TB's are genetically designed to mature a lot earlier than other breeds. I've put two year old TB's next to Warmbloods and Arabs of the same age, and there's just no comparason. In terms of mental and physical strength.

Of course, that's my own personal observation and belief.
I still stand by the fact that there NEEDS to be more control. A bit like how the - just for example - Warmblood breeders do it: Mares and Stallions are approved for breeding. As a rule, you can't just send any old mare to *that* particular stallion simply because he's very good and you think you're going to make a quick buck.
That's not to say that people don't. But there is a lot more quality control.

Centuries of refinement have gone into creating the most perfect specimin of athleticism. It's just unfortunate that human greed has to play such a huge role in the whole thing. (But isn't that always the way!?)


----------



## CessBee (Dec 6, 2008)

Havnt read all the posts, but ill put my two cents in.

Its not cheap to produce a horse to race so those invovled want to get the horse out there and winning asap to try and get some of their money back, so if a horse doesnt show the talent out it goes. They ace them at 2 because its less time and money spent to get them out there.

With the breeding part, the main aspect of the TB racehorse is speed, not conformation, not temperment, not good feet, not soundness, SPEED.
Albiet that most of those factors can contribute to speed, but what is wanted by the breeders, owners and trainers is ultimatly the fastest horse out there. So when breeding they breed the fastest sire, or dam multiple times to get another one that is hopefully as fast or faster. Im sure there is a timeline somewhere showing how the average top speed of TB racehorses has increased phenominally (sp).

It is sad that the industry is ultimatly based around speed, but its the way of racing. You dont win by being slow.


----------



## VelvetsAB (Aug 11, 2010)

_While I agree that there are too many horses that dont make it to the track.....not every "backyard breeder" of TBs/SBs breeds crap horses. Just because they dont have big names in their lineage doesnt mean that there wasnt good stock. _

_I dont think 2 year old racing will go away, because some people count on the money of their horses racing for their livelihood. What is the point of having a race horse that doesnt earn you money? It isnt neccesarily greed that they are having the horses run, but out of neccessity to them. If you only have a small string of horses, you need all of them to be racing and doing well, so you arent going to over do it. BUT....if it was narrowed down to select races or a 2 year old only being allowed to qualify after the first half of the year with only so many starts allowed on their card, it would help clean it up._


----------



## ponyboy (Jul 24, 2008)

Some people have talked about the throw away mentality in racing. I think the real problem is the gambler mentality. Gamblers focus so much on the times they win they don't realize that they're losing in the long run. They keep throwing money (or in this case horses) away because they have unrealistic expectations of winning again. I think a lot of people in racing have this mentality because as people have said their breeding choices aren't very strategic. They basically roll the dice and see what they get. 

Unfortunately I think legislation is the only answer and that's not ever likely to happen.


----------



## NittanyEquestrian (Mar 3, 2009)

Just to add my $0.02 again =P



VelvetsAB said:


> _While I agree that there are too many horses that dont make it to the track.....not every "backyard breeder" of TBs/SBs breeds crap horses. Just because they dont have big names in their lineage doesnt mean that there wasnt good stock. _
> 
> *I totally agree but there is a HUGE difference between a small time, well managed breeding farm and a backyard breeder and most knowledgeable horse people can easily tell that difference. And I also agree that there does not need to be big name "current" bloodlines in a horse to make a good racehorse. However most small scale breeders breed to sell at the weanling and yearling futurity sales and don't maintain their babies through to their first race so they breed to "fad stallions" so that the general public buys them up for big bucks at the auctions as prospects and if the general buyer doesn't recognize a name in their pedigree they will most likely not bid on them or as high. Hence why some of the late greats were bought for pennies as a yearling and later went on to be amazing even though they didn't have "popular" bloodlines for their time. *
> 
> ...


----------



## VelvetsAB (Aug 11, 2010)

_I am not sure legislation is the right way to do it either though ponyboy. The government can do well with some things but they are just as good at screwing things up. I think it is up to the Jockey Club, US Trotting Association, Standardbred Canada etc etc to look at this as a whole collective racing group (TBs, QHs and SBs) or together as breed distinguished associations and set the rules out, world wide. That way, the people with the money arent shipping their horses somewhere else to race their 2 yo season since that particular place allows it._

_The racing world is having some financial difficulties as well. Right now from what I have heard is that money is being funnelled into Quarter Horse racing here in Ontario. Sure that is fine and dandy....but there is nothing being added for the 2 other breeds who have a bigger need for it. QH racing has only a small fraction of the horses that are racing compared to TBs and SBs._

_Anyways.... _
_


NittanyEquestrian said:



*I totally agree but there is a HUGE difference between a small time, well managed breeding farm and a backyard breeder and most knowledgeable horse people can easily tell that difference. And I also agree that there does not need to be big name "current" bloodlines in a horse to make a good racehorse. However most small scale breeders breed to sell at the weanling and yearling futurity sales and don't maintain their babies through to their first race so they breed to "fad stallions" so that the general public buys them up for big bucks at the auctions as prospects and if the general buyer doesn't recognize a name in their pedigree they will most likely not bid on them or as high. *

Click to expand...

__I have to disagree with this.... The line can blur between the two in some particular cases. There are some small barns who have a few select mares that they breed to something that did well at the track (good times, consistantly raced well) and not to the lineage. They keep the babies through racing age and put the training into them required, and hope for the best in the end. They arent a small breeding farm, but are "backyard breeders" of sorts and are trying to do well. They arent breeding to any old stud, but they arent paying out the $10,000 stud fees eithers. So it isnt a breeding farm, but a farm that encompasses several stages of a race horses life....but it is still a backyard breeder. Where is the difference? They are trying to breed for something that is hopefully going to end up at the track and make them some money._


----------



## NittanyEquestrian (Mar 3, 2009)

The difference to me between a "backyard breeder" and a small breeding operation is that backyard breeders generally have a bunch of unregistered and unaltered horses in a pasture and they just pop out random babies. And/or they have a few mares and find the cheapest stud around and breed them to it because they think they will make money that way or have cute babies. Anyone that puts thought into what they are breeding to what I do not consider a backyard breeder. Yes you can have a backyard breeder breeding registered horses but again it comes down to if they are actually taking the time to put two horses together that complement and could produce a better foal than the two parents even if they are doing it on a smaller budget.


----------



## Jessabel (Mar 19, 2009)

I have a love/hate relationship with horse racing. It's so exciting to watch them storm down the track and Thoroughbreds are one of my favorite breeds... but on the other hand, the industry (for the most part) isn't really about the horses. It's about the money and betting and glamour. The horses' welfare is put on the back burner. Racing them way too young, doping them up with steroids, disposing of them like trash when they aren't needed anymore. I know it's not always like that, but enough people do it to give the whole industry a bad reputation.


----------



## haleylvsshammy (Jun 29, 2010)

I'm going to be the person who says something but doesn't know all that much about the industry. It was interesting to read everything that Sarah and Maura posted, I feel much more informed. Thanks!

I wanted to add that TB's would be greatly improved if people really started looking for the conformation. Not just the "ohh! They have _____ bloodline! Let's him!" I'm pretty sure somebody already posted that. Anywho, I also feel that horses should be started at a later age. And yes, even though Zenyatta is probably a 1 in 1000 if not more, horse, she is an example of something the industry should work towards.

I also feel that trainers should really start thinking about _after _the horses racing life. I am lucky to have an OTTB that had great training and is a wonderful horse. I'm not sure why he was taken off the track, I just found out he won 3 races and got second in 3 as well. He only raced 8 times. But that is beside the point, sorry for rambling... but he was _obviously _trained exceptionally well after he left the track. Now people need to start training them better _before _they leave the track. It might end up not working out, but I think it would help horses being rehomed a lot. If they were already a good prospect for something, then the buyer could have a good idea of what they can do. 
Just my opinion though.


----------



## WildJessie (Oct 15, 2010)

I was saying that Zenyatta was a good example of waiting because her trainer wanted her to mature and grow up before he raced her.

But I do see what you are saying.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

Thanks everyone for great ideas and opinions, exactly what I was after! If I had to summarize, I would say that we are mostly in agreement on some points:

1.) Too many racehorses are bred each year
2.) TB breeding is counter productive, leading to horses that are not of excellent conformation as people focus too much on 'bloodlines' even when the bloodlines do not contribute that much to racing success
2.) TB's are started too young and pushed too hard
3.) There is a low success rate in the racing industry, leading to so many unwanted horses and hence contributing to the overpopulation dilemma.

Personally I would like to see a cap put on the number of TB's bred each year, to be enforced by the Jockey Club as they are the body responsible for registering all these horses.

Secondly, I would like to see trainers having a 'review' process whereby their training licence is assessed every five years - if they are not able to produce winners in a five year period, that licence should be temporarily suspended. Might get rid of some of those backyard trainers.

Thirdly, I would like to see racehorses started as three year olds. Sure it is an extra year to wait but if you have a truly good horse and you bring them on slowly with their LONG TERM success in mind, you stand to make much more money if you can race them until they are 8 rather than only 4 or 5.

I also agree with PonyBoy who said that legislation would be difficult to introduce however I (repectfully) disagree with the sentiment that 'it isn't likely to happen any time soon'. Sure it wouldn't be easy however having the mentality that it is all too hard and someone else's problem means a solution will never be found.

I truly believe that if you could consistently show that _more money_ is to be made by breeding and training SMARTER, rather than for pure volume, the idea will eventually catch on.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

VelvetsAB said:


> _While I agree that there are too many horses that dont make it to the track.....not every "backyard breeder" of TBs/SBs breeds crap horses. Just because they dont have big names in their lineage doesnt mean that there wasnt good stock. _


Backyard Trainer/Breeder isn't a term that is meant to be derogatory towards those that breed quality horses of unfamiliar pedigrees. That is actually the point I was making with the article I posted a link to in my first statement in this thread. The study found that bloodlines only contribute 10% towards a horses chance of winning, it is the horses _environment_ that really counts. I have no problem with horses that have unheard of pedigrees and am not suggesting that we breed only the horses that have big names in their lineage, that is actually part of the problem.

In this sense, the Backyard Trainers/Breeders are just churning out horses in the hope that one might win a race. Sure if you produce enough, chances are you will have a win eventually. The point I was trying to make is that if you produce less, there will be more resources available to train those horses and their individual chance of success will be greater.

Nothing to do with big versus small operations, it is the quality of the barn, expertise and handling that dictates success.


----------



## amschrader87 (Oct 30, 2010)

I have to say I hate horse racing. Not saying all owners but most just care about money they have no love for these horses except the fact that they are bringing in money for them and once that stops or the horse breaks a leg or what ever they throw them away like they are trash. They race the horses too young before they are finished growing and i think thats why most of them end up with some sort of injury, thats going to prevent them from doing any other type of work so it makes them worthless.. And that horse they just found in a slaughter house in florida that was related to secretariat freedoms flight, actually finished a race after breaking his leg and finished 3rd.. And thats becasue some of the owners inject stuff in there legs that kills the nerves so that when something does break or gets pulled, the horse doesnt feel it which i guess benefits the horse but how is this not cruelity. I think the owners need to make sure that these horses go to good homes after there racing career is over. And breeding has nothing to do with it I don't think the horse i just rescues was an ottb his his grandfather was storm cat, great grandfather was seattle slew and his great great grandfather was secretariat and his only raced 10 times and sucked. And guess what he ended up with some one who was letting him waste away he's about 902 lbs and is 16 hand so he's about 300 lbs underweight. This is bull**** I think its crap animals get treated like this thats all I have to say...


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

So amschrader, because *one* horse you know personally was treated like garbage, 'most' of the breeders, owners and trainers of TBs are abusive, neglectful asshats? Wow, that's quite a generalization. It's also untrue, as are most sweeping generalizations. :?

I have an OTTB. He was a very unsuccessful racer. His trainer adored him so much that she wanted to make sure he went to a one owner home, and wouldn't be passed around or misused as part of a larger string.

I daresay _most_ breeders, trainers and owners are like JJ's former trainer. They truly care about their charges. JJ has nothing physically or mentally wrong with him. He came to me completely sound and sane. From what I understand, many OTTBs are just like him.

There are bad apples in _every_ discipline; racing doesn't hold the grand prize for that. Every discipline has things that need to be changed and people who shouldn't be allowed to raise sea monkeys, much less larger life forms like horses.

Breeders aren't and should NOT be responsible for their charges from birth to death. It amazes me how many people think that way. Once the animal's sold, it's the responsibility of the person who bought it. I hardly think the breeder should be held to the fire for an owner who can't take proper care of their animal.


----------



## amschrader87 (Oct 30, 2010)

I'm allowed to my opinion and i think that alot of them do not care enough about what happens to their horses after their career is over thats why they end up in slaughter houses. And I do think is cruel to race a horse at such a young age when they arent finished growing yet look on any OTTB rescue website such 90% of those horses have some type of old injury due to racing, Such as chips in their knees. Ummm wonder why they have them, Because of racing on hard as ground yes their is dirt on the track but whats under the dirt (hard ground) not good for horses legs especially ones who aren't done growing yet..

Maybe you should read this


Many trainers still use antiquated training methods, often not realizing the long-term damage done to the horse. Horses - especially Thoroughbreds - are started under saddle around the age of two; this can be up to five years before a horse's skeleton is fully developed. (The human equivalent to this would be for an eight-year-old child to run around with a 50 pound sack of coal.) Thoroughbred, Quarter Horses and Arabians who race under saddle are not taught how to listen to their rider, or do anything but gallop at top speed, which can cause severe leg damage. 
The constant pounding of the legs on a hard track can often cause tendons to bow. If left untreated, a damaged tendon can cause chronic pain and permanent unsoundness. Unfortunately, trainers do not see the need to allow the horses' legs to completely repair, causing more severe damage. The two main ways that a lame racehorse is dealt with are pin firing and nerving, both of which are _extremely_ cruel to the horse. 

Pin Firing is a process in which acid is injected into the injured tendon (and often the nerve), causing the area to swell and sometimes bleed. The theory is that the increased blood flow to the region will cause more rapid healing. In reality, pin firing can cause the injury to become chronic; it can also temporarily relieve pain, allowing the horse to further injure himself.
Nerving is a very dangerous and cruel method of treatment. Acid is again injected into the injured area, but it is intentionally injected into the nerve. This numbs the nerve, allowing the horse to move without pain. Horses that cannot feel pain do not know that they have been injured, and they will run until they completely shatter the bones in their legs. When this happens, owners have no choice but to sell the horse to slaughter, or have him destroyed
Do you not think this is cruel or is this ok to you to. Horses are pets not something to just run for money and throw away when your done... IM allowed to have an opinion it's my right..Thank you


----------



## NittanyEquestrian (Mar 3, 2009)

IF ALL trainers/breeders/etc did this then there would be a TON more horses needing rehomed. While I agree that even one person doing these things is too much, it is by far not the norm or average person doing these things. A majority of owners/traines are responsible, concerned over the welfare of the horses in their care and take some time to find them good homes after their racing days are over. Your statements are like saying every NFL player that has a dog abuses dogs because Michael Vick did it.


----------



## VelvetsAB (Aug 11, 2010)

sarahver said:


> Secondly, I would like to see trainers having a 'review' process whereby their training licence is assessed every five years - if they are not able to produce winners in a five year period, that licence should be temporarily suspended. Might get rid of some of those backyard trainers.


_Not saying this is right or wrong, but as a trainer, if you get given mediocre horses from clients, you might not have a lot of wins. You might have a horse that does alright and gets in the money every other time, but isnt in the winner circle every week. By suspending a trainers license you are punishing them for something they dont really have control of. Maybe the owners should be looked at, not the trainers. (My Grandpa won Trainer of the Year in 1985, but has had several bad years as well. It isnt his training, it was the horses available to him.) Besides, you dont really want a horse in the winner circle every week as it can change the class the horse is having to run in by either wins or money won. _



sarahver said:


> Thirdly, I would like to see racehorses started as three year olds. Sure it is an extra year to wait but if you have a truly good horse and you bring them on slowly with their LONG TERM success in mind, you stand to make much more money if you can race them until they are 8 rather than only 4 or 5.


_It really isnt an extra year as people will still be training their horse as a two year old. We quite frequently start our horses as two year olds, get them to realize what their job is all about and have a fair bit of miles on them, and then throw them back out into the pasture. They might not be racing, but they still have a workload. A horse that starts racing as a 2 year old still has the same chance as a horse that starts racing at 3 to make it to an older racing age. What makes them break down is the OWNER not trainer, the OWNER wanting the horse to race more then he is capible of. But maybe here is where the problem is. Standardbreds are raced nearly every week and have good solid careers for the most part (obviously there are exceptions), but TB's race less and break down at the same rate. Maybe the method of bringing the horse along needs to be changed._



sarahver said:


> I also agree with PonyBoy who said that legislation would be difficult to introduce however I (repectfully) disagree with the sentiment that 'it isn't likely to happen any time soon'. Sure it wouldn't be easy however having the mentality that it is all too hard and someone else's problem means a solution will never be found.


_I still dont believe that the government should be involved in this. This should be taken care of by racing commisions._


sarahver said:


> In this sense, the Backyard Trainers/Breeders are just churning out horses in the hope that one might win a race. Sure if you produce enough, chances are you will have a win eventually. The point I was trying to make is that if you produce less, there will be more resources available to train those horses and their individual chance of success will be greater.
> 
> Nothing to do with big versus small operations, it is the quality of the barn, expertise and handling that dictates success.


_All breeders want 100% of their foals to be successful. It isnt a thought that, well I know x amount of foals arent going to do squat, so I better breed 10 mares to get 1 good foal._



amschrader87 said:


> I have to say I hate horse racing. Not saying all owners but most just care about money they have no love for these horses except the fact that they are bringing in money for them and once that stops or the horse breaks a leg or what ever they throw them away like they are trash.


_My Grandparents have treated their horses better then their own kids sometimes. Racing horses is how they make their living, so yes it is about the money. Most horses wont race again after a broken leg, so in essence, they are garbage to a horse owner/trainer. A lot people also cant afford the vet care that it would take to repair a broken leg, then keeping the horse on stall rest for a few months. It takes time, resources and money for this, when a horse who could be earning its keep gets put to the backburner, or is missing a chance on having that stall that the injured horse is in. It is more economical to sell/free lease/give away/destroy that horse. Would you keep a car that kept breaking down on you, and had to pile thousands of dollars into, or would you get rid of it??_



amschrader87 said:


> And breeding has nothing to do with it I don't think the horse i just rescues was an ottb his his grandfather was storm cat, great grandfather was seattle slew and his great great grandfather was secretariat and his only raced 10 times and sucked.


_Not every horse likes to do what he is bred for....._



Speed Racer said:


> There are bad apples in _every_ discipline; racing doesn't hold the grand prize for that. Every discipline has things that need to be changed and people who shouldn't be allowed to raise sea monkeys, much less larger life forms like horses.


_Agreed._



Speed Racer said:


> Breeders aren't and should NOT be responsible for their charges from birth to death. It amazes me how many people think that way. Once the animal's sold, it's the responsibility of the person who bought it. I hardly think the breeder should be held to the fire for an owner who can't take proper care of their animal.


_I like this idea. _


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

Velvets - thanks for the input, I am not suggesting I have all the answers, I certainly don't.

What is YOUR personal view on the industry? Should it remain the same? If not, what changes would YOU suggest?


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

VelvetsAB said:


> _By suspending a trainers license you are punishing them for something they dont really have control of. _


On this point though, if the trainer has no control over the success of the racehorse, who does?


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

amschrader87 said:


> Horses are pets not something to just run for money and throw away when your done...


Horses are pets to *you.* Not everyone thinks that way, nor do they have to just because_ you_ do.

You can substitute _any_ discipline for racing, and you'll find the same mistreatment, abuse, and horrors. 

Abuse is everywhere in the horse industry, from small, local shows to the best of the best. To vilify* only* racing as abusive is naive in the extreme.



amschrader87 said:


> IM allowed to have an opinion it's my right..Thank you


As well as am I and everyone else who posts on this thread. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't give you the right to throw a snit fit.


----------



## amschrader87 (Oct 30, 2010)

There are a lot of thoroughbreds thats need homes, And i never said all owners/trainers treat there horses badly, But I think there are alot that do. I know the ones where I live do use methods like pin firing and nerving because I hear it straight from people who work with them.. If they cared about the horses they wouldn't be send to slaughter.. A horse and a car are two different things one is not living I could give two ****s about a car but and life is important to me. And your telling me they have all this money to buy expensive horse and expensive breeding but cant afford to pay for a vet bill when a horse gets injuried don't you think thats something they should add into the equation. Oh and there is insurance for these horse which I'm sure there owners can afford. Anyways Racing is something i will never agree with I dont like it and will never support it.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

Speed Racer said:


> Breeders aren't and should NOT be responsible for their charges from birth to death. It amazes me how many people think that way. Once the animal's sold, it's the responsibility of the person who bought it. I hardly think the breeder should be held to the fire for an owner who can't take proper care of their animal.


SR, this will be the first time I question anything you say!!! Here goes..... I don't mean to suggest that a breeder should be responsible for the horses they produce from birth to death literally. My point is that they should be breeding responsibly, so that they give the horse the greatest chance of success, just in any other breeding industry. Any cross of any horse should be well planned and researched, not just bloodlines but conformation and athletic ability. It is not the breeders responsiblity to then pre check every home the horse goes to, of course that would be ridiculous. A well bred and trained horse of good conformation and health however will stand a much greater chance at success, both on and off the track.


----------



## amschrader87 (Oct 30, 2010)

Sorry not tryin to be rude or throw my opinion around I feel strongly about this. there are laws about animal cruelty why don't they apply here thats all I'm saying.. To the owners/trainers who do treat them badly...


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

amschrader87 said:


> I'm allowed to my opinion


 
You absolutely are allowed to have your opinion, that is part of the reason I started this thread. Not everyone will agree with each other and certainly not everyone will agree with me. That is part of the idea of generating a discussion so please feel free to have input.

However, the discussion will be much more constructive if a respectful tone is maintained and the use of profanity (even masked with stars) does nothing to maintain a healthy discussion. Thanks again for taking the time to voice your opinion but please use some decorum in your responses


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

sarahver said:


> My point is that they should be breeding responsibly, so that they give the horse the greatest chance of success, just in any other breeding industry.


I absolutely agree with you there, Sarah. 

Breeders need to do it responsibly or not at all. Breeding for quantity and _hoping_ for quality has always irked me.

Now that Zenyatta's retired to the broodmare band, I'm sure they're going to wear her out producing foals.

Yes, the breeders need to look at breeding horses who are suitable for other disciplines, just because of the sheer number of foals they're breeding. They know some of their babies are going to wash out as race horses, so why not breed with an eye to their future?

JJ's bred impeccably, but he didn't _want_ to race. He'd rather ramble on down the trail or jump some crossrails. 

TBs _used _to be the horse people bought for hunting, eventing, and show jumping. I'd like to see that happen again.

So we're not in disagreement. As usual, our opinions dovetail. :wink:


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

Speed Racer said:


> So we're not in disagreement. As usual, our opinions dovetail. :wink:


Phew, crisis averted :shock:


----------



## amschrader87 (Oct 30, 2010)

One study showed that for every 22 races, at least one horse suffers an injury severe enough to prevent him or her from finishing a race. Another study estimated that 800 Thoroughbreds die from racing-related injuries every year in North America. Most owners are not willing to pay high veterinary fees for an injured horse who is unlikely to ever race again, and instead, choose to euthanize the animal. 
The unnatural stresses inherent in competing so aggressively and at such a young age also cause or make worse other serious problems, such as stomach ulcers, heart murmurs, and bleeding in the lungs, not observed in horses worked at reasonable levels. These health and injury problems once again necessitate the use of drugs to maintain the horse’s racing value (but not well-being). 

*Lethal experiments are now part of racehorse suffering. *

Worldwide, thousands of racehorses die or are killed every year: during races, during training, or because they are not fast enough. Instead of reducing the unnatural pressure on the animals that causes broken backs and legs, heart attacks, burst blood vessels, gastric ulcers, and bleeding lungs (exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage), the industry sponsors lethal experiments on the animals, supposedly to learn why racehorses suffer and die from injury and illness, though the reasons are blatantly obvious.

The experiments include deliberately infecting horses with devastating viruses, subjecting pregnant animals to abdominal surgery so they subsequently abort their young, deliberately underfeeding them, and subjecting newborn foals to stress experiments. Most of these invasive procedures end with the horses being killed. The industry attempts to justify this cruelty with the immoral notion that some should suffer so many can benefit, when the high level of injuries and developmental problems the experiments pretend to address is purely the result of industry greed and callousness. 

Just some food for thought.


----------



## VelvetsAB (Aug 11, 2010)

sarahver said:


> Velvets - thanks for the input, I am not suggesting I have all the answers, I certainly don't.
> 
> What is YOUR personal view on the industry? Should it remain the same? If not, what changes would YOU suggest?


_No problem. I have more experience with the Standardbred racing industry then the Thoroughbred side....but I think they are related. I do think both breeds would be better if they werent allowed to start racing until 3, but under the right circumstances, some horses are ready to race as 2 year olds. I think breeders, owners, and trainers as a group need to go to their breed specific commissions (JC, Standardbred Canada, US Trotting Association etc) and come up with better ways to run the racing industry. Although a lot of the people sitting on the commissions have been previously involved in racing, probably half of them are "old school" and might not have a big hand in what the industry is today. Because horse racing is this groups livelihood (breeders/oweners/trainers) I think any changes made should be coming from them. They are the people who work in the industry every day. Why should changes be made by people who have no clue what happens and how things are done? It just wouldnt make sense._



sarahver said:


> On this point though, if the trainer has no control over the success of the racehorse, who does?


_The owner in the end has the final say over what happens with the horse. A trainer doesnt really have a choice in what horses he takes, as if he has room in the barn, it never hurts to have another payment coming in. If the owner gives the trainer a mediocre horse, the trainer can only do so much, to the best of his ability, to make that horse a winner. You cant suspend a trainers license for not having winners as it is the owners who gave him that horse to train._



amschrader87 said:


> Sorry not tryin to be rude or throw my opinion around I feel strongly about this. there are laws about animal cruelty why don't they apply here thats all I'm saying.. To the owners/trainers who do treat them badly...


_They do apply. There are a lot of fines handed out all the time to owners and trainers who do something wrong. Heck, even jockeys and drivers get fined all the time. Canadian Sportsman (more geared to Standardbreds) publishes who got what fines and who is suspended for how long, for such-and-such a reason in the monthly magazine. You as an outsider (because it doesnt seem like you have intimate knowledge of the racing world) most likely wont see these, or know them from the race track rumour mill. You would only see them if they became published in a local paper, or became news on the tv. Just because YOU dont see it happen, doesnt mean that it isnt out there. _

_ETA: Also, when you put things into a forum that arent your own writing, you should link to the article that you got it from, so that others can go and read the rest of the article if they choose to do so. It isnt hard to see, because the writing style is actually coherent and has proper grammar and punctuations in it, compared to your own...._


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

amschrader87 said:


> The experiments include deliberately infecting horses with devastating viruses, subjecting pregnant animals to abdominal surgery so they subsequently abort their young, deliberately underfeeding them, and subjecting newborn foals to stress experiments. Most of these invasive procedures end with the horses being killed. The industry attempts to justify this cruelty with the immoral notion that some should suffer so many can benefit, when the high level of injuries and developmental problems the experiments pretend to address is purely the result of industry greed and callousness.


Interesting. Do you have references for this that you could please share?


----------



## amschrader87 (Oct 30, 2010)

heres the website 
CHAI - Horse Racing - the Horror Behind the Glamour 
It is in the Uk though but it happens everywhere


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

amschrader87 said:


> heres the website
> CHAI - Horse Racing - the Horror Behind the Glamour
> It is in the Uk though but it happens everywhere


Oh, an *animal rights group* website. They never exaggerate or lie at all, do they? :roll: 

As usual, someone with no real information, just parroting the animal rights group party line.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

VelvetsAB said:


> _The owner in the end has the final say over what happens with the horse. A trainer doesnt really have a choice in what horses he takes, as if he has room in the barn, it never hurts to have another payment coming in. If the owner gives the trainer a mediocre horse, the trainer can only do so much, to the best of his ability, to make that horse a winner. You cant suspend a trainers license for not having winners as it is the owners who gave him that horse to train._


This is true, however in many cases the owner looks to the trainer for this type of advice. Many owners in racing do not have the knowledge and experience of the racing industry to make the final decision regarding the horses future and look to the trainer for these decisions, therefore most decisions are made in concert. Of course there are owners at the other end of the spectrum that have ample knowledge and experience, however I would guess that decisions would still be made in conjunction with the trainers advice and recommendations.

Additionally many horses are syndicated, in which case it is not a simple 'owner' decision, again there would be considerable involvement from the trainer regarding the best course of action for the horse in question.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

amschrader87 said:


> heres the website
> CHAI - Horse Racing - the Horror Behind the Glamour
> It is in the Uk though but it happens everywhere


A true reference comes from an unbiased source, this website is certainly not unbiased. It is dangerous to draw conclusions from sources that have a vested interest as the information is certainly misrepresented. 

The allegations that you have made are certainly disturbing however you are talking to someone who has extensive experience in medical research (yes I plan to enjoy my slow roast in hell in the afterlife) so if any of it is true, there will be quality, factual documentation available to back up your statements, try looking in the equine medical journal, it is available on line.


----------



## VelvetsAB (Aug 11, 2010)

sarahver said:


> This is true, however in many cases the owner looks to the trainer for this type of advice. Many owners in racing do not have the knowledge and experience of the racing industry to make the final decision regarding the horses future and look to the trainer for these decisions, therefore most decisions are made in concert. Of course there are owners at the other end of the spectrum that have ample knowledge and experience, however I would guess that decisions would still be made in conjunction with the trainers advice and recommendations.
> 
> Additionally many horses are syndicated, in which case it is not a simple 'owner' decision, again there would be considerable involvement from the trainer regarding the best course of action for the horse in question.


_Yes, but how is suspending a trainers license for not producing winners a good thing? It isnt a trainers fault for getting a horse that well decent, isnt going to make the winners circle every time out. A trainer is going to have rough patches that he might not have a winner, but that still doesnt mean he is a bad trainer. It just means that the horses that OWNERS gave him to train werent as good as they could have been. Even successful trainers have horses that just dont amount to anything, but they still gave the horse every chance they could to do well. If an owner continuously buys and supplies a trainer with 3rd rate horses, why isnt their license to own being suspended? They are the ones who are supporting crappily bred horses or ones who arent going to make it to do anything at the track...._

_A breeder should be looking to have a foal that will succeed for its owner. The owner is responsible for buying a horse that will succeed. A trainer is just there to help form the horse and give him every chance to succeed._


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

^^Yep, it is for sure one of my more 'out there' suggestions. However, if a trainer has not produced a winner in five years (which was my suggested time frame) then should they be entrusted with more horses? Goes back to my 'nature versus nurture' point too. Winners are produced from correct handling, effective training, appropriate race choice and securing a good jockey. Most of this is controlled by the trainer. 

If a trainer is not having success, why keep sending them horses?


----------



## amschrader87 (Oct 30, 2010)

How is everthing I find/say is not true, yet aren't you the one who said everyone should have their own opinion and yet you are bashing mine at every chance you get. This is all I'm saying in my opinion you may choose to agree or disagree, there are aspects of the racing industry that are cruely though not every trainer/owner may participate in them it does exsist wheather you want to believe it or not. There is information all over the internet about cruelity to racehorses not just that website. I'm not saying all of it is true. But there are people who think of horse as livestock or what have you and those who think of them as pets. and obviously they are going to have different opinions. I'm not saying either ways is right I'm just saying what I believe thats all. And facts are facts. Every race horse rescue website I've been on where they have horses for adoption they are being retired because of some sort of injury weather it be chips in the knees or bowed tendon, now I see something wrong with this. And i would change my mine about racing if so many horse didnt end up with injuries or in a slaughter house. Just some things should be changed. But I know I do not have the power to do so.


----------



## VelvetsAB (Aug 11, 2010)

amschrader87 said:


> How is everthing I find/say is not true, yet aren't you the one who said everyone should have their own opinion and yet you are bashing mine at every chance you get.


_Everyone is entitled to their OWN opinion....but that means not spouting off facts that they have only read online. Especially when it is from a source that is biased. Do research on both sides, and say things in your OWN words, not cut and paste. There is a difference._



amschrader87 said:


> This is all I'm saying in my opinion you may choose to agree or disagree, there are aspects of the racing industry that are cruely though not every trainer/owner may participate in them it does exsist wheather you want to believe it or not. There is information *all over the internet* about cruelity to racehorses not just that website.


_So because you read it, it is now true? Well I read somewhere about wizards and a place called Hogwarts, so that must be true too!_



amschrader87 said:


> I'm not saying all of it is true. But there are people who think of horse as livestock or what have you and those who think of them as pets. and obviously they are going to have different opinions. I'm not saying either ways is right I'm just saying what I believe thats all. And facts are facts.


_Facts on the internet should be taken with a grain of salt. When you get all your information from Animal Rights groups, of course they are all going to say that the horses are now damaged in some way from racing. _



amschrader87 said:


> Every race horse rescue website I've been on where they have horses for adoption they are being retired because of some sort of injury weather it be chips in the knees or bowed tendon, now I see something wrong with this. And i would change my mine about racing if so many horse didnt end up with injuries or in a slaughter house. Just some things should be changed. But I know I do not have the power to do so.


_Lots of horses dont even make it to the track. Lots of horses are now pleasure horses. Yes, some end up at a slaughter house, but not every single one of those horses is an OTTB. I am sure just as many random other horses end up there too. Where are your statistics on this?_

_Everyone has the power to make change. Its just whether or not they have the balls enough to stand up and say something to make that change._


----------



## amschrader87 (Oct 30, 2010)

I never said everything online was true i actually said I know not everthing is true. This is what I've researched and I actually haven't found anything stating that racing benefits the horse. Please if someone can tell me how they benefit from racing on hard ground, being raced to young, having painful injuries, or being sent to slaughter I'd like to hear it. I'm not an idiot who hasn't been around horse I've been around them my whole life. And I'm not pushing my opinion on anyone agree with me or not whatever. Obviously ya'll are the bias ones don't post if you dont want to hear EVERYONES opinions........ IM done Good for you for sticking up for animal cruelity.


----------



## VelvetsAB (Aug 11, 2010)

_Actually...the only one who is seeming biased is you. Your one track mind isnt open to everyone elses opinion. _

_I was raised around race horses my whole life. My Grandpa has worked for a few big name trainers and also worked for one of the biggest breeding sheds in Ontario. I am sure with being at different tracks up to 4 times a week sometimes during the summer, I would have seen cruelty, but I have rarely seen it at a track. All the horses look to be in good health. Yes, there are probably a few horses that came to the track shot up on something, but its few and far between._

_Do you ride? Im gonna bet that you ride on harder surfaces then what TB's race on. Riding horses are started at the same time TB's are....at 2, yet you do not have a bad thing to say about them? Not every single race horse out there ends up with an injury._


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

amschrader87 said:


> I actually haven't found anything stating that racing benefits the horse.


Track racing, harness racing, barrel racing, western pleasure, dressage, team penning, rodeo bronc riding, show jumping, trail riding, etc. all benefit the *rider*, not the horse. 

Tell me, do you ride at all? If so, how do you quantify _which_ discipline is less hard on the animal?

My horse was started at 2 and came off the track at 5 with no injuries, physical _or_ mental, whatsoever.

Yes, many TBs go to slaughter. But so do QHs, Arabians, POAs, backyard grades, mustangs, Morgans, etc. So it's not one_ particular_ industry that supplies horses to the feedlots. _Everyone_ who breeds without thought for the animal's future is to blame.

If a horse breaks down at the track, it's more often than not euthanised. An animal that's in pain dumps adrenaline into its bloodstream, which taints the meat. So a horse that has a broken leg or other appendage is put down, just like it would be in a one owner home.

Emaciated animals also don't make for good meat, because they're starved. Horses are sold by the pound just like any other livestock, so it only makes sense to take the healthy, young, weight proportionate animals.

There are worse things than a quick death. Being neglected, abused, starved, and generally mistreated are all fates worse than death. 

I have no objection to equine slaughter. I haven't for years. But to vilify a particular industry for all the evils that happen to horses is narrow minded and naive.

Yes, the racing industry has things that need to be changed. But what _other_ horse industry besides racing has rescue and adoption places set up? CANTER, Fingerlakes, and several others have all been set up for _Thoroughbreds_. I have yet to see any other breed organization do that.

So please, do some research on_ both_ sides of the issue, not just the articles that give credence to your particular version of events.


----------



## Katesrider011 (Oct 29, 2010)

I'm not sure if this is the best comparison, Horses aren't the only ones being slaughtered that could have a healthy life ahead of them. Think of what happens to human babies that aren't wanted either aborted or put up for adoption, Horses are also either slaughtered or put up for adoption. I'm not against slaughter so don't get me wrong on this. I USED to be against slaughter, but then I had a reality check. For you people against slaughter, how bout you stop attacking slaughter houses and get rid of the need for it so much. I say so much because slaughter will never be gone for good, cause there's always a demand for meat. Sorry this is off topic of the racing opinions thing but yeah here you go.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

amschrader87 said:


> How is everthing I find/say is not true, yet aren't you the one who said everyone should have their own opinion and yet you are bashing mine at every chance you get.
> 
> *Never bashed your opinion. Just some of the outlandish statements that you made such as this one:*
> 
> ...


Which I might add, you copied and pasted directly from an animal activists website so hardly YOUR opinion. If in fact you would like to claim that as your opinion, you would be guilty of plaigiarism.

This thread was made with the idea of generating constructive debate regarding the racing industry and not intended for hysterical claims or propaganda.


----------



## amschrader87 (Oct 30, 2010)

BLAH BLAH BLAH Im done you all are closed minded who don't want to listen to anyones opinions and obviously don't have hearts for horse, otherwise you would be agreeing with me. And by the way alot of those slaughter houses such as the one in florida steel peoples horses and slaughter them alive.. AND thats a fact but what ever be happy living your life with no hearts. I feel sorry for your horses maybe when your tired of them you can sell them for meat hope they weight alot and you don't starve them so you can get your moneys worth


----------



## VelvetsAB (Aug 11, 2010)

_We were actually having a calm discussion about some of the negatives of the horse racing world. The negatives! And what we *think* should be changed. We all politely disagreed and backed up why, but then inquired why the other person though such._

_Then you came along and werent willing to listen to what we were saying. This discussion was about what Sarah said in her original post....not about the evils of horse racing. _

_You already said you were done...so why are you still posting then?_

_Can we please get back to the OP please?_


----------



## Katesrider011 (Oct 29, 2010)

Okay amschrader87: You feel sorry for our horses because we *Love *them and take care of our OWN horses and not everyone elses? You have to realize you can't save every horse out there. I do enjoy my life and such, and No I'm not sending my horse to slaughter, mines getting euthanized when it can't move on anymore. Just cause we are for slaughter doesn't mean we are gonna send our own horses there. 


But anywho, I just wish the racehorses could start at a little later age.


----------



## ponyboy (Jul 24, 2008)

VelvetsAB said:


> _I am not sure legislation is the right way to do it either though ponyboy. The government can do well with some things but they are just as good at screwing things up. I think it is up to the Jockey Club, US Trotting Association, Standardbred Canada etc etc to look at this as a whole collective racing group (TBs, QHs and SBs) or together as breed distinguished associations and set the rules out, world wide. _


If any of those organizations really cared, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now because there wouldn't be a problem. Leaving it up to them is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. When people depend on horses for their living it's hard for them to put the horses' welfare before making money. We could solve 90% of all the problems in the horse industry just by passing a law that no one can make their entire living off of horses. (Of course that would also put a lot of people out of work).

The only way racing organizations will change their ways is if fans start objecting in large numbers. That's basically what happened with eventing a few years ago and now they're taking steps to try and reduce the injury rate. The problem with racing though is that most racing fans are gamblers first and horse lovers second. If they were going to object to the way horses are treated they would have done it a long time ago. They obviously don't believe there's a problem. This is why I say legislation is the only option.


----------



## Lis (Oct 29, 2009)

^But that would put a lot of regular horse trainers out of business as well if they can't make their living solely off horses. As well as all the big event riders who also make their living off horses. It wouldn't affect just racing but it would cripple the rest of the horse industry as well.

Edit: To also add that by banning making an entire living off horses would not only affect the primary industry of riders, trainers etc etc it would extend to the secondary industry, at least in theory.You would also be banning equine dentists, equine chiropracters, farriers etc etc since they all make their living off horses alone.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

I think it is a demand and supply issue. The supply of racehorses is too large. The demand for racehorses is too large. This leads to a diluted market where most people don't make money. Some do for sure, but they are in the minority. 

At the heart of my argument is pure economics, I actually think it would be possible to make MORE money off LESS horses if a smarter approach is taken. Here is what I envision:

Less horses are produced and of higher quality (hence the restrictions on breeding).

Those horses are started appropriately for their age and development leading to longer careers and more winnings long term.

Make no mistake, I do not wish to see the racing industry itself banned, sanctioned or otherwise tainted by a hysterical reaction. I would just like to see it fine tuned a little and if it can be shown that there is a way not only to make more money, but save thousands on horses that never make it to the track I think the idea would take off without the need for Government intervention.

The racing industry is after all a _business_, and a very important one. Therefore I feel it is more appropriate, at least in this context, to present arguments that demonstrate that the industry could be run more _efficiently_.

The rest of us horse lovers can know deep down that my real motivation is reducing the number of OTTB's that are unable to find suitable homes when they are retired from the track.


----------



## Lis (Oct 29, 2009)

^ This I agree with.


----------



## VelvetsAB (Aug 11, 2010)

ponyboy said:


> When people depend on horses for their living it's hard for them to put the horses' welfare before making money. We could solve 90% of all the problems in the horse industry just by passing a law that no one can make their entire living off of horses. (Of course that would also put a lot of people out of work).


_There already enough people out of work without putting more people out of work. I dont see how this would be good for one, or how it would be regulated. Besides, I would bet that those who make a living off horses solely take better care then some of the people who are in it for a hobby....just for the fact that it is their sole livelihood._


----------



## amschrader87 (Oct 30, 2010)

nope pin firing doesn't look like it hurts does it Haha you guys crack me up..and this is of a horse that is at the farm where I keep mine.. another OTTB


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

Well thanks everyone for all your input, I really appreciate the time taken from people both taking the trouble to read my wordy OP and also to critique my ideas/arguments as well as adding their suggestions. It is a complicated issue and there isn't a simple solution however there has to be a better way. I know not all of my suggestions are workable but at the end of the day, I am an ideas woman and several posters on here have helped clarify some of the thoughts I already had and put things more in perspective for me by providing alternative views.

What I would really like to do is a proper statistical analysis of the racing industry, the money spent and how it could be better spent to profit trainers, owners and breeders alike by simply having less wastage and more mileage from each horse. We'll see how that progresses and if any of the prof's at College would be interested in writing a paper with me (thereby giving me far greater access to information, records and stats).

Thanks again, I might be deserting my own thread as I fear it is heading south for winter... :shock:


----------



## Spastic_Dove (Oct 4, 2007)

I'm just going to try and ignore the posts that have ruined an otherwise civil discussion. 

One thing I think really works to the detriment of the racing industry is how popular it is. 

Sure we have events like reining or eventing that are hugely popular. However these are mysteries to a large number of the non-equine world. Racing though is a sport that even the most horse-clueless people can enjoy and throw money at. 
Horses are a business in almost every discipline, but it goes to a whole new level in horse racing. I think this drives a lot of the behaviors and mentalities that cause the injuries and throw away horses we have now. 

Not really an argument, but just an observation.


----------



## VelvetsAB (Aug 11, 2010)

Spastic_Dove said:


> Sure we have events like reining or eventing that are hugely popular. However these are mysteries to a large number of the non-equine world. Racing though is a sport that even the most horse-clueless people can enjoy and throw money at.


_This is very true. It is easier to become a part of horse racing then almost any other horse sport._


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

sarahver said:


> I might be deserting my own thread as I fear it is heading south for winter... :shock:


Naw, don't desert the thread Sarah. 

All we have to do is ignore the troll. If we don't give it any attention and ignore its posts, it'll go away. They feed on attention and controversy, you know. :wink:

I think conversing about the racing industry is important. As has been pointed out, horse racing is the one discipline that attracts nonhorse people in droves.

If we can use that spotlight to our advantage, then maybe we can make a difference. I was pleased that Zenyatta's owner held her back as a youngster, and gave her time to develop. I think that had a lot to do with her racing success.

I'd like to see quality over quantity breeding, and horses started much later. I don't think those are pie in the sky ideals.


----------



## Katesrider011 (Oct 29, 2010)

Speed Racer: I agree strongly, quality over quantity


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

Oh OK, I'm back 

I like the point about eventing/reining, really interesting when you think about it. I'm at work today so really shouldn't be watching this anyway.

Please keep constructive ideas/opinions coming!!


----------



## WildJessie (Oct 15, 2010)

I think the racing industry needs to look into caring more about the horses they are producing instead of just breeding willy nilly to see if there is a chance a good horse will come along.

Just because the horse has a awesome pedigree with big name horses in it doesn't mean the horse will be as great as them.


----------



## Katesrider011 (Oct 29, 2010)

I liked speed racer's post about Zenyatta , I also believe she did well cause they held her to give her time to develop.


----------



## amschrader87 (Oct 30, 2010)

Obviously you ony wanted to hear peoples point of views who agree with racing maybe you should have included that in your heading. Sorry for having an opinion thats different from yours..


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

WildJessie said:


> I think the racing industry needs to look into caring more about the horses they are producing instead of just breeding willy nilly to see if there is a chance a good horse will come along.
> 
> Just because the horse has a awesome pedigree with big name horses in it doesn't mean the horse will be as great as them.


Agreed.

Big Brown is one who springs to my mind. Impeccably bred, but that horse's feet are horrendous.

The industry should be focused on breeding animals not just for speed, but for stamina, good bone, and healthy feet.

I also believe if Barbaro had been held back another year or two, we wouldn't have seen that horrific break to his right hind. 

I stopped watching live racing the year Ruffian had her awful injury. I couldn't take watching a horse break down like that again on live TV.

The last Triple Crown I watched was Secretariat's wins in 1973. I knew Affirmed was up to win it in 1978, but I couldn't make myself watch any of the races live.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

Alrighty then, seems we're mostly back on track (aren't I funny?). Time for some more research findings (from medical journals) that support some of the arguments we are making here. I realize we all have slightly different ideas but I feel we are mostly on the same page.

Vets in Pennsylvania studied 2-year-old Thoroughbred racehorses to assess their susceptibility to fatigue injury of the third metacarpal bone (bucked shins). They found that there was a relationship between different gaits and speeds and the occurrence of bucked shins. Their recommendadtions? Focus more on regalular short distance breezing and not so much on long distance galloping. I.e. don't work the babies so hard!!!

AVMA - American Journal of Veterinary Research - 61(6):602 - Abstract

Edited to add: I don't think two year olds should be raced at all don't get me wrong!

More importantly, research in the UK analysed Musculoskeletal injuries (MSI) in found that the injuries are related to the training stable the horse is trained at and the tracks that they are run at. Supports my argument that there should be more hoops that you have to jump through to become _and remain_ a trainer so that the horses safety and wellbeing is in good hands. Also makes a good argument for ensuring track surfaces are mainained with the horses health in mind, not beating the land speed record.

Musculoskeletal injuries in Thoroughbred racehorse... [Vet J. 2010] - PubMed result

So my point after yet another rant is this: If you have to start them so young, take it easy and don't give them an adult workload. Trainers should be more regulated. Tracks and training tracks should be better regulated so that the surface miminizes musculoskeletal injuries rather than being optimized for a quick run.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Absolutely agree, Sarah.

Just because it's a money making industry doesn't mean they need to use up their babies and throw them away.

It makes much more sense to take the time to bring them along slowly and then make more money from them later, since they can race longer and harder if they're given the correct training for their age.


----------



## Katesrider011 (Oct 29, 2010)

^^Agreed!


----------



## WildJessie (Oct 15, 2010)

What about the synthetic track? Does that help the horses at all?


----------



## WildJessie (Oct 15, 2010)

Speed Racer said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Big Brown is one who springs to my mind. Impeccably bred, but that horse's feet are horrendous.
> 
> ...


I only watch the Triple Crown races and Breeder's cup. I saw Eight Belles get put down, I had to leave the room. I cried that night too. She was rather big for a filly wasn't she? Also I heard they put her on steroids.:shock:

I think they also don't need the horses on steroids unless medically necessary.


----------



## maura (Nov 21, 2009)

One of the things that ethical trainers struggle with in getting two year olds to the track is when they're old enough or physically mature enough to breeze. 

One trainer I knew would xray knees to determine when the growth plates closed and wouldn't breeze before then. Another swam and jogged his babies once they were broken rather than gallop the traditional mile to mile and half; and didn't start serious conditioning, let alone breezing until the growth plates were closed. 

I would love to see a program at the track where you couldn't work from the gate or work on the rail in the mornings without a vet exam certifying the horse's growth plates were closed. This would also reduce the incidence of bucked shins, because by the time the growth plates closed, the periosteum would be more mature as well and less prone to microfractures. (That's what bucked shins are, microfractures of the periosteum on anterior surface of the canon bone, caused by flexion of bone, which is caused by working babies with still soft bone on hard surfaces)

Another under-acknowledged cause of breakdowns in race horses is yearling sales. HUH? I hear you say. Yearling sales cause breakdowns? Indirectly, yes. Horses destined for yearling sales are hot housed and feed lots of calorie dense food, because bidders like fat, shiny, slick yearlings rather than a normal looking yearling - gawky, ribby and scruffy. This contributes to ephiphysitis and OCD (osteochrondosis dessicans, not obssesive compulsive disorder) which leads to lots and lots of joint problems once the horse is in work.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

maura said:


> Another under-acknowledged cause of breakdowns in race horses is yearling sales. HUH? I hear you say. Yearling sales cause breakdowns? Indirectly, yes. Horses destined for yearling sales are hot housed and feed lots of calorie dense food, because bidders like fat, shiny, slick yearlings rather than a normal looking yearling - gawky, ribby and scruffy. This contributes to ephiphysitis and OCD (osteochrondosis dessicans, not obssesive compulsive disorder) which leads to lots and lots of joint problems once the horse is in work.


Another great point Maura and I completely agree. Having prepared yearlings for the bloodstock sales before it is truly ridiculous how early they develop, no matter how gorgeous they might look.

Here is a good example, this is the first foal from Makybe Diva (my personal favourite racehorse BTW) when he was sold at the yearling sales a couple of years ago. Look like a yearling to you? Nup, not me either, he looks like a three year old.


----------



## Buckcherry (Nov 18, 2010)

I think there are two many flaws in the racing industry that make it hard for me to enjoy the sport. 
1. They start the horses to young to fast, maybe if they took there time training it would cut down on the number of injuried horses?!?!? Rushing a horse through training just to see if its a winner is just plain dumb, but i understand they're just trying to make money.
2. I think they just breed and breed thinking that eventually they will end up with a winner without thinking about whats going to happen to all these horses who don't have homes because they sucked at racing?!? I'm just saying they should be more responsible about breeding. Plus weather or not the horse is going to be a fast isn't all about breeding. 
3. I've heard of things such as pin firing and nerving. Not sure how often it is done or even at all but things like this make me wonder why go through all of this just to put the horse through more pain after a tendon injury why not just retire the horse? 
4. I feel like sometimes all they train the horse to do is to run on a track, would cross training them in another discipline maybe be beneficial to the horse. And possible be easier to place the horse in a home after retirement?!?

Just some thoughts


----------

