Horses - Quality Control

[Administrator]

Hey All,

I am looking into the length of quality racing a horse might have and I could use some examples of proven horses that had good works and also performed well in its first 4 races or so to then only hit a wall. I would appreciate some examples of these types of horses so I can drill down a little deeper and locate any possible similarities.

Thanks in advance for your help

[Nut Brown Racing]

You could see if there is anything on these:

Nb Morena
Nb Starfish
Nb Hope Springs
Nb Boomerang
Sense of Humor

[And More Racing Stable]

I'm going to come down on the other side of this. I'm in the camp that doesn't really think there is a big problem. I think it's mainly a perception problem and I don't want to see any drastic changes that takes the skill of evaluating the caliber of a horse away from the game. I think too many believe that if their horse wins first out it should be a Champ caliber horse and win all the time. That's simply not true. It might actually only be a high claimer but they don't want to drop it to a level where it can compete. IMO if there's an issue to be resolved it's that too many horses (even modest quality ones) run lights out in their first race or two and therefore leave owners with unrealistic expectations. IMO a horse shouldn't give a considerably superior performance in it's first race or two than the caliber the horse really is. IMO that's the real problem here.

I run a small stable so I can't give you stats on hundreds or thousands of horses but I think the fact that my stable is small tells a story itself. From my small sampling (33 active horses) I currently have 11 that are 4 or 5 yo's. That's a third of my stable that are still able to be competitive at 4+. Two are still stakes horses. One has even already won a finals at age 5. Five others are competitive in ALW, TCR and an occasional small stakes type races. 4 others are competitive in $20K+ claiming races and the other four are competitive in low level claiming. I also just retired two horses at the beginning of this season at the age of 6. As 5 yo's one ran in TCR races and was just beginning to show signs of tapering off her last 3 races and the other one was still Champ stakes race competitive. In fact she ran second in a finals in her last start at 5. She probably could have run competitively this season at 6 if I wanted but I decided to retire her for breeding.

My point, and conclusion, is that I don't breed hundreds of horses each season yet I have a pretty good percentage that are able to race competitively at 4 and 5 so many horses do maintain their ability as they age. It's just a case of knowing what that ability really is. I believe there are two reasons I have this success (and I know I'm not alone, others do too). 1) I believe I do a fair job of evaluating where a horse belongs and I don't get false expectations from works or from a single race or two. 2) I continue to race them at 4+ instead of being in a hurry to breed them at 3.

This is my 2 cents worth but I would rather see the first race or two of a horse tempered to their true ability rather than suddenly create nothing but monsters who run every race to the level of their first performance.

[Nut Brown Racing]

I'm going to come down on the other side of this. I'm in the camp that doesn't really think there is a big problem. I think it's mainly a perception problem and I don't want to see any drastic changes that takes the skill of evaluating the caliber of a horse away from the game. I think too many believe that if their horse wins first out it should be a Champ caliber horse and win all the time. That's simply not true. It might actually only be a high claimer but they don't want to drop it to a level where it can compete. IMO if there's an issue to be resolved it's that too many horses (even modest quality ones) run lights out in their first race or two and therefore leave owners with unrealistic expectations. IMO a horse shouldn't give a considerably superior performance in it's first race or two than the caliber the horse really is. IMO that's the real problem here.

This is my 2 cents worth but I would rather see the first race or two of a horse tempered to their true ability rather than suddenly create nothing but monsters who run every race to the level of their first performance.

I'm mostly in agreement with what you have said. I'm not sure it is a big problem if you don't begin evaluating the horse until after its 2nd or 3rd start. It is that initial crazy "new horse" bump that throws things off. One day the horse can run certain fractions and be fine, and the next it can't come close to getting a smell, even in an easier race.

[Cold Dog Soup]

You all raise some good points. I'm sure Bob will do what is best when it comes to any adjustments.
This did make me think of something that happened to me and I am sure others. I had a horse win big first out and failed to perform the rest of the season. Went back after some time to look at that initial race. Most of the competition was dead. I think the top horse in the field had 6k in earnings so it wasn't that my horse was that good but the competition was that weak. I'm sure this isn't the case with all horses but something to consider.

[Administrator]

I appreciate voiced concerns but before we go down a rabbit hole and wind up way off my intentions...

It is my responsibility to inspect and audit the product and I will always make this a priority. I made no mention of changes being made to horses and I don't intend to do so. I am simply looking for situational similarities..results unintended by any flaw. It's pure research and I can tell you after hours of combing through thousands of races yesterday I found valuable information that will reflect on the future race card.

Also in response to first time starters...

Any perceived advantage of first time starting horses is noted and will be addressed in the future with regards to stakes and qualifier race requirements.

[Aloya]

I would like to put my 2 cents in also... By the looks of things in the 6 years i have raced here , i think we should give Bob a chance to fix the site!! it;s in the best interest of all the community for all to chill out on if we are a small stable or big stable / they is not the issue .. its fixing the site, and make it more exciting!! i have faith in Bob !! the game is bigger then anyones stable at this point.... JOHN

[And More Racing Stable]

OK I tried to bite my tongue but I can't.
1) I'm the only one who mentioned anything about stable size and it had nothing to do with stable size being an issue it was only used as a reference to the basis for my opinion being formed about horses being able to be competitive longer than many seem to think they can. Please read postings more carefully before making comments that have nothing to do with what was said.
2) Nothing I said was intended to go down any kind of rabbit hole Bob. You should know from other discussions we have had that I think you have a lot of good ideas and I'm looking forward to seeing what you can do with the site...but...in another post you asked for ideas and opinions from the community. I simply gave my opinion on this subject and you say I'm leading down a rabbit hole?...either you really want opinions and feedback or you don't!...I can keep them to myself if you don't really want them.

[Nut Brown Racing]

OK I tried to bite my tongue but I can't.
1) I'm the only one who mentioned anything about stable size and it had nothing to do with stable size being an issue it was only used as a reference to the basis for my opinion being formed about horses being able to be competitive longer than many seem to think they can. Please read postings more carefully before making comments that have nothing to do with what was said.
2) Nothing I said was intended to go down any kind of rabbit hole Bob. You should know from other discussions we have had that I think you have a lot of good ideas and I'm looking forward to seeing what you can do with the site...but...in another post you asked for ideas and opinions from the community. I simply gave my opinion on this subject and you say I'm leading down a rabbit hole?...either you really want opinions and feedback or you don't!...I can keep them to myself if you don't really want them.

I gotta be missing something here. Did someone else mention stable size? Toc asked for some samples of potential "flash in the pan" horses. I gave a few he could look at. None are perfect examples. The rest of this is confusing to me.....maybe some responses were deleted or something.

[And More Racing Stable]

NB...I'm the only one who mentioned stable size and then Aloya posted that I should "chill out" and not make stable size an issue which is not remotely what I said about anything.

[Nut Brown Racing]

NB...I'm the only one who mentioned stable size and then Aloya posted that I should "chill out" and not make stable size an issue which is not remotely what I said about anything.

aha, got it

[Trunoble Lodge]

The turbo-boosted first start of a horse has been around for as long as I can remember. I have used it to my benefit many times when I didn't have a tried horse capable imo of winning a certain level race. I bred one usually the day before race listing whose works were good enough and with the turbo-boost, most won. Then I put them back in high claimers where they should be for following starts.

Interesting one last week I named Simple Fix. Ironic really. I needed an on-pace horse to back up my good 2yo colt in a TCR. Didn't have the right one rested so I bred a filly. Her works weren't spectacular, best was a 1:08:95 for 6F but she had plenty of pace to help my colt get cover in the race. In the race, she went straight out the back, travelling last but flew home to beat my colt in track record time. She runs again next week. I will bet that she will struggle without the turbo-boost.

A band-aid fix may be to tolerate the turbo-boost but only in maiden races with all Alw, TCR and Stakes runners having to have at least one start before entry into those class races. Until the code can be looked at or amended.


Norm

[Trunoble Lodge]

As far as horses hitting a brick wall after a few starts. I used to complain about this but then I noticed something. Now and then when giving a horse a daily train after a race, normally an 11F lpg, on odd occasions one of the middle meters (STM, STR, END) wouldn't lift much, it would go to 79. This happened often enough with different horses that it peaked my curiosity. I haven't worked it out but I have had better success with those horses by giving them extended rests, Usually 7 days or more. George Jetson is one of those horses. I race him for a bit, then rest him for a bit longer. As I said, I haven't worked it out fully but am now looking at the correlation between the adds or meds to the meters to see if they can fix a '79' meter even though the Vet advises against it.

Norm

[Nut Brown Racing]

As far as horses hitting a brick wall after a few starts. I used to complain about this but then I noticed something. Now and then when giving a horse a daily train after a race, normally an 11F lpg, on odd occasions one of the middle meters (STM, STR, END) wouldn't lift much, it would go to 79. This happened often enough with different horses that it peaked my curiosity. I haven't worked it out but I have had better success with those horses by giving them extended rests, Usually 7 days or more. George Jetson is one of those horses. I race him for a bit, then rest him for a bit longer. As I said, I haven't worked it out fully but am now looking at the correlation between the adds or meds to the meters to see if they can fix a '79' meter even though the Vet advises against it.

Norm

That is interesting. I've not tried resting on purpose, but I've had to step away from the game a few times, and when I return some horses have "improved". And I seem to remember a comment from years ago where the community was told that some horses require more rest than others....something about that being part of knowing how to work the meters.