Q1: How Much Remodeling From A Single Breeze?

Question 1 is the $64,000 question.

"How much (what degree and effect) remodelling do we get from any single breeze?

Since bone quality and strength differ breeze to breeze--compare bone quality in breeze #1 compared to #10--this is a bit of a moving target.
We'll start of with breeze #1 and go on from there.

The diagram illustrates bone development generally as the osteoblast and osteoclasts do their opposite numbers both on bone surface and in interior bone.

So in breeze #1, and we assume progressive, injury free work to this point, what do we expect to happen during and after the breeze?

Given the state of equine science you'd have to answer this as "unknown" at this point, but that we're able to do some presumably accurate guess work. (continue tomorrow)

Training:
Sat. 6/28: easy 10 minutes riderless, both horses. Rod walked under tack in his 16th session for 10 min without incident. Art on the other hand was bucking and pogoing through his 1.25 miles gallop. We're in the testing stage with Mr. Nob the rider swaying in the breeze at times like one of those log rolling contests. He stayed on though. I'll ask him soon how he does it.
Sun. 6/29 both horses riderless 3 x 2f at 90% speed.

More Questions

I'm paddling as I go on this. Reread Nunnamaker's Maryland Shin Study for the umpteenth time last night which deals with bucked shins and stands for the proposition that these(and attending subsequent fractures) might be avoided by changing the exercise protocol of youngsters from long slow gallops to short speed bursts at least once a week with twice being preferable. Let's say Nunnamaker et. al. stumbled onto these fairly obvious conclusions by a methodology that approaches the absurd. The process was barbaric in that they euthanized the youngsters, and the study itself couched in "mechanical bone properties" as they were talked about in the 1960s. Quite typical of what you'd expect from a veterinarian as opposed to experienced researcher.

I'm reasonably sure we're light years down the road in understanding bone at the cellular level compared to the days of the Shin Study in 1990-95. As I've noted before, they sell these human fracture resistance articles on the Internet. There's very little that's free, and if you buy one of them you never know what you get till you pay since most of them concern osteoporosis.

So, we tread onward with limited information. Continuing from last post, some more questions.

6. When we're talking about multiple breeze/race works how much remodelling do we get per work, is the process cumulative, is there a point of diminishing returns in terms of multiple works, and do we reach a point eventually we're unable to get further remodelling.

This broad question notes that for fracture resistance we're both dealing with frequency in terms of spacing AND a question of "how many" total breezes we need to race safely in race #1.

7. How do speed and distances of racing factor into the equation? If we do multiples over time at :12.5/f speed for 4f do we e.g. have fracture resistance for racing a mile in :12s?

8. Assuming we establish necessary breezing frequency and total number, is fracture resistance affected by what we do on the off days.

9. What about track surface, rider weight, rider skill, and other misc. factors.

Training:
Fri: 6/27 Another deluge of rain. Luckily this was a planned off day.

Frequency: The Questions

We have a youngster we'd like to keep sound. How often do we breeze the horse, and how do we even make the decision? What are the questions that need to be asked.

Bill's comments on my 6/24 posts give some introduction. Various things come to mind some of which have already been included in the blog.

Assumptions:

1. All breezes are 4f in :12.5s, which I've decided are the minimums necessary to achieve bone remodelling in any single breeze. (Emphasize "minimum". Obviously there are multiple other possibilities.)

2. We have a working scientific knowledge of bone and bone remodelling at the cellular level, and as an integral whole.

3. We have some familiarity with the physics and kiniesiology of the forces and types of concussion at work on bone tissue in the exercising horse.

4. Without nuclear scanning or some other form of accurate imaging the blog can only make assumptions grounded on available information as to the status or condition of bone in a particular moment.

5. Other than the Maryland Shin study and a here or there some dabbling in the subject, we are without any comprehensive studies (to which we could refer) that measure bone remodelling from breeze to breeze. We thus have to put the subject together for ourselves, best we can.

What we would like to know:

1. What does any single breeze get us in terms of bone remodelling?

2. Then the crucial question: from the moment of completion of the breeze, how much time passes until the remodelling (from this one breeze) has completed?

3. Is there a point of vulnerability in the remodelling bone where we would want to avoid disturbing the process between breeze #1 and #2, and, if so, how long does this last?

4. Is there a point (after breeze #1) at which remodelling starts to reverse itself unless we breeze again. If so, where is that point?

5. What do we get from breeze #2, breeze #3 and so on in terms of bone remodelling. Is it the same effect as breeze #1, less, more, or is there any sort of identifiable geometric progression as we go?

That's all for this post. As you can see, it's a complex subject that requires careful thought.

Training:
Wed. 6/25: Art: with the lead change trouble today we did some reign work in the paddock in an effort to signal to the horse which diagonal to take at the trot or which leg to lead with at the walk. Art was surprisingly responsive. He's a smart, trainable horse. Art then did, after warm up, 6f riderless at 85% speed in the mud. Rod walked 10 minutes under tack and did the riderless warm up with Art and then was removed due to speed work tomorrow.
Thurs. 6/26: Art: Nob to date has yet to hit the ground with either of our youngsters but came close twice today with Art. Art went a mile under tack. First he propped and we noticed Nob swaying in the saddle, and then at the first lead change which (Nob reports) the horse was refusing and Nob leaning way to the right when the horse suddenly changes his lead to the left leaving Nob (almost) in the air by himself. Luckily Nob held on, Art did two nice lead changes thereafter, and for the first time galloped almost the whole mile. We appear to be officially "in business".
Rod: 10 min walk under tack then riderless 3 x 2f at 90% speed.

Big Brown's Shoe

Kudos to whoever caught this one, and we have a Triple Crown compromised by a starter's mental error. What was that fellow thinking being that far out on the track?

Dutrow supposed this sprung shoe flattened out when the horse walked on concrete going back to his stall, and Dutrow noticed only a "spread" shoe (whatever that means).

Be assured when Dutrow checked it that the shoe was still sprung exactly to the degree shown in the photo. When you train on a farm you become an expert on sprung shoes, and, unfortunately they never flatten out when the horse walks on them.

It is however possible, particularly in a dark stall, to look at a sprung shoe head on and fail to see the separation and think it's merely a slight anomaly. Dutrow then instructed the shoer to remove the shoe, but it seems we've yet to hear from that gentleman who might well have been considering his own rear end in keeping quiet.

How did the sprung shoe affect performance? Two considerations:
1. When sprung shoe is on the lead hind.
2. When sprung shoe is on the off hind.

I'd noted in my post of June 8, #2 BB's "Pig Like stride. BUT, I'd viewed that on the Clubhouse turn. When I rewatched the race I was questioning myself on this because BB looked fairly normal on the backstretch. Then on the final turn when Kent D. asks he comes up empty.

Here's the possible explanation. I suspect there's far less effect of a sprung shoe when the problem is on the lead hind as opposed to the off hind--i.e. in the race, on the straightway and back stretch instead of the turns. Logically the power of the lead stride would push a sprung shoe right on through the stride, whereas when the bad shoe is on the off hind there is a more perpendicular contact with the track, and a much weaker push through which might cause enough drag to unabalance the stride. Hence BB looked much worse on the turns, and probably felt much worse due to the shoe than he did in the straightaways. And when Kent D. asked him at the quarter pole and all around the final turn with Dennis of C. accelerating by, the horse was without response.

At any rate, something was obviously wrong, and Kent D. intuitively and correctly pulled the horse up.

But, also note that the sprung shoe hardly negates all the other things wrong with BB at the Belmont. I have my doubts he'd have gone on if the shoe was normal. I think the horse ran out of gas on final turn.

Fracture Resistance And Frequency

A kinder, gentler RR will go forward with the blog hopefully learning from the posts on horse slaughter. Unknown what would make an impact or bring anti-slaughter to the few steps needed to get support of the horse owning/horse related community. It's something more than stating positions in opposition, obviously. I'll take the blame for that and reconsider my approach next time.

Now it's on to fracture resistance(hereafter "FR") in terms of breezing/racing frequency. I've already decided we need 4f breezes in 12.5s to get there, but how often? I broke off from this topic to look at Derby/TC training because it's instructive. More on that later.

It seems to me the first step in deciding how often we need to go fast is to decide what questions need to be asked. I have as I type yet to consider this in depth. This is such an important issue that I'd like to avoid going at this half cocked. This frequency issue imo is one of the most significant problems both in our track breakdowns and injuries in general. It's fairly safe to say from what I see that very few trainers breeze/race their horse a sufficient number of times to maintain FR even if they were able to get it in the first place. Horses are going down because they go fast too infrequently.

So, before the next post I want to give some serious thought on how this should be approached in terms of science. Since I've never outside of Tom Ivers seen or heard or read anything, probably there's very little now out there of help. But, will consider and hopefully post the major questions tomorrow.

Training:
Mon. 6/23 Some horses seem "marked" with continuing problems. My Aylward was that way early and so it's been with Art from day one. The latest--we put the tack on and see the hind shoe we've had to retack 3 times in the last ten days is lose again with gaps in the hoof wall for 4 of the 5 nails on one side. So, gallop cancelled and need some serious hoof work before tonight's session. Could be worse, but another work out lost. Rod looked anything but good in doing a riderless 4 x 1f at 90% speed. It was really 4 x 3f in terms of volume as they'd do 1f into the speed and 1f after with Rod looking every bit the very cheap horse. Zero stride, zero desire to do it. It's possible the horse is a bit sore either from feet stinging the hard or shins possibly. Or we may just have a project with Rod. Jury's out with this 2 yr. old in a growth phase. Rod did walk nicely under tack for 10 minutes in his 13th under tack session.

Back To Business

We've been arguing the horse slaughter issue in the 6/16 comments section and I have another reply from John Holland.

The subject was included here due to the importance I attach to it. It's encouraging that we have significant numbers out there concerned with animal rights however wrong headed in the case of anti-slaughter. These folks have shown they can get the attention of the US Congress on animal issues, and there are a lot of them. And, whatever you want to say about PETA that organization obtained agreement to end the veal crates by 2012, and maybe somebody will get on to the hogs and chickens. I'm encouraged there's some progress regards animals.

I'll answer John Holland's last comment (on the 6/16 post) simply that I declined to write a book about the flaws in the study. It is so obviously flawed, and you know that John, I deemed it unnecessary. But one last response to specific points.

"The best metric we have..." are hardly documented horse abuse cases. When your study starts out with an incorrect assumption I mentally dismiss the rest, even though in this case I combed through it. John Holland knows ab initio that documented horse abuse cases are few and far between and that he's going to get exactly the conclusions he's reached due to limiting erroneous assumptions. This we define as Jr. H.S. argument. Sorry.

But it still goes further. "We showed there was no major increase in abuse in 2007 (after the plants closed)." What is the point of this? BFD since your same study suggests that virtually the same number of horses were going to slaughter across borders. All the study proves is that the same number of horses were slaughtered before and after and that (duh!) "documented" (i.e. criminal, legal) cases of abuse thus failed to increase. And, never mind that the type and nature of the documented cases might have changed

Here's the question that research should address: does eliminating slaughter plants (all of them) increase abuse, documented or un.

So, perhaps your study aids in wiping out the perception that horses are being set free all over the place and because the plants closed the headlines were incorrect. But, that's all it does because of the false premises involved in the study. John you may fool a few, but doubt you re going to have much impact with this sort of stuff. Should you decide to approach the issue honestly, then maybe we can talk.



That will do it for me for horse slaughter on the blog. I'll continue to be concerned of course, but, tomorrow the blog gets back to the current subject, the 2009 Derby!

Training:
Sat. 6/21: Back at it after the off day. Art did .8 miles tack with about .25 miles gallop. Nob's struggling now to get lead changes. The two year old unlike Art last year is big enough, and we can go right on with him. He had his 12th session with Nob up--8 min. walk, and it went well. Both horses did a very snappy series of 2f riderless sprints, probably 5 or 6 total.

The Real Animal Issues

Anti-slaughter: Is There A Case?

Progged on by blog comments I've spent two days considering. Is there a case for anti-slaughter? (hereafter "AI"). I'd say yes and no.

Is AI for love or money? I believe it's a two headed movement, i.e. a mixture of both. If you doubt the profit motive log onto the constant nonsense on the Tim Woolley website where every other post is a plea for "donations".

Yet motives aside, if slaughter is inhumane we should end it. The problem of course lies in the animals left hopelessly to fend for themselves or such substandard care that death becomes the preferable option. It's the PETA quandary were we practice animal genocide or give as many of them good lives for as long as we can. Regards horses, short of a national taxpayer supported abandoned horse preserve(which merits some consideration), the only question we have is the most humane treatment for ill cared for horses. Again, ignore those on pasture. The cruelty lies in the show barns and AI folks recruiting people that should be anything but horse owners.

How do we approach the issue? The specious reasoning on the AI websites, in addition to destroying all credibility, reminds me of another great line from Goethe where the 100 year old Faust opines "that to one's agonized disgust, one has to tire of being just."

Let's take a closer look.

The typical AI site commences with great effect to communicate the negative emotions surrounding horse slaughter and skips on to argument to ban the plants. One of those sites was so good at this it had me rethinking my own position. Non-thinkers visiting the sites will be swept up by the absolute horror engendered in the scenes.

Yet, on reconsideration, the first thing that strikes, the videos are by and large from plants outside the USA. They have nothing from Cavel or the Texas plants to my knowledge. We are thus required to make the inductive leap that our USDA inspectors are permitting animal torture at the U.S. plants. One website makes fun of an Illinois U.S. Congressman and horse owner (11 of them) who says he visited Cavel on three occasions and saw nothing inhumane in the slaughter process. Think I believe the Congressman.

Is AI correct concerning the level of abuse at the plants or are they exaggerating.? My own guess, they are possibly about 10% correct and their main premise of inhumane slaughter is steeply overstated, in all likelihood.

From there it gets even murkier as the AI lack of logic leads us further astray. Instead of considering birth to death horse welfare, AI instead focused on the last days, hours and minutes of life. Was it Samuel Johnson who avoided giving one minute of thought to his own death. We're talking 15 minutes opposing a life time.

Anybody who really cares about animals (instead of e.g. money) would take note of the horrible conditions of most of our horses. I'd include in this those at the race tracks kept day after day, week after week, being driven many of them insane in their small enclosures. They claim they take care of them. In reality the prisoners at Alcatraz get better treatment. Just a wild guess--of all the stalled horses in the USA, maybe 10% of them have any kind of life. For many of the rest they reside in the solitary confinement sections of their own prisons.

ABUSE--CAUSES-EFFECTS

We first need to measure the above before reaching any conclusions.

AI acknowledges this process to some extent by giving us John Holland's recent research project. Unfortunately, that document is so flawed and so biased imo it does more harm than good for it paints an overall scenario that is incorrect by every objective observation. The document destroys the credibility of AI to any person that cares to give it some logical thought.

My conclusion is to support those that want to investigate the use of bolt guns and to try to solve the problem of transport. The plants are simply a false bogeyman, and concentration on the them as opposed to the real issues in all likelihood creates a level of harm to horses over a lifetime (or will create it) that defies comprehension. Eventually the plants will come back because people will decline to put up with what's happening.

Training:
Fri 6/21: Off.

"When They Mark You . . .

and assail you, nothing earthly will avail you."

(Goethe)

Slaughter plants provide those owning horses with a third party method of disposal, a systemic security blanket that when we, for whatever reason, are unable to continue as horse owners there's somewhere for the animals to go.

Let's be clear. We breed horses for a purpose. Racing, showing, jumping, color, you name it. At some point horses lose their purpose. I have one right now named Groovin' Wind, age 13. He's done racing. I love the horse, but, now my attitude toward him has changed. Wind has lost his central purpose. These days Wind is but a daily burden. He's staying till one of us dies in repayment for years of effort and spirit, but, a lot of owners lack that resolve or basically are unable to support any such resolve they may have. Nor does every horse merit this.

Stated differently, if something were to happen to me, I'd probably want my horses dead. I simply am unable to abide the thought of any of my spirited animals confined to a 10 x 10 stall with a couple of flakes a day, water whenever, month after month, year after year with an occasional weekend visit by some abusing mindless teenager. That's OTB, folks. In general with some exceptions, it's other than a pretty sight. I have forever emblazoned in my consciousness walking through those dark show barns observing those abused horses. The bolt gun'd have done them all a big big favor.

Then there's "anti-slaughter", a well intentioned, gone awry movement that was commenced without due thought. They took the cart before the horse.

They object to bolt guns but want to eliminate the plants. They want to eliminate the plants BEFORE they do any solid research on the effect on horses. Vickie's junior H.S. arguments aside (see below) (they smack more of politics than horse welfare but it would take a book to explain).

Method of death is what they object to as well as transport. In this regard instead of attacking what they object to they instead attack the in place system of unwanted horse disposal without understanding or documenting the effect.

If indeed bolt guns are inhumane, simply eliminate them. That Cavel uses them hardly makes bolt guns the last word. How about simply shooting the horse in the head. Messy? I think that technology easily could solve that problem. And, I'm without a doubt that several other humane ways of slaughter might be conjured.

I hate the thought of any dying thing suffering. But, is it in truth as Goethe's spirit Grey Care chants to the 100 year old Faust facing death--When they mark you and assail you, does it really matter how you go?

As a horse owner I never want to call my Vet to euthanize a horse, and, I'm 100% positive he'd refuse to do so even where I to ask. If I do have to "dispose" of a horse, then I want to give that horse a chance at a sale. I'd like to think in that sale the horse will find a new and caring owner. Deep down I know that will never happen, and that the horse is better off going to the kill buyer. I'll never know what happens to my horse in the sale, and I'll have at least the thought to carry me that the unwanted animal had a chance.

(I posted this prior to reading comments to last post. I'll read them now. Please note that I said Vickie's arguments--some of them--are Jr. HS. These are the common arguments being used, and are without reflection on Vickie, whom from her post, I respect.)

Training:
Wed. 6/18: Art trot-galloped 1.25 miles Nob says he's refusing to change to his left lead probably related to him also refusing to lift the hind rear for hoof picking. Probably injured in a recent run in with a fence. We're investigating. Art being held back again. Rod galloped riderless lightly for about 10 min off and on.

One More Thing--Anti-Slaughter

"Man commonly is blind throughout his life, my Faust be blind then as you end it". (Goethe)

I forgot last post one more issue in vogue that continues to trouble like the proverbial pea under the mattress. Most of us in horses probably prefer to leave end of life and quality of life issues to others or at least postpone consideration. But, with the anti-slaughter movement the subject is perpetually before us and bears discussion and attention due to the enormous impact on horses generally.

There are really two issues--first the concept of anti-slaughter and second the type of persons in the movement, for the latter sheds light on the former.

We have (from what I can tell) in anti-slaughter the usual group of unable to see the forest for the trees idealist zealots who both gum up our lives and keep our attention on important issues. More power to you if, stripped of financial motive, you have, however misplaced, true concern for horses. Surely with this small group the more logical among can find some common ground.

Unfortunately, most of the recruiting and pushing for anti-slaughter is coming from profiteers, which are also a fairly diverse group. But this ilk has one thing in common. Anti-slaughter is their abortion issue and they'd like us to keep those cards and letter, collection plates and Internet donations coming. You may instantly identify one of these ilk when you discuss the subject with them, for they will have zero interest in any discussion failing to conform to their narrow views. They've heard it all and already have answered every possible point in opposition. You may plug into the Tim Woolley/Alex Brown website and see what this ilk is about. Avoid posting anything viewed as pro-slaughter. Alex Brown will delete it.

Finally, of course, we have a third group consisting of non-horse or once upon a time had a horse type youngsters of all ages that feed into the line of crap put out by the profiteers.

The problem of "anti-slaughter" is one of misplaced concern. Most of these folks will grudgingly admit the need to end lives, but its the manner they object to. I have yet to be successful in pinning down any of these sort to actually discuss the relative merits of months and years of neglect and abuse compared to a few days of discomfort traveling to the slaughter plants. To these sorts a ribby horse with long curled hoofs trying to exist on weeds with its uncared for teeth, or a horse kept perpetually in a 10 x 10 stall in sawdust with two flakes of hay a day is "not" a problem.

There are probably a few facts that need to be taken into account:
1. I doubt the actual method of slaughter at the USA slaughter plants is nearly as gruesome as the anti-slaughter profiteers would have us believe. My guess--the animal killers, horse or otherwise become pretty good at their gruesome duties, and there's less actual suffering than supposed.
2. The question of slaughter transport is unfortunately a catch 22. Animals deserve minimum level of comfort on the way to the plants, but to give this might exceed the value of the carcass. You may figure this for yourself if you try to conjure up comfortable transport and the cost. This issue needs some work and thought.
3. Can science come up with a method of slaughter that is humane and would satisfy the non-profiteering anti-slaughterites. Surely this could be done.
4. Unwanted horses are like unwanted animals anywhere. They become strays. We then have a choice of horrible neglect or death.
5. The OTB or adapt a horse movement is a terribly inadequate solution in that probably in 75% of the cases the level of care is such that death would be preferable.
7. As much as any of us dislike thinking about animals dying, are large animal end of life issues best left to the professional slaughter houses, legislated into humane treatment as opposed to the proposed euthanasia stations that would probably be resisted by everyone including the vets.

Training:
Sun. 6/15. Off due to weather. We've had 6 meteorological inches of rain in the last week. We're declining to complain--see Cedar Rapids and Des Moines.

After The TC

Has a TC series produced this many issues as this year? Back in the old days when I first got into the sport it was tough to find anybody on the backstretch who failed to know everything there is to know about horse racing. These days the old timers have mellowed. Everybody understands it's a tough tough sport. Very few have any answers.

Before I continue with "training", the focus of this blog, a few RR "opinions" on some of this year's issues:

1. Breeding: I think they're breeding faster, better horses than when I first got in. 1:36 miles--used to be u'd seem them on rare occasions. Now, they happen in claiming races.
If we are indeed breeding weaker horses I'd like to know what the heck they're talking about--weaker or more fragile in what respect? I'd be amazed you could breed a weaker horse this quickly. There are, frankly, no stats, and until there are, I'd have to think that breakdowns are primarily caused by a combo of faster horses and negligent training. The latter aspect has improved of late.

2. Drugs--I'd still like to see real evidence that cheating is ubiquitous. My guess is that cheating happens by the same 25% that cheat in society in general. What I see on the backstretch is that most care about their horses, enjoy training and do not cheat. Get rid of anabolic steroids, of course, and race day bute, which might well keep horses from feeling impending trouble. Wonder if Eight Belles raced on bute. We need lasix. Because it's outlawed in England hardly means those horses race with clear lungs.

3. Finding a trainer: the sport, if it ever organizes, could make this process so much easier. To me it starts with changing the system. Owners rule, instead of professional trainers.

4. NTRA: Alex Waldrop needs to become mover and shaker or he needs to get his butt out of there.

5. Richard Dutrow Jr.--both flawed and a breath of fresh air. Dutrow informed us about Winstrol and probably did a great service to the sport.

Back to training/breezing frequency/ and breakdowns tomorrow.

Training:
Sat. 6/14. Friday the 13th was bad news for Tim Russert. Wish I had an ounce of his appeal. rip! Both horses did 1.5 miles slow riderless. Art did 1.25 miles tack work including his first extended gallop on mushy grass. Nob said he did a lead change like a pro and has a strong gallop stride for being a smaller horse. Rod had spent 4 sessions walking under tack with another horse at his side. This date we put him out in space without company and he handled it quite well. Expect to be trotting soon.

More Info

And,as I finish my 6/12 Desormeaux post Steve Haskin writes that KD has several other instances pulling up horses in major races. Shows again, blogging without having all the facts can be detrimental to your credibility. I should be more careful. And there's John of Not of the Swift questioning the ride.

Do these affect my opinion? I'd have to consider KD's pull ups in the equation. I'm sticking by it--KD made the right decision. While I see the points made by the punters here, are we going to protect these horses, or not?

Training:
Thurs. 6/12: my "assistant" makes it quite an evening as he manages to fall on his a$$ into a pile of manure in driving rain. Rod walked under tack for 10 min., and then down it comes, though we avoid complaining about a little rain while the winds blow away scout camps and towns near by. Too many tornadoes to close to us for comfort, of late.

Closing The Book On Big Brown?

"To have is to have however men do catch".

(from Mr. S.)

What happened to Big Brown? Heat, hooves, Winstrol, injury,training, rider, or simply a bad day? The most reasonable conclusions seems exactly what Desormeaux said. KD "had no horse" because Big Brown simply ran out of gas.

Speculate of course why BB hit the wall. I'd written in my 6/5 post questioning BB's fitness and outlining his training what anyone would conclude: "possibly Dutrow might have/has got a problem." My Belmont day post speculated that BB was barely on the edge of being able to make it all the way around but that his talent would prevail.

I reached this conclusion due to my contempt for the training of the other horses in the field. On paper BB's training looked the same as the others. I'd omitted consideration of the Winstrol factor, and failed to watch the Barbaro stakes from Preakness day that showed the developing monster named D'Tara.

You'd have to ride a horse to fully understand a horse pooping out. When you're going along at full speed there's wind noise that prevents you from fully hearing the horse's breathing, but the rider monitors the breathing by making mental note of the performance. When the performance starts to fade the rider pays very close attention to the breathing factor and you can generally feel the horse's breathing struggling in this circumstance despite the wind. When you then pull up the struggling horse(and wind noise reduces) you can hear the breathing as impaired to totally blocked. The horse is unable to get its air.

Big Brown had to be in this state or very near it rounding the quarter pole. KD and any jockey would understand that and that the race was over. KD failed to fully articulate probably because his formost concern was possible fracture.

While BB's training would be the primary problem and cause, there were other contributing factors. I'd think the clodhopper front hoofs that they failed to re-shoe pre-race hardly helped on the deep surface and contributed to accumulating fatigue. It's also possible the horse was distracted by mild pain associated with his quarter crack--I questioned why they would put composite over the laces when Ian McKinley's own videos show that you remove the laces prior to the patch, and that the method used might have pressed the wire laces into the laminae. Dutrow left the shoeing up to the experts, and as often happens in such cases, experts are other than trainers, and they thus make questionable decisions. (Recall that Barbaro was fine till they called in Dr. Scott ___ to rewrap.). And finally, of course, the big horse-hot day factor.

Will BB will be back? The low life Dutrow (normally) trains harder and more intelligently (from what I can tell) than most of his competitors. Given what Dutrow did with the horse after the Derby I fear for the safety of the horse, and would just as soon he be retired.

Training:
Wed. 6/11 Riderless with both horses, warm up + 6 x 3f at :15s with some spurting. Art for second consecutive night lost his left rear show which has very little holding it on at this point. Need to equilox, but it's too wet. We're without stalls. Art trotted under tack with 200 yds of gallop. The wet weather is hindering our galloping. Rod walked 8 min. under tack.

Desormeaux's Ride

"Oh shame, Oh curse, upon such bumpkins" (Goethe)

The blog has to date defended the gentleman at left, and so continue giving every benefit of the doubt, and ignore (for the moment) that perhaps such "honesty" as we got from Dutrow yesterday may be taking sportsmanship to a new low. What about the ride?

Let's begin pre-race and take a look at the relationship between trainer and jock. At one of Dutrow's pre-race press conferences he stated that he would decline any conversation with Desormeaux in terms of riding instructions before the race, noting "what could I tell him--how they ride is between him and the horse"--or something to that effect, which qualifies as slight revision of Mandella's jock instructions to "take two lefts".

Confide first that a trainer failing to talk to his jock or sit down with his jock or study film and the Form with his jock before a race of this magnitude qualifies as stupendously mind boggling. My reaction on seeing this video was "what the heck" and concluded two possibilities:
1. That Dutrow acknowledging his own bumbling ways avoids ride discussions with his jocks, or
2. That the relationship between trainer and jock were other than good.

Note further that Dutrow both kept KD off of the horse pre-race and also announced publicly that his exercise rider breezed the horse more skillfully than KD, which though I like Nevin's recent riding, is about as absurd a statement in the situation as one might imagine. Suffice to say that pre-race KD never had in any of these races the great advantage of riding the horse in the mornings and understanding BB's habits.

So, with this background we may view KD planning the race on his own, without benefit of either riding the horse or discussing problems with the trainer. May we assume that KD was smart enough to take account of BB light training, and that KD going into the race was concerned already with both performance and possible break down and his own safety as well as the horse.

Then there's the actual ride. It looked like a clean break to me, then this:

Is BB reacting to the crowd OR soreness where equilox presses the twisted wire lacings into his left hoof laminae (in my opinion the most probable cause of the BB behavior)? In any event may we acknowledge that the trainer never prepared his horse for an inside post position, nor to my knowledge in the past two months ever bothered to gallop the horse in company. Desormeaux was put in postion of leaving the gate and immediately having his attention distracted. Would Prado have handled it better?

In the first round straight away then we see KD attempting to get BB to the outside of D'Tara, but at the exact moment another horse comes in from the outside immediately shutting off the move and causing BB to swivel his head to the left. Bad racing riding, or unlucky circumstances? I thought KD handles this as good as it could be handled. The criticism--BB should have been gunned ahead of D'tara to avoid this. Nice 20-20 hindsight that would have required KD in a milisec to abandon strategy and put the TC in jeopardy. KD made exactly the right move.

The rest of the ride to the moment of pulling up is uneventful and much as one might expect. But, note that both KD and Dutrow noted they understand the horse had problems even when first entering the back stretch. KD must have felt being on the horse the marked difference in the horse's stride compared to the prior races. What might one expect was going through KD's mind in terms of soundness of the horse given the light training? These thoughts: "something's wrong, unknown to me what, Eight Belles. I feel positive a variation of these thoughts were going through KD's mind in the final turn.

It might then be argued that KD became too quickly discouraged when Dennis Of Cork pulled ahead of BB at the quarter pole. I am of this view, and if the horse was to be eased it should have been done a few strides later. I can only surmise that prior to Dennis putting his head in front of BB that KD's concern was already overwhelming him and that Dennis was the final straw in what KD had been considering for a furlong or two.

Put yourself in the same situation in such a short time frame. All I can think of is the muddle of thoughts that resulted in the pull up decision. In my opinion it was the absolutely correct decision. The horse was behaving badly, striding badly and reacting differently then this prior races. Only an ignorant numbskull would have failed to consider the possiblity of a developing fracture and a need to pull up the horse.

I've witnessed in countless athletic contests the puzzled looks of great athletes that unfortunately for them are stuck with questionable coaching and coaches. As the contest proceeds with the athlete giving it their all, a subconscious thought begins to develop that "something is wrong". What's wrong is bad coaching, which we witness on the athlete's face first as puzzlement, then as anger. The photo below shows KD--look at his face--where the anger stage had been reached.

Training:
Tues 6/10: on still muddy ground both horses were galloped riderless slow for 10 minutes. Art trotted on muddy turf for .8 mile under tack, and Rod walked under tack for 8 min.

"Horses Will Humble You"(see Edit)

says Mandella in "On The Muscle". The Belmont was the "biggest choke job in the history of sports" according to J.T. The Brick.

(Edited 6/23/08: this date we learn that
1. Big Brown supposedly was shoed the day of the Belmont. This puts into question the photos here of Big Brown's front feet that show long toes. Photos do lie, but, still those toes look long to me. Nevertheless--shoe the day of the race. In terms of energy expenditure for the horse going for the TC, how smart is that?
2. Recent photos show that BB sprung a rear shoe during the race. This would explain what I called the "pig like stride.". Explains everthing, really.)

I wanted to continue the Big Brown interview from last post, but ferreting out the reason for the performance is getting complicated, and so we'll take it from here without BB. My conclusions at the end of a series of posts divided due to photo manipulation problems. RR conclusions follow.

First, the subject of the BB feet, other than the quarter cracks. There were some problems. Here are BB feet freshly shod from a photo I saved before the Preakness. Notice decent balance, angles and toe lengths. This horse has naturally high heels, a cause of quarter cracks. Notice particularly the fairly short toes.
Here is BB being shod before the Preakness. You'll notice the front toes are significantly longer, and longer than the back toes. Correct shoeing in my opinion would make the back toes either as long as the front or a shade longer.
This is the photo that caught my eye after the Belmont. Notice the length of front left toe. Notice the distance from the point of the toe (the toe of the shoe) to the point of the frog! Farriers learn to eyeball the correct distance in inches from the point of the toe to the point of the frog. Here this distance quite obviously is way way too long. This horse looks like he needs a shoeing job in terms of the length of the toe unless the photo is an optical illusion.
The above photo was other than an optical illusion. They did not reshoe BB before the Belmont. Here is a wash rack photo of BB about 4 days pre-Belmont. This photo clearly shows front toes slightly too long for correct balance and front toes longer than rear toes, a no no.
The same front toes post Belmont. In the five day period they're even longer. The toe growth tends to accelerate as you go on in the shoeing cycle. This photo now shows rear toes that have yet to grow significantly and front toes both too long and out of balance with the rear. To put this horse's front feet back in balance you'd have to remove almost an inch of front toe.


Who am I to question Ian McKinley or whoever the farrier was. It's possible they declined to reshoe for a reason having to do with the quarter cracks. Guarantee that this toe length does BB little favor in the way of stride efficiency. BB's toes were also too long for the Derby. The last shoeing job to the Derby was three weeks out. That was a puzzler. But, the pre-Derby toe lengths were nothing like you see in the photo above.

What you get with the above is slow breakover (due to long toes) on the fronts, and faster breakover due to the shorter toes on the hinds. The "rate of breakover" for fronts/hinds should be either the same or slightly slower in the back for maximum propulsion. Never ever longer toes and slower breakover in the fronts. The horse wants to get the fronts through the stride and out of the way. Big Brown in this shoeing job was both uncomfortable and much less efficient.

More in the post below.

Deep Surface/ Toe Grabs/ Questionable Shoeing

The Belmont surface was deep, which is good for fracture prevention. Notice how deep into the surface D'Tara's front left strikes. You notice the depth of the cups from the hoof prints in other photos. Per Desormeaux's comments it was a deep track.
Now, you combine the post on top of this one were I indicated the BB front long toes, add that those fronts lack toe grabs, a stupidity(Edit 6/11: subsequent photos show clearly that BB's front shoes have a short toe grab, so this part of the post is incorrect.) that I dealt with on the blog in my section on shoeing in Spring 2007(different style shoes fronts/hinds), and you have a horse that was as the jock noted, slipping and sliding and failing to get a hold of the surface combined with an inefficient stride cause by his long front toes. Good grief!

Questionable shoeing practice, questionable training and attention to detail. Big Brown had clodhoppers for front hoofs for the Belmont. The ideal time to shoe is a few days out from the race. You plan your toes for perfect length at race time. Why they'd choose to go without front grabs on a lose deep surface is beyond me. Guarantee that D'tara was wearing grabs all the way around.

The Big Brown Interview

As seen on www.horseshoes.com
(Bulletin Board "Farriers Helping Farriers, General Discussion Forum")

Reporter's interview with Big Brown After the race.

(Reporter) Big, tough race out there today, disappointed?

(Big Brown) Let's see, I win the race and I get a bunch of carnations around my neck and a picture with a short guy on my back. Afterwards I go back, have a nice meal, and sleep in a barn. Then I end up getting put out to stud. If I have this figured right, all I'm out is the photo.

(Reporter) So you weren't trying?

(Big Brown) You saw the race.

(Big Brown) did you give it your all?

(Big Brown) Which part of "you saw the race" is escaping you, Einstein? Tell you what, stamp on the ground three times if you can hear me. Next question.

(Reporter) Did your trainer guaranteeing a Triple Crown put any pressure on you?

(Big Brown) Oh, no (rolls eyes). You're out there with eleven other great athletes and your trainer is in the press saying they're all on their way to becoming dog food. When we were loading up you could cut the tension with a knife.

(Reporter) Did that affect the outcome?

(Big Brown) I'm on the rail to start, always a tough spot. The bell goes off and I'm boxed in. It just so happens the horse in front of me slows and "accidentally" kicks me. I blame Dutrow.

(Reporter) You come back from that and are in third on the far turn. Desormeaux says he asked you for a move, and I am quoting here, realized "I had no horse".

(Big Brown) He said what?

(Reporter) "I had no horse".

(Big Brown) Why that little (bleep). I drag his dead (bleep) around these (bleep) tracks and he says "I had no horse." What did he think he was riding, a (bleep) big (bleep) red dog?

(Reporter) You were lightly exercised between the Preakness and the Belmont. Did that have any effect on you?

(Big Brown) it ain't about that at all. It's easy to sum it up if you're just talking about practice. We're standing here, and I'm supposed to be the first Triple Crown winner in 30 years, and we're talking about practice. I mean, we're talking about, not a race not a race, we're talking about practice.

(Reporter) What about the quarter crack in the front hoof that wasn't patched until yesterday?

(Big Brown) Talk to Dutrow about that. I just show up and run the race. I'm not here to make excuses.

(Reporter) What did you think when Desormeaux pulled you up?

(Big Brown) "I had no jockey".

(Reporter) Meaning?

(Big Brown) I can see I'm not the only one in this room with a brain the size of a walnut.

(Reporter) Several people track side said your manners weren't good on the way to the gate and the heat appeared to be affecting you.

(Big Brown) My manners now is it? Well, excuse me for not prancing all the way out in 98 degree heat and 100% humidity. You people think this is so easy, give it a try. My gear is in the barn, and I'm sure we can get Kenny boy to hop on your back and beat a whip for two minutes while you're running as fast as you can.

(Reporter) What about the future?

(Big Brown) I'm outta here, man, I'm outta here. Talk to Dutrow.

Tomorrow we'll ask BB to tell us what happened, in his own words.

Training:
Sun. 6/8 planned off day and we're under water, again.

The BB Belmont Stride Problem

Just a few thought on the BB shoes that occurred to me:

1. Anybody notice the long toes on the fronts in the bath photos and shorter toes on hinds. There is a significant school of thought(see Tom Stovall CJF wesite) that the hind toes need to be a little longer to allow the horse to grab and power off. BB's front toes long, back toes short. A puzzler. In any event these feet looked unbalanced from these "expert" farriers. Minimally seems to me the toe length and angles needed to be equal vis a vis fronts/hinds. BUT unknown whether BB was reshod after these photos. If so, we're without reports.
2. The pig like stride of BB in this race as opposed to the graceful ground flicking stride of prior races might be partially accounted for by this imbalance in the toes.
3. Report this morning the the turn downs (I believe they're illegal in NY) had been removed. Speculate what sort of hind shoe they might have used and how STUPID it is to change shoeing styles and hence stride efficiency right before a major race.
4. Report this morning that one of the hinds was lose and this was not a problem. HUH?

I've been shoeing horses for 12 years. I've learned a thing or two about shoeing and track black smiths. The track smitty's are in general highly skilled, intelligent good people. BUT they are other than trainers, and in general violate the rule that I (as a trainer as opposed to smitty)developed over the years that it's awfully hard to help a horse. Lot's of times its better to leave well enough alone than to come up with fancy glue ons, wire laces and lots of stuff I've seen done with BB. Unknown how many times I've spent an hour on some major therapeutic project to look at it in conclusion and decide to take it all off. Often you solve one problem only to create three others.

Please note that this is other than to question Ian McKinley. I am hardly a quarter crack specialist, and McKinley obviously knows his procedures and that they work. BUT in this case it is obvious to me there was a stride problem from the get go which on a hot day would have made this big horse's work much tougher.

One year ago I had a similar quarter crack problem on my horse Art who created the crack all the way to the coronet band by tearing off a shoe in a fence in the exact area as BB's latest crack. I removed some hoof wall, let the thing dry out then applied Equilox over it and the horse was able to continue training without a burp. I have to wonder whether in their effort at therapeutic shoeing that in the end they might have made things worse whereas normal correct shoeing methods and allowing the cracks simply to dry by removing hoof wall might have worked just as well. Open for speculation of course. It might be interesting to hear Ian McKinley's take, particularly on the unbalanced toes and questionable stride of the horse both in the race and in his Friday gallop.

Remembering Tampa Bay (Derby)

A great friend of horse racing died on Belmont Day. Maybe my post should be a bit more muted out of respect for Jim McKay. I'll leave it as it was before that thought.
Is this horse on steroids or is the light hitting at just the right angles to show muscles popping out of D'Tara's ears? Which makes me more unhappy, Big Brown losing the TC or Nick Zito finishing 1st and 3rd? I'm trying to decide.

The call came about 5:40 p.m. our time as I was filing some paperwork in the office from my mother Margo. "What happened to Big Brown?".

Put it up front that I've rarely been more wrong, see my last post. I never handicapped the race. Had I done so and watched the Barbaro Stakes from Preakness Day (which I did after the Belmont) D'Tara could be identified as a really good horse. And he's by Tiznow. Did he go off at 39-1 because he's trained by Zito or was it something else?

Nevertheless, this Belmont was done in :12.44s, a time that would hardly win a lot of allowance races. Consider this sour grapes, but if I were unable to beat Nick Zito in the Belmont I'd hang up the spurs. This was a truly pitifully trained field to get this result.

I am amazed again by the inexplicable. How's a horse look this good at 1.5 miles off of one 4f breeze 8 days out in :49.3 since May 17? I consider this nearly impossible. Has to be the under the radar stuff, right? Was Zito perhaps doing a lot of two minute galloping. I've never seen him do that before, but, maybe. Does Zito merely understand how to be competitive in the Belmont where in all prior races this year his horses finished up the track or nearly killed themselves in the race (see War Pass). I'd really like to know, if someone would care to fill us in.

Then there's Big Brown. What happened to BB? On a hot humid day a big horse not only much more likely to bleed or lock up in his breathing than smaller horses, but more often than not they "will" do so unless appropriately conditioned. How do I know this? I've very recently had a horse about the same size, a talent named Acesmash. But, give Ace a hot day and he goes through the motions. So, I'd be unsurprised by a report of bleeding.

BUT, the horse looked uncomfortable to me from the get go. I thought he never ran a jump. You'll see a sharp turn of the head shortly out of the gate. I also see the possibility(to add more speculation) that their decision to leave the wire laces twisted under the patching material on the quarter crack may have caused laminaer pressure that could explain BB's rather different action. He looked more the fat pig than than lythe athlete.

Finally, you might note that M. Nevin managed to come down the stretch on the wrong lead in the Friday gallop. Unknown why a major rider for a huge stable would do that unless the horse refused to switch. It's all speculation. We'll see what they say.

Casino Drive? Were BB himself I'd have believed he'd have won, but for me it would be a very close call. The Jap training was less than perfect, and you wonder about a horse in his Thursday breeze in the slop failing to change leads at Belmont Park. That's about 5f on one lead. Hoof bruise. They're lucky that's all it was. Where was the bull horn or short wave radio to tell Prado to abort and restart when the horse refused the lead change?

I think they should lighten up on Dutrow. Sure, he's other than a rocket scientist, but I hardly see him as an incarnation of evil. I watched a long Dutrow interview on one of the news services. This guy's got a heart of gold. Unsure that you necessarily give respect to one with a long line of transgressions, but, maybe you cut some slack given what Dutrow's accomplished of late.

Training:
Sat. 6/7 4f riderless warm up then 4 x 1f at near max speed. Art then did a mile of trot under tack with about 100 yds. of gallop. He'd lost a rear shoe so I limited the gallop. Rod walked for 7 minutes under tack.

Triple Crown Day

With the scratch of Casino Drive I removed the question mark after the title. More on CD vs. BB tomorrow.

If I handicapped the race I might turn up some overlooked angles, but glancing at the PPs it seems fairly safe to predict, barring some injury, that vis a vis this field expect Big Brown in another zip code at the wire.

Did any of these horse besides CD prepare for 1.5 miles? Due to spotty reporting, unknown what happened under the radar in the training. But, strictly from the PPs the most common method of training has been one or two 4 or 5f works since the middle of May in :12s and probably off day 1.5 mile galloping. What are these trainers thinking in terms of preparing for the 1.5 mile Belmont. Who knows?

We may further assume, besides their breezing, on non-breeze days this field barely gallops 1.5 miles, much less race that distance. Thusly, it would be a rather huge shock to my weak heart to see anything other than an entire field, somewhere between the quarter pole and eight pole (and several way before that--see Zito and Macho Again), lock up in either their breathing or from lactic acid build up. If we believe the training the field should be crossing the wire in :14s.

This locking up should happen also to Big Brown but to a lesser degree. BB's prep since the Derby has been about as pitiful as the rest and was hardly helped by the hoof problems. However, the most talented horse ever, as I've branded BB, did breeze last in ideal sequence to the race (unlike the remainder of the field), and will in the race need to "work" less to cover the same ground as the rest. Stride efficiency, stride length an obvious breathing ability should give BB an insurmountable advantage given the training of the field.

Thus, the obvious strategy for Kent Desormeoux would be to lay off the leaders with BB easily galloping along and then take off when the harder working field most assuredly will commence to tie up around the quarter pole.

I think BB himself will be struggling by the 1/8s, but by them believe he'll have them wired.

Will one or two horses be coming on? Only Tale of Ekati and Dennis of Cork have the slightest chance of this. I'd think if TOE has been on the track since his last breeze we'd have heard some report. Since I think B. Tagg has kept TOE in his stall this week, I'm unable to imagine any stamina at speed down the stretch for this horse.

Dennis is a slightly different matter. The video shows this horse to be extremely fit and muscular. Maybe there's more to that training that the PPs show. Guessing--I documented prior to the Derby David Carroll being a lost in the clouds Shug McGhaughey type trainer. I doubt he's changed his stripes, and believe the more likely scenario to be that Dennis is in superb condition to run a mile. Believe that's about what will happen. (Edit: Ed De Rosa video says Dennis had monster training in the mornings in KY, hmmmn, and now a report Dennis may scratch 4:12 p.m.).

We'll hope they all get around there and enjoy the race!

Training:
Fri 6/6: after yesterday's off day both went riderless after 4f warm up: 6 x 3f mostly play and since they were enthusiastic it was snappy in muddy conditions. Art then trotted under tack on very soft grass (unable to gallop due to conditions) .8 mile. Rod walked under tack, sort of, 3-4 min. Rod in his 4th day of true tack work decided he'd rather stand then walk. Nob went along with the program. To avoid fear at this stage we like to assure the horse that he's in control. We might be trotting with Rod in a week.

Big Brown's Fitness Level

" Were I heir to all this land, I'd give every foot to have this face. I would not be Sir Nob in any case"

Nor would I be Dutrow, for every foot, but, if I were Dutrow for a day or so should I be concerned about Dennis of Cork, Tale of Ekati? Casino Drive, and as Bill commented last post, Guadalcanal? There are some good horses in this race, and note the video that shows Casino Drive to be quite a bit better stronger horse since the Peter Pan.

I've yet to see the PPs. I'd be interested in Dennis's breezing schedule and whether he's been prepped for the distance. An educated guess on this that it's doubtful, but, assume (for analysis) that Dennis can carry his considerable talent all the way with Albarado on board replacing Borel and making a move sooner than in the Derby. What do we then get from this talented horse Dennis of Cork?

My thinking-- if Dennis and Big Brown are on equal terms in fitness BB would be BB and put Dennis away easily. I've recently watched all 100+ Derbies trying in vain to find one that might stride out with BB. Nada. All things being equal BB might be 10 lengths better than any horse in history, and that would include Big Red, if we're seeing correctly.

Same deal Tale of Ekati and the rest. But, to quote the great trainer Mandella "What if he's not" What if Big Brown lacks the fitness of these other horses due to recent soft training? Might we look at BB's probable fitness level of the moment:

5/3 1.25 mile race
5/4 rest
5/5/rest
5/6 rest
5/7 rest
5/8 trot
5/9 1.5 mile gallop
5/10 1.5 mile gallop
5/11 1.5 mile gallop
5/12 rest
5/13 rest
5/14 1.5 mile gallop
5/15 1.5 mile gallop
5/16 1.5 mile gallop
5/17 2f breeze + 1 3/16 mile race (BB looked good in the Preakness. Would he have looked as good against a stronger field? Good Grief except BB they all died at the quarter pole. I'd question whether BB's really maintaining top speed fitness even at this point.)
5/18 rest
5/19 rest
5/20 rest
5/21 1 mile trot
5/22 1 mile trot
5/23 off--new quarter crack
5/24 off
5/25 off
5/26 Trot--Dutrow goes out against farrier advice, an indication of concern.
5/27 1.5 gallop
5/28 1.5 mile gallop
5/29 1.5 mile gallop
5/30 off--the exact schedule is unknown, but, it went something like this.
5/31 1.5 mile gallop
6/1 1.5 mile gallop
6/2 1.5 mile gallop
6/3 Breezed 5f in 1:00
6/4 off
6/5 trot
6/6 1.5 mile gallop
6/7 Belmont

34 days (note, the above schedule is guesswork from scattered reports)
18 days off or trot
3 days of breezing/racing--that's once every 10 days that this blog has already identified as woefully inadequate.
but, 13 days of gallop--note, BB gets a lot out of his gallops even though they're slow.

What do we have here but bare minimum level of fitness for structure, which is a concern with this horse, and performance. Horses "run down" due to weak suspensories, and given this horse's inadequate prep (partly caused by circumstances), I'd hate to think of a horse doing less than the above. With BB we have near powder puff training of late with "some" little recompense:
1. the horse gets fit galloping with his 150 lbs rider/tack.
2. The breeze/race work seems just barely enough. Combo of pre-derby work and since, there's still a level of speed fitness at the moment even if it's less than it was.
3. Dutrow times his Tues. 5f in 1:00 breeze nicely for performance this Saturday. Compare with the ill-trained Macho Again that finished up last Friday.

On the other hand:
1. BB has put on weight, and he's a big horse to begin with.
2. Its going to be a muggy 94 degrees. Big horses/hot muggy weather, ugh!
3. The horse yet to extend himself in a race or breeze.

How to evaluate the light training and questionable cardiovascular fitness of BB at this point compared to the competition. Possibly Dutrow might have/has got a problem. Continue Saturday morning.

Training:
Thurs: 6/5 the horses were off in stormy weather. Like Dutrow I timed it nicely.

Does Fitness Matter?

To the Japs apparently so. Taking a page right out of Preston Burch, the Jap trainer Kazuo Fujizawa breezes Casino Drive every three days.

How far and how fast are those breezes? You have to paste it together since the training reports out of Belmont have been pitifully spotty.

If you count gallop ins and outs I'm taking it that CD breezes from 6f to 1 mile every three days and that its in :14s with 2f sub :12 accelerations thrown in here and there. I'm guessing there might be a couple of those 2f licks in :23 and change over a mile work and that this is (hopefully) sufficient for fracture resistance.

Please NOTE: doing :14s (compared to e.g. a 2 min. lick) crosses that threshhold into true speed, and doing :14s a mile or 6f every three days will most definitely create a significant amount of cardiovascular fitness. Throw in the accelerations and possibly you have a very formidable horse over 1.5 miles.

Unknown how long CD has been at this, but if you watch the video and have an eye for it, this looks like a fit horse. In any event consider all this compared to Big Brown who has done one breeze since the Derby.

Then there's the now famous walking, supposedly 45 min pre and post track work though I'd wager it's closer to 30 min most days and that the "power walking" is primarily for the camera. Nevertheless, that's a lot of walking under tack, but again is hardly without precedent. Ross Staaden's book, "Winning Trainers" notes that T.J. Smith (Australian leading trainer 33 years in a row) in the old days used to walk his horses pre-dawn for an hour on an asphalt parking lot attached to Randwick race course. "Why'd he do it" asks Staaden to T.J.'s vet Percy Sikes? T.J. felt his horses slept a lot because of all this exercise, and that the horse being down frequently was one factor in T.J.'s success. Humorously, when the riders unionized T.J. quit this practice.

And so, we have the question whether sending a fit horse up against the best striding horse ever will win the race. The question I asked: "How do you beat these guys (IEAH)?" next post.

Training:
Wed. 6/4/08: riderless for both: 4f warm up then 4 x4f in :15s with some :14s as our 2 yr. old Rod poops out last 1/2 mile. Art then did .8 mile trot under tack, and Rod did some ground work under tack.
Thurs. 6/5/08: both horses off.

I.E.A.H. Stables. How Do You Beat These Guys?

A hundred million dollar horse hedge fund, it's just now occurring to me. That's a lot of greenbacks as I'm looking last night at my little $3500.00 purchase named Rolling Rodney. He's over 15'3" now and, shall we say, "trainable". We're conceding nothing at this point.

Can this amount of dough in I.E.A.H. be beat? Guess you'd have to say after they luck into the best horse ever it would be tough. Nevertheless, besides a probable impending bankruptcy in a few years, expect the BB money to keep them afloat for a while, can we look at the BB training and Derby training of the last few posts to believe that I.EA.H. and the like at this point in the sport is still "beatable"? After I finish the "injury avoidance" posts I'll get into performance. Should be interesting for me personally as my youngsters will about then hopefully be performing themselves. But, I'd have to think, per the last few posts here, with a lot of different horses that trainers breezing 4 or 5 furlongs once a week with a couple of race preps might be ripe for the picking regardless of the size of their bankrolls.

Not of the Swift (blog) has a nice Dutrow video on this morning. Dutrow tends to grow on you as you listen for a while to his struggles to express himself. But sooner or later (usually later) Dutrow will chug out the right word that indicates he knows training and looks out for his horse. Maybe Dutrow is underestimating the Japs a bit, but I think they should avoid underestimating him.

Training:
Tues 6/3/08: minute I walk out of the house it starts raining. We got in our riderless work that consisted of about 10 minutes of 4f at a time with some short 85% spurts throw in. Trying to take it easy on the 2 yr old in his growth spurt. Art's lacerated heel bulb gave him much less trouble yesterday, and hopefully we'll be back in business with tack work this evening.