Circumstantial Evidence, Frequency, Fracture Resistance

(Bit of a hurry today. On comment, last post--yes, I did look at Mike Marshall's(Dodger reliever some years back)baseball pitcher work about 5 years ago. It interested me because in baseball a Q similar to horse racing: pitchers do little for your team when they're on the disabled list, and M. Marshall recognizes unlike most of the conventionals in the sport. (changing a bit in some orgs as Tampa Bay and Boston!) Seemed me, my recollect, and why I never followed up, Marshall deals more in kinesiology than physiology. Interesting though! More Than A Reason who races a lot and keeps going. Snow ball rolling down the hill if you can keep them running imho!)

For some time I'd thought that 7 days may well be the minimum speed work frequency required to get and maintain fracture resistance (FR). The direct evidence provided by bone physiology points in that direction, though, yet to be finalized. Needed next to look at the circumstantial evidence provided by the trainer stats. Do the stats e.g. also point to 7 day frequency for FR?

Put same Q another way: do trainers averaging more than 4.3 speed works per month have better injury records than those averaging less?

In this sense take note--of the stats looked at--there's Bill O'Gorman, and there's the rest. Only O'Gorman averages more than 4.3 speed works per month, and, unsurprisingly, O'Gorman also has the superior injury record. Raises the interesting Q--why would a horse ever be trained differently than O'Gorman training? Try to answer that at some point.

Of the trainers analyzed they are all pegged as "conventional trainers" except two: Lukas and O'Gorman, who stand out due to signficant differences in their training, and because they fail in regards to the definition of the conventional trainer provided here:

http://ratherrapid.blogspot.com/2010/12/what-is-conventional-trainer.html

So, now a brief look at Lukas and O'Gorman compared to the rest as exemplified by Catherine Day-Phillips who, though defined and pegged as a conventional trainer, provides a cookie cutter consistency (similar to e.g. Mark Hennig), that allows easy analysis. We've already seen that Day-Phillips gets consistent injury stats in the years 2008 and 2010, and that her training in 2010 remains the same as in 2008.

Day-Phillips per last post has a superior injury rate because for the early 5 month of her program she mostly sends the horse for speed work at least every 7 days. While her average rage of frequency for these early months is a little short at about 3.6 times per month, this is solely due to short periods of off time for the first 3 very spaced out races which skewers the stats. Omit those and the Day-Phillips frequency stats for the early months of training will be right on 4.3 per month. AND she achieves the near 33% permanent injury rate of O'Gorman who breezes and races much more frequently. The Q then: is the 4.3/month the frequency we may point to for our minimums??? Day Phillips training certainly provides evidence for this supposition!!!

Training:

Wed. 12/29: Off. Rain.

Achieving Fracture Resistance In The Day-Phillips Stable!

How is Day-Phillips doing this year results wise? Guessing,--other then well. But, check the Woodbine trainer standings:

http://www.woodbineentertainment.com

Unlisted. Might take a another look at Day-Phillips when and if I ever get to "performance". For now, suffice to say, were I an owner of a horse with Day-Phillips I might be continually frustrated understanding my horse could do so much more in terms of each race prep. There's the inexplicable stuff--here a horse breezes 5 days out from a race, there 7 days, there 8 days, there not at all. Hardly ever do they breeze at race speed and never at race distance, etc. etc. Numerous possible reasons, yet so consistently inconsistent in terms of prepping for performance you begin understand--if possessed of such knowledge--that this lady has very little feel for the performance aspect of athletics.

Yet, in terms of injury prevention we give a good round of applause. Day-Phillips in both 2008 and 2010 has the very best injury record of the many trainers analyzed, and is right in there with O'Gorman. If you send a horse to Day-Phillips you have some assurance lacking in most others --your horse might actually last a couple of years.

So, what may we conclude from what Day-Phillips does with her stable.

Let's first identify:

1. All breezes are in the 12.5/f range that I have pegged as the minimum necessary to get an FR (fracture resistance) training effect.

2. All breezes are at least 4f, identified as the minimum distance to get an FR effect.

3. There is for all horses a frequency of breeze race almost every 7 days for 3-5 months into the campaign.

What is being discussed here is #3 above. What "frequency" of speed work is necessary for FR?For the horse "What Say You" a frequency of about 3.6 speed works/month was achieved January through July and thereafter to December about 3.1/month. Note--a drop of in the last half of the campaign of .5 per month means that in the last half of the year the horse essentially had only about 2.7-2.8 speed works/month. Deep into the campaign Day Phillips sharply drops the frequency of her speed work--which partially explains her performance problems.

BUT there is an interesting pattern for the Day-Phillips horses in terms of speed work frequency. In the first part of the year the go every week--every 7 days--like clockwork, and, but for the two weeks off she gives after the early races, they continue this pattern for 2-3 months after racing begins. To further hone this--the early races are spaced so that you could manipulate her frequency average fairly close to 4.3 times a month which is every 7 days.

The conclusion of this is that Day-Phillips ACHIEVES FRACTURE RESISTANCE with her stock BEFORE she backs off the speed work.

Now, if you are perceptive having read every word of this blog, the above statement is quite a revelation concerning the "circumstantial evidence" we have for FR minimums. In the Day-Phillips stable this is achieved with every 7 day speed work!!!

Training:

Mon. 12/27: 15 min. walk-trot.

Tues. 12/28: 20 min walk-trot--mostly trot.

2010 Stats Day Phillips

Hamlet:

"...why may not imagination trace the noble dust of Alexander,

till he find it stopping up a bung-hole?

Horatio: "Twere to consider too curiously, to consider so."

Hamlet: "No, faith, not a jot; but to follow him thither with

modesty enough, and likelihood to lead it: as

thus: Alexander died, Alexander was buried,

Alexander returneth into dust; the dust is earth; of

earth we make loam and why of that loam, whereto he

was converted, might they not stop a beer barrel?

Imperious Caesar, dead and turn'd to clay, might stop a hole to keep the wind away:

O, that that earth, which kept the world in awe,

Should patch a wall to expel the winter flaw!"

When trespassing on another's turf like a home burglar may we take justification in this: "No, faith, not a jot; but to follow him thither with modesty enough, and likelihood to lead it: as thus:

The operative word above is "trace" with hopes of: "And likelihood to lead it". Leave to Mr. S. deal so eloquently with the tendency to avoid digging deep enough to get to the point.

And, with that fan fare:

Between March 1 and March 15 it looks as if Day Phillips sent her whole 25 stall stable to the track to do breeze work.

Click on her website: "workouts" "all horses" and start at March 1 to identify the 25 horses I followed through the year. How many were still racing/breezing in October? I.e. they survived without permanent injury to that point

11 were still hitting the track for speed work in Oct. and 14 were missing in action. None of these 14 appear on the work or race tab for Oct and Nov. Thus 11of 25 or 44% who comprised most of the stable in March were still at it in Oct. For sure, several of the 14 missing were retired due to poor performance or at end of their careers. The nice horse True Jean is an example. Estimate that 5 of the 14 quit for reasons other than injury.

Thus, giving every benefit of the doubt 16 of 25 would be still healthy in October. That's 64%. For the skeptical that might think I have deliberately manipulated this--I derived the figure 64% only after going through the machinations above. Fairly obviously, Day-Phillips is consistent and a 35% permanent injury rate/year in 2008 has become a 36% rate in 2010.

To agree that several horses would have been retired you may look at the group and see the poor performance in some e.g. one raced three times and finished 7,7,7 and then disappeared. Several others similar.

Conclusions on what Day-Phillips stats tell us, next post.

Training:

Mon. 12/27: we have been guilty of inconsistent tack work since the nice weather started early Oct. Hopefully this aft. was a beginning. The horse was tack for 15 min trot-walk.

Horse Named What Say You

What Say You trained by Day-Phillips: 2010 Breeze/Race record

10 races

22 breezes

In the money finishes: 3,4,5,3,3,2,3,2

Speed works/month: 3.13 (note that to 7/17/10 she averaged 3.58 breeze/race/month.

Most breezes are of the :12.5/f variety

Races mostly 7f or 1 1/16 miles.

Never really improves performance, but looks as if she's injury free.

Here is her breeze race schedule with running commentary:

1/30/10 3f 3 yr. old filly shows up on the radar.

2/6: 3f 8 days later.

2/13: 4f now they go in 7 days (why the difference? is there really a plan here, or are they going on rider availability or something else?)

2/20 3f 7 days again

2/26 4f 6 days this time

3/4 4f 6 days again

3/10 5f 6 days

3/17 5f 7 days now

3/24 5f 7 days

4/3 4f 9 days lol--race coming, why do they wait?

4/10 7 days later Race #1 MSW finishes 6th--nice placing for an injury free first race. Instead of pressing the horse, they take it easy!

(Note: why is Day-Phillips a conventional trainer--in the crucial 17 days before the race the horse has one 4f breeze.)

4/24 5f in 1.01.8 personally I'd prefer to avoid waiting two weeks and then going right into a 5f in almost :12s. the horse has now had but 3 breezes in a month.

5/1 4f in 48.8. Looks as if they got away with the 4/24. they're right back at it 7 days later.

5/22 4f in 48.8 Or, maybe they failed to get away with it as this time they wait 3 weeks. very possibly a minor injury there.

5/28 Race #2 claiming at 7f. Finishes 2d. With a little different training, might this have been an easy win?

6/19 5f in 1.02.8 They've waited 3 weeks and done essentially a 1:03 breeze. Can they possibly expect any performance at this race:

6/24: Race #3 MC 7f finishes 3rd. This time they breeze 5 days before the race. inconsistency or had they produced a slight injury again?

7/10 4f 49.6 2 weeks

7/17 Race #4 MSW 6.5f finishes 2nd. Horse has responded somewhat. My guess--very consistent racing schedule and probably doing more work than her competitors. Will this horse get better now. Why or why not?

7/31 4f 50.8. 2 weeks since last. Slow time either due to 2 week layoff or are the buoyed by the 2nd place finish figuring unnecessary to do much?

8/5 Race #5 MSW 1 1/16 miles finishes 3rd. Again, they breezed 5 days out from the race. The two weeks post race off period is inviolate, but if a race comes up within 5 days of breeze, they go.

8/21 4f in 49.4 again they wait about 2 weeks.

9/5 4f in 48.6 15 days they wait. ??? Could of course again be a minor problem.

9/11 5f in 1:03 8

9/18

9/18: Race #6 MSW 1 1/16 miles finishes 3rd.

10/2 4f in 47.6 --the first reasonably fast w/o. then they wait 8 days to race.

10/10 Race #7 MSW 7f finishes 10th. What exactly happened--maybe need do more than 1 breeze every 3 weeks for performance? Or, just a throwout.

10/23 4f in 52.6. Two weeks later essentially a non-breeze.

10/31 Race #8 MSW 7f finishes 5th.

11/13 4f in 51.6 they are now babying the horse between races. Probably the opposite of what's necessary here for performance.

11/20 Race #9 MSW 1 1/16th miles 4th.

12/5 Race #10 MSW 1 1/8 mile finishes 3rd.

Conclusions: Original intent was to take a look at another group of 10 horses from the 2010 Day Phillips Stable. Unnecessary. The training of What Say You indicates Day Phillips does in 2010 exactly what she was doing in 2008. What is that? As Tom Ivers once observed--these trainers that say they have 20 years experience--what they really have is one year which they repeat 20 times. I think what we see with What Say You is possibly the minimal injury avoiding protocol. While to me this training is highly deficient in terms of performance, it's very consistent all the way through the for the horse in terms of injury avoidance. It's minimalist injury avoidance training in my world, but in the world of the trainer, she probably does more speed work with the horse than most of her peers. To her, she possibly thinks she's doing a lot, maybe to the point of overdoing it, as you see Day-Phillips inexplicably back off this horse at strange times.

The horse never gets a sustained break. Rather, the rest is always post race. Again, lots that could be said in getting performance out of the horse. In terms of injury, if I'd taken the trouble, would guess Day Phillips has the same decent injury rate. Primary reasons: 1. She does minimal injury avoiding work, and 2. She declines to press them at any point.

Training:

Sun 12/26: in frosty conditions the horse did 4 miles of riderless trot-gallop. The older horse has a bruised foot. Rod's first "refusal" w/o. Basically just refused to gallop unless I was within 10 yds of him hurling grenades at his butt. Weather looking good. Tack work recommences tomorrow.

Day-Phillips--Another Look

Day Phillips Website:

http://www.catherinedayphillipsracing.com/trainers/cdp/index.cfm

Is Day Phillips with her nice injury rate a "conventional trainer"? Was my 35% injury rate calculation accurate? A 2010 look at the website of C. D. Phillips. Again, give every benefit of the doubt and hold the trainer to what they post.

Day Phillips is pegged as "conventional" by her training in 2008 of the good horse True Jean. Follow the below training schematic closely, you'll see the point:

http://ratherrapid.blogspot.com/2008/12/true-jean.html

How is Day Phillips doing these days?

Of her 16 that I looked at in December 2008, five of those horses raced in 2010. That's 5/16th or 32% which is totally consistent with pegging her in 2008 with a 35%/year permanent injury rate (pats self on back).

The 2008 survivors with their 2010 results:

Short Shorts--3 claimers finished 7th each time and retired.

True Jean--5 races, best finish at 4th

Victory Pass--2 races one of which was a maiden win.

Read the Stars--4 races, all claimers, finishing 4,3,3,3

Fashion Jenny--3 races--2 of them wins! Claimers.

You begin to see the "owner" problem in our sport. Let's say you bought a $25,000 horse in 2007, paid $25,000,00 to Day Phillips to train the horse and had another $5000 in expenses, what would you get? Probably--nothing--except by blind luck. Of the 2008 horses looked at, one won a race in 2010, and the combined number of 2010 races for the 2008 horses is 17. That's 1 race per horse in 2010 for the 16 2008 horses. Recall that Day-Phillips has the "best" conventional trainer injury rate analyzed. The closer you look the more unbelievable it gets.

Next post will take a look at the Day Phillips 2010 stable.

Training:

Fri. 12/24: riderless 7 x 4f with some fast spurts.

Sat-Sun 12/25 and 26 Off. Very cold.

Fri. Misc.

A recent misadventure with camera and horse. Merry Xmas to all!!!

Contrasting Day-Phillips

The embarrassing enormity of buying that idiot Rollin'Rodney for $3500.00 hits me, reading back through these posts, where I might have spent a "combined" $4427.00 to purchase the "best 3 year old filly in the world" Snow Fairy, AND Hollywood Horse of the Meet Bwana Charlie? Loss for words to describe except that we small fry in horse racing may take some assurance in cheap horses continuing to win big races.

Or, how about this one below?

Pictured is Catherine Day Phillips of King Farms fame with her Twenty Five Hundred ($2,500.00) dollar purchase Jambalaya which won the Arlington Million for her in 2007! Has possibly this attractive lady with her excellent 35% 2008 injury rate got it all figured out?

Possibly! Bears another look!

I'd originally also called this trainer a "benchmark" here:

http://ratherrapid.blogspot.com/2008/12/day-phillips-as-benchmark.html

Reading that post, and the prior posts on training of VanLear Rose (Breeder's Cup Juvenile Fillies) and other Day-Phillips horses where there was a fairly remarkable consistent injury avoiding plan for each horse, all impressive work by Day-Phillips.

Yet, Van Lear Rose finished up the track in the BC creating some red flags. This caused some closer analysis of the available info on Day-Phillips and finally I'd branded her another "conventional trainer"--in this case a Todd Plecher type without some of Plecher's questionable practices. Why?

Let's first acknowledge the requirements of logic. If conventional trainers injure horses, and, if Day-Phillips is conventional and she avoids injuries, how does that compute?

If Bill Pressey--comment last post--runs across this, I'd wonder what he thinks of my definitions of conventional trainers, or whether Bill even thinks in those same terms. I am really pigeon holing a lot of training styles here in an effort to make a point.

Back in 2008 in the Day-Phillips posts, to answer the Q, I'd pegged Day-Phillips as a conventional trainer because her PPs (past performances) indicate that although she tends to outdo most of them injury wise, in the end she engages in many of the same illogical practices as her peers. I am now forgetting the details--but this refers to such as e.g. last breezing 10 days out from a race, skipping a logical breeze, breezing way too slow, or too short etc. etc., those sorts of things that conventional trainers engage in as a holy grail.

I am interested to see what Day-Phillips horses are doing lately. Think it requires another look.

Training:

12/22: Off

Lukas, O'Gorman Compared To The Rest

A smiley fellow and other than a conventional trainer.

Trainer Permanent Injury Rate Per Year/Recorded races-breezes per month average.

33%/8.00 O'Gorman

35%/3.54 Catherine Day Phillips

43%/3.33 D.Wayne Lukas

50%/2.98 Mark Hennig

50%/3.00 Bruce Jackson

50%/3.00 Todd Plecher

50%/3.4 Bongo Racing Stable

55%/??? Kiarin McGlaughlin

55%/??? Mark Casse

62%/4.00 Richard Mandella

65%/???Reade Baker

65%/Mr or Ms. Average American Conventional Trainer

69%/3.25 Linda Rice

75%/2.88 Doug O'Neill

Forgot in the last post the #1 characteristic of conventional trainers--their horses do speed work more than every 6 days, and certainly on a monthly basis they average less than one speed work per week. Once a week speed work would be 4.3 works per month, and, all in the list above do less than this # of breezes/races/month except O'Gorman. By that definition they are all conventional trainers, and Mr. Smiles above with his junior H.S. Education and yet saavy enough in this regard to be a top on the east coast is otherwise. Why? Because, as Dutrow says, "everybody knows what I do", and that is breezing every 6 days or less, ie. Dutrow by his own standard exceeds the breeze work ratio of every trainer above except O'Gorman. I'd guess Dutrow's website, if he had one, would show a very decent comparative injury rate.

Thus, in the list, we separate O'Gorman training merely by the number of speed works per month, as we might have T.J. Smith of Australia, Whitingham and a few others, where they to be included. All the rest I'd terms as conventional except Lukas. Day-Phillips with her nice injury rate will be dealt with next post.

Lukas stands out from the rest for reasons that unlike his fellows Lukas sends his horses to the track more than any other, including yours truly, by my reckoning an average of 22 times per month. If a horse is to gain anything in terms of injury prevention by some minimal regular exercise, then the horse would get that in the Lukas stable. I do believe the slightly lower injury rate that Lukas experienced in 1988 would be attributable to regular track work, and very consistent breeze work, although the average of that will be less than the required minimum that will be concluded here.

You will notice, of course, looking at this list of trainers, that my two bench marks, Lukas and O'Gorman (along with Day Phillips) have the best injury rates of the bunch. The conclusion of this story is fairly simple: If you have a "conventional trainer" as defined here, it looks as if you will get a 50%/year or worse "permanent injury rate". As an owner, this simply is impossible and explains why almost every owner is driven out of the sport eventually by the stupidity and carelessness of their trainers. If, however, you have a Lukas that does a little more, or O'Gorman that observes the rules of common sense, then, at least you have a shot.

Training:

Mon. 12/20/10: Off, after yesterday's hour long chase.

Tues. 12/21/10: The winter solstice probably is my favorite day of the year. 2 min. more of sunlight tomorrow. Arrived late due to work commitment. Barely time for riderless: 7 x 4f with full rests and 1/2 bursts of full speed mixed into each heat. Ground very hard. Hesitant to do more as the 15 year old is already off with sole bruising.

Another Blow To Sheik Mohammed

Anybody see humor in Hollywood horse of the year, Comma To The Top as a Ocala Sales yearling purchase in 2008 for $5000.00. The Sheik possibly took notice. And, nice to see the In Excess line through Bwana Charlie alive and well!

Training: Sun. 12/19: Being unable to catch 'em, and having enough of the 15 year old running from me, we went into our Monty Roberts "horse whisperer" routine last night. Trying to catch them in the pasture was coming to that. I dislike Roberts chase 'em till they break method. While that beats tying a horse down to break their will, I prefer to gain their cooperation instead of breaking them, if possible. This night, through the 18 acres of our field the chase lasted an hour before I collared the lazy one. Chased Groovin' Wind, age 15 another 20 min before darkness gave the win to Wind. Oh well. We'll see how they go tomorrow. Got in some fast licks in the beginning, but another day lost for tack work.

What Is A "Conventional" Trainer?

Trainer Permanent Injury Rate Per Year/Recorded races-breezes per month average.

33%/8.00 O'Gorman

35%/3.54 Catherine Day Phillips

43%/3.33 D.Wayne Lukas

50%/2.98 Mark Hennig

50%/3.00 Bruce Jackson

50%/3.00 Todd Plecher

50%/3.4 Bongo Racing Stable

55%/??? Kiarin McGlaughlin

55%/??? Mark Casse

62%/4.00 Richard Mandella

65%/???Reade Baker

65%/Mr or Ms. Average American Conventional Trainer

69%/3.25 Linda Rice

75%/2.88 Doug O'Neill

Lukas and O'Gorman training differs both in their injury rates and methods to the extent that I term them bench marks for comparison with the rest. What of Catherine Day Phillips and her excellent injury rate? Please reserve the Day Phillips Q for next post.

How do we identify a trainer as a "conventional"?

"Conventional" means conforming or adhering to accepted standards. In TB racing, by my experience (and, take note this is changing somewhat at the upper levels--my injury stats are from 2 years ago) the largest group of trainers have certain characteristics which, if you are around for any length of time, you come to recognize. They all "adhere to" pretty much the same code which begins that every last one of them know everything there is to know about horses, just ask 'em, and also for the most part these:

1. Very little mental connection between a horse's pre-race track work and performance.

2. Ask one of them--what is exercise physiology, and you'll probably get a blank stare.(again, that was in the old days. things are changing!)

3. To these trainers injuries "just happen". Part of the game.

4. Excellent at injury treatment. So many to treat.

5. Exercise protocols, such as they are, originate for these trainers based on "what works" for them, or they copy someone else that's won a race.

6. All have deficiencies in their training with regard to injury avoidance and performance.

7. There is a difference to them e.g. in training method for a $5000 claimer and a stakes horse.

8. (edit: and, the defining characteristic, omitted in the original post: they average less than once a week speed work--breezes/races, which is an average of less than 4.3 speed works/month.)

Those are some of the things that come to mind concerning most trainers on the back stretch. Undoubtedly there are many other identifiable characteristics across the board. To avoid getting totally side tracked I avoided colorful stories in my experience illustrating each point, except will repeat this one:

Don Von Hemmel has a serious stakes race coming up for a successful 3 yr. old filly. I am standing by him at the Woodlands trackside as he supervises her last pre-race breeze. Last race was 14 days ago and no works show since. The race is a mile and a sixteenth. The horse starts at the finish line, trots to the middle of the club house turn, gallops to the 5f, commences slow acceleration, and starts the breeze at the 4f in about :14s. She maintains :14s till the quarter pole and comes home flying. Essentially she's done 2f of 2 minute lick with a little speed down the lane sufficing her only speed work within two weeks. No way this nice horse will have any conditioning for the race. Von Hemmel: "That was excellent. That's all she needs." Finish in the race: 4th. Serious fade down the stretch.

For my purpose, what is the point. In my list of trainers they're primarily all the same except Lukas and O'Gorman, being all conventional trainers in 2008. Understanding this point of "sameness" in our sample, we can make our conclusions.

Training:

Thurs. 12/16: 10 min walk trot.

Fri. 12/17: riderless 5 x 4f with some speed.

Sat. 12/18: still introducing horse to his new course. walk, trot a little gallop terminated 3/4 way thought with a helmet strap problem. About 15 min.

Lukas and O'Gorman As Benchmarks

Looking at those injury stats, last post, if they show anything at all it is that it is unnecessary to have a 50% year (or worse) permanent injury rate in your stable. For those, such as Bramlage, that can stand at the clubhouse turn in the Derby over a downed 8 Belles and pronounce on national TV that this stuff "just happens"--well, Lukas and O'Gorman stats indicate that there is a difference in training methods, and hence there is "causation" of some sort, and so it's other than Bramlage's disservice to the sport. There are reasons these horses go down.

The training method of this man, D.W. Lukas, was uncovered by Australian Vet Ross Staaden in his book "Winning Trainers". Blow to the sport that the printing was discontinued.

Staaden's book contained Lukas's training logs, and Lukas's descriptions that Staaden had to pry the info out of Lukas. This was year of Winning Colors, Steinlen, Red Attack and Blue Jean Baby et. al. the height of the Lukas stable. "Tis a fine revolution Horatio, and thanks to Staaden, we had the trick to see it!"

There is zero similarity between O'Gorman and Lukas training and yet both have stats that separate them from the pack of strictly conventional trainers I looked at. O'Gorman because he breezes twice a week, and Lukas because he sends his horses to the track more than any other-- 22 times a month.

O'Gorman and Lukas thus will serve as my benchmarks in analyzing the trainer injury stats to relate frequency of speed work with the injury rate. I'll make this analysis, next post.

Training:

Wed. 12/15: Pasture romp with speed bursts.

Thurs. 12/16: walk-trot under tack for 10 min.

Fri. 12/17: Tack work was scotched when it took me 30 min. to catch 'em. Out of time. Riderless 5 x 4f with speed bursts.

Analyzing Trainer Injury Stats

33%/8.00 O'Gorman

35%/3.54 Catherine Day Phillips

43%/3.33 D.Wayne Lukas

50%/2.98 Mark Hennig

50%/3.00 Bruce Jackson

50%/3.00 Todd Plecher

50%/3.4 Bongo Racing Stable

55%/??? Kiarin McGlaughlin

55%/??? Mark Casse

62%/4.00 Richard Mandella

65%/???Reade Baker

65%/Mr or Ms. Average American Conventional Trainer

69%/3.25 Linda Rice

75%/2.88 Doug O'Neill

Photo is the younger Doug O'Neill. Unsurprising O'Neill sits at the bottom of the injury stats I looked at. Others have caught on to this fellow since. Nor is it any surprise whatsoever to any paying attention that Reade Baker Linda Rice and Mandella also sit near the bottom, although for different and varying reasons. Baker is one of those whose lack of appropriate husbandry and conditioning is obvious in the photos of his horses. The stats of Linda Rice show that her horses do very little breezing at all after racing begins. She is one of those many fairly good at initial race prep, but after racing begins fails to connect conditioning. Mandella's DVD shows very good intentions and effort but utter lack of knowledge concerning exercise physiology. What Mandella knows is right there in his charts, and it's very little. His injury rate is to be completely expected. There's little more common than a young Mandella horse dropping out of the TC picture due to early injury. Generally takes about one race.

And, you could go on up and analyze each one separately. What I am trying to do here, however, is to relate "injury rate" to frequency of speed work. First glance at these stats shows somewhat of questionable correlation. Is Catherine Day Phillips 3.54 speed works a month all that different from Mandella's 4???

Here lies the answer to this question, and it's something we see(saw) repeatedly in our sport. I use "saw" because the last two years at the upper levels things are changing a bit in terms of training. All of the above trainers are strictly conventional type trainers except two of them. This means that their training protocols are very similar If you omit Doug O'Neill as a careless aberration the frequency of speed works above ranges from 2.98/month to 4/month max for all but O'Gorman. And, almost all of them have about a 50%/year permanent injury rate.

If you look at each of these stables separately--as was done on this blog late 2008--the differences in injury rate can more be explained by trainers continuing to breeze, however infrequently, once racing begins--such as Mark Hennig, eg.--and those that forget about breeze work after racing begins such as Mandella, Linda Rice, and Read Baker in varying degrees. Again, this was 2 years ago. All of these are of late changing up in response to competition.

Thus, there is more difference in in the above stats in the way the trainers handled their horses after racing began than there is as a result of the "frequency" numbers given.

This is, however, no matter to the analysis, again because most of the above trainers had remarkably similar speed work training protocols in terms of frequency. They are mostly all what I have termed "conventional trainers" with some subtle variances in the way they approach.

The trainers who stand out as "different" or separating themselves from the bunch are Lukas and O'Gorman, and of course O'Neill on the other end of the scale. (BTW, I'm tempted to put Reade Baker in the same category as D. O'Neill, except unable as the stats are unavailable to analyze. I am fairly certain if Baker's training were exposed the results would be horrific.).

How O'Gorman and Lukas stand out, and the significance, next post!

Training:

12/11-12/14--4 days off due to weather, and an intentional break.

Wed. 12/15: Pasture romp. The ubiquitous and much feared bogeyman appears in the pasture in the person of myself bearing a whip. Up go the tails, and they're off! Exceptional speed from our Rollin' one. Nice short bursts until Rodney decides about 2/3 of my intended work, to quit. It's a problem that Rod refuses to run with the other horse. The forecast is out. Cold and mostly dry to 1/1. Terrific in terms of winter training!

Trainer Frequencies

The question: do trainer stats tell us anything concerning injuries and the necessary frequency of speed work?

The O'Gorman mug shot should give a hint.

The blog post of 1/23/09 collates injury results in 14 different stables, a small sample. However, the training of over a thousand horses was looked at, many exhaustively through their careers. These are found in this blog, fall/winter 2008-9.

And, we have all the injury results of noted retired English Trainer Bill O'Gorman here:

http://www.racinghorsesbook.com/does_it_work.htm

I am an admirer of O'Gorman training, and of course his results at the race track. The link indicates O'Gorman's permanent injury stats per year. This will serve as one of the two bench marks. The other will be the training of D.W. Lukas.

Here is a summary of injury rates by trainer:

% permanent injury rate per year/average no. of speed events--breezes-race--per month

33%/8.00 O'Gorman

35%/3.54 Catherine Day Phillips

43%/3.33 D.Wayne Lukas

50%/2.98 Mark Hennig

50%/3.00 Bruce Jackson

50%/3.00 Todd Plecher

50%/3.4 Bongo Racing Stable

55%/??? Kiarin McGlaughlin

55%/??? Mark Casse

62%/4.00 Richard Mandella

65%/???Reade Baker

65%/Mr or Ms. Average American Conventional Trainer

69%/3.25 Linda Rice

75%/2.88 Doug O'Neill

While cursory glance reveals little, a closer look, next post.

Training:

12/11-12/14: After the deep freeze, it's warming up. Could have gone today. Inclined to give horse and trainer another day or two off.

"Upon the highest throne in the world, we are seated, still, upon our arses."

So Michael Montaigne ended his essays. Good enough for a Monday! Anybody notice the purchase price of the "best 3 yr. old filly in the world" named Snow Fairy? Tattersals Ireland, 2008 yearling sale: $2,467.00. Guess that's in "Irish". Embarrasingly, I paid a thousand more for my Rollin' Rodney.

At any rate, am checking the trainer injury stats that I compiled in 2009 to see how they stack up in terms of frequency related to permanent injury, and hope to report tomorrow.

Training:

Sat/Sun. 12/11/12/12: They predicted down to zero degrees. Only got to 9 degrees F, lol. We're sitting out the cold snap, so far. Off.

Frequency CONCLUSION

From last post here are minimal frequency conclusions for individual physiologic processes that may be happening in bone as a result of equine speed work:

contraction/compaction (increase density) of the mineral lattice: 8 DAYS

increase in bone glue proteins that hold everything together: 8 DAYS

adherence between some fibrils creating a stronger structure: 5 DAYS

realignment of fibrils/osteons and rearrangement of materials in optimum directions: 5 DAYS

speed up of calcification/ossification/cell repair due to heat and dilation of circulatory structures: 6 DAYS

Reaching these conclusions was complex, and unsurprisingly, analysis of these conclusions also presents a bevy of possibilities. Acknowledge that the above processes are probably unequal in their importance. How much weight then to give to each one? The above processes are expressed in terms of "bare minimums", which means e.g. that if we need do speed work within 8 DAYS to get the benefit since on the 9th day the possible benefit has disappeared, we are nevertheless on the 8th day getting the least amount of benefit that is available. The latter conclusion would seem almost to militate against an overall 8 day conclusion to minimal frequency.

Even though I have identified "rearrangement and alignment" of bone materials at the nano level the probably most important aspect of obtaining FR (fracture resistance), it is my belief that the above listed processes work in concert. There is a synergy between them that produces the final product, and hence each has an extreme importance that we must take note of.

In a logical sense this would cause us to take the lowest number of days--which is 5 days--as our minimum.

Ahh, but here is where we get some practical help from the real world of horse racing. The above process due to lack of knowledge and lack of research are primarily theoretical and mostly my own theories, though it bears repeating that the conclusions are fairly well educated guess work. We may, however, compare these conclusions based on theories of equine physiology with the results that trainers are getting at the race track.

In this post:

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

extensive trainer stats were compiled from the trainer's own websites. How do the real world results compare with the theoretical conclusions based on physiology?

Training:

Sat. 12/11: Off. With the bottom end of the Minnesota Blizzard of 2010--18 inches of snow there, 1 inch here--hitting north KC along with 40 mph wind gusts and temps down to 12 degrees, we may give the horses two or three days off after fairly rigorous training since 10/1.

"Thus sometimes has the brightest day a cloud;

and after summer evermore succeeds, barren winter with his wrathful nipping cold: so cares and joys abound as seasons fleet.

Sirs, whats o'clock?"

--Henry VI Part II

Dec. 10: 58 degrees

Dec. 11: 12 degrees

Somewhere in there 8 feet to be shod. Dry though. Will see how training and motivations hold out in this cold snap.

Training:

Wed. 12/8 horses went riderless 5.5 miles continuous with some fartleks thrown in + 1 mile trot under tack.

Thurs. 12/9: Off

Fri. 12/10 36 hrs. since last. horse was tacked for 15 min walk trot gallop. then riderless 4 x 4f quick + about 2.5 miles continuous :1

Training

Sun. 12/5: 3.5 miles riderless continuous slow with 4f 80% speed in middle.

Mon. 12/6: Off

Tues: 12/7: Several 2-4f bursts riderless + 3 miles continuous fairly slow. 5 miles volume approx. The racer with his new teeth turns fat again.

Frequency Conclusions VI

What happens in the cannon bone during equine speed work has been looked at. Extensive guess work has been done that identifies certain specific physiologic processes. The latest few posts make conclusions as to minimal speed work frequency to reinforce each process. Here is a summary:

contraction/compaction (increase density) of the mineral lattice: 8 DAYS

increase in bone glue proteins that hold everything together: 8 DAYS

adherence between some fibrils creating a stronger structure: 5 DAYS

realignment of fibrils/osteons and rearrangement of materials in optimum directions: 5 DAYS

speed up of calcification/ossification/cell repair due to heat and dilation of circulatory structures: 6 DAYS

What, if anything can be made of this?

By looking at all this closely--the extraordinarily complex physiology of bone at the nano level-- it's fairly easy to understand why almost zero research in horses has been done on the actual question of "fracture resistance", if that term has even been used other than on this blog. Even with regard to human bone the research, mostly dealing with osteoporosis, from 2005 on in they seem only to be scratching the surface of understanding at the nano level.

My own thoughts here have built guess work on top of guess work to the point that one may accuse these final conclusions as being only "wild guesses" except for one salient fact that will appear in the next post on this. This one fact that can be identified does indicate to me that the guesswork here has been educated and is probably fairly close to the mark.

Next post will make a final conclusion as to what we must do in terms of minimal frequency of speed work, and identify that fact which possibly makes the conclusion accurate.

Training

Sun: 12/5: light riderless workout. The video identifies why we went light this day. 3.5 miles continuous with about 4f at about 80% speed.

Mon. 12/6 Off

Frequency Conclusions V

Long post. Conclusion at end.

How often need the horse do speed work to get any calcium producing effect at all?

Complex question. What follows is purely educated guesswork.

Begin with the assumption that the force and concussion of race, the crunching of the mineral lattice, has very little to do with stimulating calcification other than to create diffuse micro damage (theorized to be 1% of bone bone cells per work in appropriately trained horse). In the damaged part of the bone they do know that the osteoclast/blast system will commence immediately to repair the damage.

The other density or size increasing processes that have been (on this blog) theorized:

1. Increase in number of HA crystals within the single developing collagen fibril.

2. Increase in number of HA mineral rings on the exterior skin of the fibril.

3. Calcium crystals flowing to dead or weak areas due to calcium receptors

None of those seem logically to be connected with concussion from speed work.

Instead possibly these three processes might be stimulated by post race increases in heat and circulation, and therein probably lies the key to calculating frequency in terms of calcification!!!

Take note that whatever stimulates initial calcification (unknown to the researchers) the start takes place at the nano-level resulting from chemical-physical processes involving mineral ions, atoms, catalysts, genes, temperature, pressure, etc. all in some still mysterious combo.

For purpose here we need only understand that very possibly post race heat and circulation will jump start this process, initiate calcification in certain ways described above, and then the heat and circulation resulting from the race will subside within 48 hours.

If then, our horse is trained by Preston Burch, 72-96 hrs. post race the horse will go out and work again, and thus within exactly 48 hrs. of initial heat/circulation subsiding this same condition is reproduced, and in Burch training, over and over and over. We might assume in this sort of exercise protocol there is an on-going and very vigorous chemical physical calcification process that will optimize cannon bone strength except as limited where damage overbears new growth (see the Sept. 2008 thereabout posts for the damage process).

The question then becomes--how long can the horse go without additional speed work to keep the calcification process going, which is to say how often must the heat-increased circulation be reproduced.

First, we take note that the heat-circulation phenomenon requires speed work instead of merely galloping. I'd suspect that post race slow gallops might have some minimal beneficial effect and would fall far short of what is required.

To determine the necessary frequency again requires logical guess work. I considered the extremes of TB training--Preston Burch doing speed work every three days and Mr./Ms Out to Lunch conventional trainer (see e.g. Linda Rice who does very little breeze work once racing begins) who may wait two weeks or more between breezing.

The guess is that waiting 2 or 3 weeks between temp/circulation increases would stop any calcification process begun resulting from a race in its tracks. So--we narrow the window--breeze/race every 10 days--is 10days sufficient to keep the process going.

Logically the answer is negative. If e.g. a race starts the production of a single additional HA crystal, and then you wait 10 days to stimulate the process again, would the new calcification necessarily be directed to what was begun 10 days ago. Guessing in the negative.

There needs thus to be heat/circulation produced by breezing close enough in time that the processes begun continue to be directed to the correct area. What does that require?

I am reducing the days and considering--9 days I think roughly the same as 10. Ditto 8 days for this process. 7--thinking any connection would probably be gone.

6 days, on the other hand is only 4 days from the reduction in heat/circulation that lasts 48 hours post race. Thinking 6 days, there might be a residual effect. 5 days certainly

My conclusion: The calcification process requires appropriate speed work at least every 6 days.

Training:

Wed. 12/1: 5 miles riderless fartlek to full speed + 15 min trail ride.

Thurs. 12/2: Off

Fri. 12/3: 5 times trot gallop up and down the hill. Nob reports a break through in rider-horse getting along. Synergy!

Frequency Conclusions IV

Next bone process to consider in terms of frequency of track work:--

speed up of calcification/ossification/cell repair due to post race heat and dilation of circulatory structures

Does "frequency of speed work" influence the amount and quality of calcification?

The blog noted numerous variables involved in the calcification process and noted that research as to the origin of the the process and factors that may initially stimulate calcification are uncertain in the research. "They just don't know" would be an accurate view of the state of things in terms of the initial or starting causes of this process. This would include "exercise" as an initial stimulus and also concussion on the bone, force etc. "Unknown".

My original thought thus was that any sort of exercise, i.e. exercise of varying intensity, might stimulate extra calcification up to the point of affecting the "function" of the particular bone. This means that, stimulated by exercise, calcification might increase the circumference of a cannon bone up to the point the cannon would become so thick that increasing thickness thereafter would affect its function. When that point is reached increased thickening stops--and, so on.

Thus while increased speed work or any other form of exercise has its calcification limits in terms of increasing the number of bone collagen fibrils per square inch--there are still other ways that calcification might increase bone density.

Three thoughts in this regard--and keep in mind that bone collagen is laid in certain specific and very static patterns. exercise leaves these patterns as is. they are the same before and after exercise with set distances between the fibrils--

1. Exercise induced calcification might increase the number of HA mineral crystals inside each fibril. e.g. instead of 7 HA crystals in the interior of the fibril, perhaps one more would form and there would be 8.

2. Exercise might produce additional HA mineral rings on the exterior skin of the fibril--e.g. instead of two calcium rings around the collagen fibril there may be 3 or 4 produced in the nano spacing around each fibril!

3. The idea of "calcium receptors" in dead spots or weak spots drawing to these spots additional HA crystals as a result of exercise. Though these receptors exist all throughout the mammal body, researchers have yet to identify them in bone tissue. This thus is a "theory" at present.

Since Planck Institute noted that any sort of additional calcium geometrically increases bone strength one might conclude in terms of these processes "the more the better".

This, however simplifies our question too much. We want to know how often need the horse do speed work to get any calcium producing effect at all?

Continue next post.

Training:

Tues. 11/30: Off

Wed: 12/1/10: The first polar bear workout turns out well. Riderless horses went about 5 miles all told. Hard ground was stinging feet in certain parts of the course and so this was less than all out work. Divided into heats of 2,3 and 4 f with full rests between. Lots of 1/2 furlong full speed stuff were we could get big Rod to go. Followed by 15 min. trail ride under tack into the Bogey areas--first tack work in a week goes pretty well. Horse much much more relaxed than last summer.

The 12/1 Training Window

December 1, and we mark it down! The next year's race prep, forget the ice flow, begins "now", if it is we plan to race. As a e.g. my stable's last racing year was 2003. We hit Eureka downs around 12/19 that year, got good winter training weather, and barely felt comfortable racing by the opening on 5/1. Training with attention to injury preventing detail goes slowly.

At any rate, our horse Rollin'Rod, with dry, normal weather around here since 10/1 has achieved excellent conditioning, mostly riderless work, although the tack work has also been fairly steady. Should the weather continue to be favorable, and the forecast indicates mostly dry, it's time to transition completely to tack work, which will be done over the next 2 weeks. Polar bear weather hit KC two days ago and so will hold Mr. Nob to his prior year's bragging that he can ride down to 11 degrees. We'll see!

Training:

Tues. 11/30: off.