Connecting Exercise Science To Performance
That the training program may improve performance and prevent injuries is a no-brainer--it can. Will this program improve results in the afternoons?--an entirely different question! Can the good trainer of 10 freshly scrubbed two year olds that indeed makes a mental connection between training and performance expect to win more races in the afternoon?
Let's note first that 25 years after buying the first horse for $7000.00 in 1987 dollars, and many many hundreds of thousands of dollars later--would fear to count it--honest personal anecdote would answer "highly doubtful". And, highly doubtful for numerous different reasons, which is exactly the rub on this subject for every experienced track trainer--unlike trained human athletes there are so many calamities that our good horse athletes are subject to, irregardless of training, the likelihood of getting any one horse on a consistent training-racing program for any appreciable period of time--well--you're swimming upstream against a very strong current.
If, as in my stable, you can avoid horses falling over in the wash rack breaking hips, getting kicked in the nose after 3 wins and a second, somehow getting a nice silver dollar sized wound in a hind fetlock just when she was getting good, getting yourself kicked in the choppers just when you have 7 ready for their first races, etc. etc.--all the non-track "stuff happens to horses" sort of things, there is always an incompetent rider lying in wait to ruin your day. I can count three of mine that were literally destroyed by such riding near the beginning of successful racing campaigns.
The question becomes why bother with a 1.5 year Ivers training program, or knocking yourself and the horse out for several months with rigorous scientific training when all that's going to happen is you may get in 3 or 4 races before something happens. What are the odds of this? Fairly high from my experience.
We had put Jeckimba Bay through Ivers down to the 3 breezes/day at Prairie Meadows and then followed Ivers instructions--instead of resting after a breeze took him for a trot to stretch out and get physiological benefits (according to Ivers) of that and wound up with a sore shoulder. In addition to everything else that happens, who knows exactly how to train a "horse" scientifically?
Lump this all into one little bag and you have knowledgeable trainers that are highly skeptical of "programs". They know instinctively what happens with most horses--they never make it, or substantially under perform because "stuff happens" or because it is so difficult as to be nearly impossible to prevent stuff from happening.
Now--I want to avoid getting carried away with my own personal experience for the reasons that geographical distance from race tracks geometrically compounds every problem and has made our own stable difficult even with the good weather we used to have. We thus additionally turn our attention to those trainers that have by all accounts used more strenuous training.
Who comes to mind in this? Nafzger with Street Sense, Charlie Wittingham, T. J. Smith in Australia, Bobby Frankel in the day was at least doing 4f breezes every 7 days when they started racing, I'd say John Sadler to an extent, these days, and likely a few others. D.W. Lukas certainly has his own, albeit questionably conceived, exercise program.
Given the success of these types why would everyone else do anything but simply copy their programs? This question brings one to the remainder of the "why do they do what they do" question, next post.
Training:
Wed. 9/7: third day in a row for tack work. Rider and horse still getting bearings with new wider horse. Felt a little more comfortable although still in pain from leg tendons stretched at least 4 inches further than ever intended. The horse however did well and we should be galloping by tonight. 13 min trot in pasture including up and down hill. 5 yr. old non raced maidens eligible at Remington says the Spanish speaking fellow that answered the phone in the racing office.
Let's note first that 25 years after buying the first horse for $7000.00 in 1987 dollars, and many many hundreds of thousands of dollars later--would fear to count it--honest personal anecdote would answer "highly doubtful". And, highly doubtful for numerous different reasons, which is exactly the rub on this subject for every experienced track trainer--unlike trained human athletes there are so many calamities that our good horse athletes are subject to, irregardless of training, the likelihood of getting any one horse on a consistent training-racing program for any appreciable period of time--well--you're swimming upstream against a very strong current.
If, as in my stable, you can avoid horses falling over in the wash rack breaking hips, getting kicked in the nose after 3 wins and a second, somehow getting a nice silver dollar sized wound in a hind fetlock just when she was getting good, getting yourself kicked in the choppers just when you have 7 ready for their first races, etc. etc.--all the non-track "stuff happens to horses" sort of things, there is always an incompetent rider lying in wait to ruin your day. I can count three of mine that were literally destroyed by such riding near the beginning of successful racing campaigns.
The question becomes why bother with a 1.5 year Ivers training program, or knocking yourself and the horse out for several months with rigorous scientific training when all that's going to happen is you may get in 3 or 4 races before something happens. What are the odds of this? Fairly high from my experience.
We had put Jeckimba Bay through Ivers down to the 3 breezes/day at Prairie Meadows and then followed Ivers instructions--instead of resting after a breeze took him for a trot to stretch out and get physiological benefits (according to Ivers) of that and wound up with a sore shoulder. In addition to everything else that happens, who knows exactly how to train a "horse" scientifically?
Lump this all into one little bag and you have knowledgeable trainers that are highly skeptical of "programs". They know instinctively what happens with most horses--they never make it, or substantially under perform because "stuff happens" or because it is so difficult as to be nearly impossible to prevent stuff from happening.
Now--I want to avoid getting carried away with my own personal experience for the reasons that geographical distance from race tracks geometrically compounds every problem and has made our own stable difficult even with the good weather we used to have. We thus additionally turn our attention to those trainers that have by all accounts used more strenuous training.
Who comes to mind in this? Nafzger with Street Sense, Charlie Wittingham, T. J. Smith in Australia, Bobby Frankel in the day was at least doing 4f breezes every 7 days when they started racing, I'd say John Sadler to an extent, these days, and likely a few others. D.W. Lukas certainly has his own, albeit questionably conceived, exercise program.
Given the success of these types why would everyone else do anything but simply copy their programs? This question brings one to the remainder of the "why do they do what they do" question, next post.
Training:
Wed. 9/7: third day in a row for tack work. Rider and horse still getting bearings with new wider horse. Felt a little more comfortable although still in pain from leg tendons stretched at least 4 inches further than ever intended. The horse however did well and we should be galloping by tonight. 13 min trot in pasture including up and down hill. 5 yr. old non raced maidens eligible at Remington says the Spanish speaking fellow that answered the phone in the racing office.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home