Babies in Training

I know that some horses come on quicker than others in training biy it always amazes me when a horse which has been in training for 12 to 18 months still comes out.."needing the run" or "losing 5 lengths athe start" or "running very green"/

Surely to goodness thr trainer has had enough time by then with the horse to
a) get it fit
b) teach it to jump out the gates quickly
c) run straight

I mean really how difficult can that be?

Oscar I have spent many early mornings at Turffies. a Certain trainer I had a horse with, has the same agenda: canter the horse once around the track. He does the same routine for sprinters, middle or stayers.
Sometimes I just wonder....

LOL @ Element... perhaps he doesn't want to 'give anything away'...

Oscar, I have asked that question many times. The simple answer is that you are actually asking your trainer to be honest with you. Blaming the first couple of runs on "greenness", simply means that he can hide the horses actual ability for quite a bit longer, with an excuse that is acceptable to the owner.the degree of the lie increases the further the horse is away from it's 3rd birthday.

I have worked out a little formula for myself. If the horse is 3 1/2 yrs old, and does not have a known problem that he has been treated for, then ask the trainer once when he is going to run. If he does not run within 6 weeks of this question, then retire the trainer and the horse immediatly, as both are taking you for a ride. The trainer is hiding the horses ability, whilst keeping his grocery cupboard full.

Morning Oscar, had a "search" for this subject as its always bothered me, here were a few points on the subject of first timers. Hope you are having fun?

NEEDED THE RUN?
Posted by: scotia ()
Date: May 08, 2008 01:03PM

Have been in the game many years, but have a question?

I have often heard trainers say "it needed the run" "will need a run" "just one run short" etc,

So how do first timers that open at 5/2 and start at 6/10, never need a run?

Lets be fair many horses in training always "need a run", but a first timer has never even seen the racetrack and they "don't need a run" to bring them on!

Grecko please!


Posted by: tangles ()
Date: May 08, 2008 03:52PM

first timers that open at 5/2 and start at 16/10 will never need a run because weeks before there first run they have been galloped on the grass numerous times with other horses normally winners to see how they measure up.THEY ARE STRIPPED FIT AND READY TO WIN .when you have a horse particuly a older horse say thats coming back from an injury you will not put too much pressure on the horse in training gallops so you enter him in arace slightly underdone hence the saying the horse will need a run or two.Nothing sinister about that


Posted by: scotia ()
Date: May 08, 2008 03:58PM

Thank you tangles, it was only a question and "nothing sinister" meant.


Posted by: scotia ()
Date: May 08, 2008 04:28PM

So the question is why cant a trainer get a horse "STRIPPED FIT AND READY TO WIN", using the same tactics/ formula as a first timer? I understand that older horses coming back from injury is a separate case, but for example a good healthy fit 3 yr old? with established form, why should it need a run,if using the above tactics.


Re: NEEDED THE RUN?
Posted by: tangles ()
Date: May 08, 2008 05:13PM

he can and most trainers try to do just that but there are certain horses that can not be rushed at the track. if you give a horse one run at the races its worth 5gallops at the track. Each horse is different and needs to be treated as such.also things might go wrong when preparing ahorse for a race and he just might not be 100 percent on the day.I hope this makes some sence.Horses are complex creatures


Posted by: tangles ()
Date: May 08, 2008 05:25PM

a good healthy fit horse that has been racing reguraly should never need a run. look somewere else for the problem


Re: NEEDED THE RUN?
Posted by: scotia ()
Date: May 08, 2008 05:29PM

Thanks again tangles, its not a specific horse, its just a general "excuse" [for want of a better word], that I often hear from trainers or via connections.


Re: NEEDED THE RUN?
Posted by: tangles ()
Date: May 08, 2008 06:03PM

My pleasure scotia, yes it is an overused term perhaps when trainers are not sure what the real problem is


Posted by: Observer ()
Date: May 08, 2008 08:34PM

What is meant by a horse running an "honest race" or an "honest run can be expected" or words to that effect.

Never for once crossed my mind, that horses could be dishonest

Posted by: scotia (a)
Date: May 08, 2008 08:43PM

Its an "educational run", to hell with horse having a university degree, I want it to run and win!


Posted by: Observer (
Date: May 08, 2008 08:53PM

Yep, me too

I guess it's a case of commentators putting words into a horses mouth

Posted by: Alcaponee ()
Date: May 08, 2008 09:56PM

Have to agree with where Scotia is trying to go with this. How come big horses only run big races and win. But in mentioning that Sean Tarry said that he wished that he had 10 more days with Mythical before the run. I don't really understand a comment like this. You know what the date of the race is surely you prepare for that date. No offence to Tarry but comments made are genrally curious at times.

The question I pose to the forum is, is it fair for the Joe Public punter who is not in the know to back a horse who is having a "prep run". For me this is not fair practice. In my opinion horses should come to the track fit and ready to win.

I suppose this is the genral practice and part of training regimes but this stil does not benefit the public


Posted by: Flight Alert ()
Date: May 08, 2008 10:10PM

Have to agree with you 100% alcaponee, imagine horse racing without any punters,


Posted by: Alcaponee ()
Date: May 09, 2008 08:58AM

There would be no interest - It would be like swimming with no water


Posted by: tangles ()
Date: May 09, 2008 09:33AM

when a commentator uses the term you can expect a honest run or words to that effect what he really means is what we have here is a horse that does its best everytime it runs. these are genuine horses that dont have problems like say bad legs,knees,joints and so on. they perform on any going. so the saying honest horse


Posted by: tangles ()
Date: May 09, 2008 09:45AM

i wathed mythical flight canter down to the start and he looked underdone and ran accordingly.to try and put this into perspective yes trainers plan the programe for the horse but a whole lot of things can go wrong leading up to the race like for instance it rains tracks get flooded or horse hurts itself ect and the trainer is forced to cut back on its preparation. its a tough game.


Re: NEEDED THE RUN?
Posted by: zoro ()
Date: May 09, 2008 09:59PM

When trainers say that the horse was blowing after the race,and just needed the run is one of the 101 execuses,its all bullshit to me as i and many others have blown our tom,eiether you ready for a sprint or you are not.Thats in english a shit execuse so trainers shake up and look for something original.

The vast majority of horses are simply not capable of winning a race,plain and simple.I am not sure of the exact stats,but I will ask Jack Dash to post here if I can get hold of him,to give you some sort of idea of how many horses actually make it to the race track out of the total crop each year,never mind win a race.

You can't 'ready-up' a horse that doesn't have ability in the 1st place.

Aaaah, Justanotherpunter. I agree with you 100% on not being able to "ready-up" a horse with no ability. My question is when does the trainer know that the horse has no ability, and when does he tell the owner about it. At R 5000-00 a month the lie is costly to the owner.

...but the trainer can't earn unless he has owners to string along because the vast majority of horses can never pay their way.This is a game for the rich,for whom the R5000 a month doesn't count.Paupers should not own horses imo.

When buying horses and keeping them in training it should be the disposable part of ones income,and if that is not the case one should most certainly not be an owner.Some people smoke,others drink and some own horses(of course some do all 3),but if it's too hot in the kitchen get out like I did.

When the pleasure of owning a horse outweighs the cost of 'running' said horse despite all the bullshit that trainers dish out then one should own horses,otherwise stick to backing horses.

Justanotherpunter Wrote:

---

> The vast majority of horses are simply not capable
> of winning a race,plain and simple.
> ... how many horses actually make
> it to the race track out of the total crop each
> year,never mind win a race.

I don't have exact figure, but roughly:

4000 mares produce about 2800 horses with passports p.a.
The 2800 horses compete in about 1300-1400 maiden races p.a
So 50% of horses win (1 or more), and 50% die as maidens.
Of the winning 50%, roughly half again go on to join the groups of (2 or more)
and so on...

So when someone said horse Chestnut's brother ONLY won 4 at one point, that horse was in the top 10%, or an A+ student with distinctions.

Unfortunately, as more and more MR-shit Hcps squeeze out sub-maiden class winners, it comes at the expense of maiden races and more horses retire without a win so that some crap can win receiving 8kg from another useless sod, or at the expense of better horses being denied because they run for higher stakes.

Gee guys thanks I agree this needed the run kak is gonna not be allowed with babies with me in 2009. They either fit enuf or they dont race.

The next kak excuse is this "ran very green" ...the guys get at least 12 months of full training on a horse to teach the dumb animal to run straight..now either 12 months is not long enuf for the horse to learn or the trainer is not teaching him?

Oscar

......or the trainer still has to learn.

LOL