Steeplechasers or Ballet Dancers?

[Tamerlo]

Doubts have been raised this week over the participation of favourite, Bob’s Worth, in next Saturday’s Hennessy Gold Cup.
His trainer, Nicky Henderson, withdrew his star chaser, Sprinter Sacre, from last weekend’s Newbury card, because he feared the testing going, and he has misgivings that it may be too arduous for Bob’s Worth’s reappearance.
It raises the question..... Are modern racehorses kept in cotton wool; overprotected; and treated like ballet dancers- instead of 1000lbs muscular beasts?
I grew up watching National Hunt Racing in the fifties and sixties, and just cannot remember top horses being withdrawn from races owing to heavy going. On the contrary, I recall stars like Arkle, Mill House, and Flyingbolt, carrying welter burdens in arduous conditions. If trainers expressed misgivings in those days, it was always due to prevailing firm ground- on which horses might jar themselves.
Nowadays, not only does heavy ground make some trainers ‘run for cover,’ but their good horses invariably only see a racecourse between four and six times in a season. Six outings used to be an absolute minimum for past top horses, and I remember Ken Cundell’s Hennessy winner, Stalbridge Colonist, running fifteen times during one season (including going to France in June)- and winning nine races.
As a current example of trainers’ attitudes, champion trainer, Paul Nicholls, stated that , after winning at Haydock last Saturday, Silviniaco Conti, would probably “go straight to the Cheltenham Gold Cup.” Therefore, come March, he will have had but three races. His Champion Hurdle winner, Rock On Ruby, only ran four times last season, but many debated whether his Cheltenham exertions caused his poor performance in his fourth and final run at Aintree!
Now, I’m certainly not questioning Paul Nicholls’ expertise, but is this ‘preoccupation’ with ‘having horses right on the day’ – and based on a light campaign- detracting from the hardened condition, experience and attitude necessary of the National Hunt horse?
People may laugh at this, but it’s noticeable that many of our really top horses eg. Rock On Ruby, Hurricane Fly, Peddler’s Cross, only ran three or four times last season and yet all had inexplicably bad runs in one race or another.
I’m sure that many members would agree that we are more likely than ever before to ‘distrust’ the forthcoming performances of our best horses. Will they perform on the day- or won’t they?
Or is it down to breeding? Are we producing less hardy animals? Personally I have no idea nor knowledge on this aspect.
What are other members’ views on this subject?

 

[OddDog]

Very interesting post Tam, and I would tend to agree that today's NH horses are somewhat wrapped in cotton wool. I think connections would much rather a horse have 3 runs in a season and remain unbeaten (a la Big Bucks) than running more often and getting beaten now and again (like Dessie did). Obviously this isn't driven by stud values so is it ego-driven, the prestige of having a top, unbeaten horse in the yard? Or is it the relative dearth of top prize money which keeps horses in their boxes? I actually wouldn't subscribe to that because, looking at it as pure cash flow, the outgoings of keeping the horse in training are always there, whether it runs or not, so I would actually be inclined to run my good horses more often.

Having said that, I do think there are horses in training who don't handle alot of racing and need everything to click for them to run up to their best - a classic example from the weekend being Finian's Rainbow. He has had 4 runs in 2012, beaten twice with cut in the ground (by Somersby and Captain Chris) but winning the Champion Chase and Melling Chase on good ground in between.

 

[Cyclonic]

I don't know enough about this kind of stuff, to make any valid point on the training of Hunt horses. But over the years I've often wondered who got things right the most, the trainer who kept his champion pretty mind fresh by keeping him off the tracks, or the bloke who pours work and races into a horse toughen him up for a set event. I've generally gone with the latter. Whenever I see a top flight hunt horse make a reappearance after several months away, I usually leave it alone. I prefer horses with race miles in their legs. That being said, three or four runs per season is bull ****. It does seem that this is the current trend though, so I'm pretty much out of step here.

I can understand a champion like Frankel being kept in cotton wool though, he's a walking gold mine. But are top flight chasers are all knackered aren't they? Even if not, who is really going to pay that much for a horse that needs several miles and a heap of fences to beat another horse? They're just clarified plodders.

 

[redcgull]

Obviously Tam your speaking from years of experience from what you saw back in the day so to speak, and to be honest i have to agree with you... I dont know where or who it started with first but after reading about Henritta Knight and her subsequent retirement i do see that she was criticised very much in her handling of Best Mate. She came out and said that she didnt think that Best Mate could have took on so much through a season and so basically got him ready for the big races. As we know how many have won 3 Gold Cups on the trot...!!!

But it dos seem that this is very much the norm now, and i do think you raise a very good point about the cotton wool brigade that we are getting now. I dont wont to say that Henrietta was the first to start this trend, Best Mates first Gold Cup was back in 2002, so thats only 10 years ago, but it dos seem the norm across the whole of the NH scene nowadays...


Could it be a combination of poor prize money in the lesser races, and so these trainers try to pick the races with the better rewards before running them...? Are there too many races and so this again dilutes the racing from being competitive for the top horses...? On the flip side to that one, I think that most punters would like to see more of the big named horses running against each other more often, but i dont think the trainers see it that way, and prefer the head to heads being kept down to a minimum. How much do you think the connections have say in this also, as im sure you would like to see your horse run more than the 4/5 times we are getting now...?

There is nothing better than seeing great rivalries being contested no matter what sport it is, its what top class sport should be all about. We just dont seem to be seeing them maybe as much as you did back in the day...

 

[Tamerlo]

Oddy, Cyc, Red, you all have some good points but, as Oddy says, the training fees are there-whether they run or not.
In actual fact, the NH season is longer than it ever was. It only ever used to be effectively late October to March-with the Whitbread tacked on as an end-of-season spectacle.
Traditionally, many trainers never shied away from running their horses in consecutive big races, sometimes only a week or two apart; and many ran twice at The Festival eg. Flyingbolt in 1966 Champion Hurdle & Q. Mother Chase.
A classic example of cosseting them is perhaps Big Bucks. He could have won that valuable brush hurdle at Haydock last weekend- and then hacked up against the poor field he'll face on Saturday at Newbury. I certainly would have done that if I owned him, and I'm sure many top, past trainers would have had a go, also.
Anyway, I'd still like to see owners be a little more ambitious with their horses. It would provide great interest, excitement (and lasting memories) for the racing public.

 

[Reebok]

Nice post Tam

I'm about a year your junior I think, so I pretty much remember the same scenarios as yourself. Were there also bigger fields - I seem to think there were, as there were less meetings to run at.

I'm firmly of the opinion that there are a finite number of races that an animal can run at it's peak, and once that number has been reached there is an unstopable decline, until it is retired. Obviously that number is variable and some animals will hold their peak for longer. It's therefore logical that lots of racing brings about the start of decline faster. There will be the exceptions that prove the rule, but I believe that in general, this holds good. It follows then, that reducing an animals work, will prolong it's prime racing period. I speak as a dog trainer, not horses, but I think the argument is just as valid.

Another consideration is the type of owner nowadays. Back in the day, the grade 1 horses (although there was no grading as such) were owned by nobility or the idle rich, who wanted to see their horses run at every opportunity. Today's more financially aware owners are probably more inclined to pick and choose, than previous generations. It can be argued that it costs the same to have a horse in training whether it runs or not, but that's not strictly true. Entry fees are significant, and taking out business time to watch your horse is also likely to be a significant consideration.

While taking this look back Tam, I seem to think that fatalities were also less (GN apart) but that may just be a memory trick! One GOOD thing about the more prudent running of a horse - there are fewer races to study when trying to find a winner!

 

[Ron]

I don't know but I suspect we may find a bit more class in the NH breeding these days which may go some way to explaining why the NH horses are not so tough as they used to be. Nicky Henderson goes for a particular type of horse and these horses are built to go best on good ground. Therefore I'm not surprised if he keeps his horses away from soft ground.

Having had a top pony do his suspensory ligaments in the mud I have, on more than one occasion, withdrawn a horse from competition after walking a course. If it had to run 2 miles or more I would have no hesitation in pulling a horse out, unless it was a mud lover.

Without getting too technical, horses with conformation that produces that lovely flowing action, are more prone to ligament damage in soft ground. Horses with a round action meet the ground at a different angle and are more suited to soft ground.

Whether it's the trainer or the owner that makes the decision not to run a horse due to the ground, I respect their decision as it is in the interests of their horse and not the punter. It's a pity that this isn't always the case.

 

[FulkesFestival40]

I am sure some of the top horses who only appear 3 or 4 times a year could stand more racing and I find it frustrating we do not see more of them.
It was interesting how Hurricane Fly showed his best ever form in a relatively busy season - I really fancied him for the CH which he won partly because of that.

I am sure Nicholls and the rest will point towards the longevity of the likes of Kauto Star but if a horse is basically sound I don't think it needs to kept away from a racecourse to prolong its career.