The More Things Change
Although I don’t really follow what is happening in the racing world, even I am aware of certain events and debates. They percolate into common knowledge. There’s a race called the Kentucky Derby. It’s pretty popular. And a series of events called the Triple Crown? No one wins that anymore, but every year the winner of the Kentucky Derby is touted as a “serious” contender.
Even I, in my fog, know about the ongoing debate on the age at which Thoroughbreds are started. I know the arguments against it, and I know the defenses: look at history, they say. Horses used to race all the time as two-year-olds and go on to long and glorious careers. It isn’t the starting young; it’s the modern tracks. Or training. Or not racing them hard enough. Or we aren’t breeding sound enough horses.
On the last—surely you know what people say about Unbridled offspring? I figure if I do, everyone must. And you can browse through any sport-horse breeding forum to find people blithely reading pedigrees and talking about how X offspring are known for bad knees and Y offspring have brittle feet.
What I find interesting about all of this, aside from the fact that I’m aware of it, is that it is often debated as if these are modern concerned and in the Glory Days… I don’t know what people think about the Glory Days. Is there an assumption that historically people didn’t care about these issues? That they weren’t issues at all, because horses were inherently sounder and better managed?
At any rate, I was reading The English Turf by Charles Richardson this morning. It was written in 1901—over 100 years ago—and I found these quotes from the first chapter interesting:
It can hardly be denied that the average modern English racehorse is a poor creature. Nine out of ten of those which have been before the public of late have neither constitution nor stamina. Speed they certainly have, but there are far too many horses who cannot travel an inch farther than five or six furlongs, and many more who cannot get beyond a mile. These are not the sort of animals to maintain the supremacy of the English Turf, and their presence is accounted for by the fact that we have got into a bad groove, both as regards breeding and training, and also because we have had far too many short races and too many selling handicaps. [...] Many, perhaps a majority, of these sprinters that have been a natural product of the system are as unlike the typical racehorse as it is possible for them to be. High on the leg, too short from shoulder to quarters, narrow, split up, and light of bone. How many of this stamp of horse, and yet gifted with speed for a short course, do we not see in any race paddock nowadays? The question hardly requires an answer. These are not the right sort of horses, and the more of this stamp we continue to breed, the more we make room for the Americans and Colonials.
Unsoundness of limb has far more weight with most breeders than roaring has, and as a consequence a yearling who is unsound of limb is seldom seen at the sale ring, or in any lot which is sent to the trainer during the autumn. Yearlings with suspicious limbs, on the other hand, are common enough, but limb troubles do not as a rule develop until the horse which bears them has been broken and put to work. Then it is either a case of breakdown or of putting by until the limbs have become stronger. We need not, however, concern ourselves with this side of the question, for a good judge will hesitate long enough before he puts into training a youngster who is wrongly formed, or who shows a marked weakness in some part of his anatomy. A much more serious matter is the fact that the present fashion of putting thoroughbreds into training far too young breaks many of them down before they have a chance of distinguishing themselves. Dozens of likely-looking yearlings who bring big money when sold are never seen on a racecourse, and we may take it that a fair proportion of such have developed hereditary unsoundness when put to work. So far as the colts are concerned not much mischief is done, because only a very exceptionally bred horse can command any stud patronage if he has never run in public, and even then he must be loudly trumpeted as the victim of an “accident” in his yearling days. The fillies, however, are often put by for the stud, and thus the supply of unsound matrons is increased.
It is a curious reflection that at the shows held under the auspices of the “Hunters Improvement Society” no horse or mare is entitled to a prize until he or she has passed a veterinary examination, and yet there is no obstacle whatever to breeders of thoroughbreds using either an unsound sire or dam, or both in their attempt to raise a galloping machine.
There’s no real question or point here. I was just surprised to see that a 1901 book on racing would be touching on the same concerns that swirl around modern racing. It’s easy to scream “why hasn’t anything been done, then?”—but the truth is, I don’t know what, if anything, is being done.
It’s important to realize that what the casual racing fan “knows” is almost certainly not a reflection of debate and discussions occurring within the industry. And I’m not even a casual fan. But I do know how the media and popular opinion work—I know how it latches onto sensational stories and ignores anything that may counter the sensational nature of those stories. I know that once the public gets an idea in its head, nothing will shake it. I know statistics can be manipulated to support any position.
So while I know what popular opinion says about the modern racing industry, and I was surprised to see these criticisms reflected in a book 100 years old, the fact remains that I don’t know what the actual state of the modern racing industry is.
I’m trying to be optimistic here. I’m trying to hope that, after 100 years, we’re not making the same dumb decisions.