By George Doria
I know that
trying to change something in racing is like trying to stop the tides. But if I
could, there is one regulation I would like to see the industry impose upon
itself: No horse can stand until he is a
five-year old. I think this would have a positive ripple effect throughout the
industry and here's how.
Longer campaigns for horses will, in turn, have several positive consequences.
First, a horse will have to prove his durability and superiority on the track
for more than a season or a season and a half. It will nurture new fans because
they will be able to follow and root for a horse for several years. It would
also create rivalries, so rare these days outside of the Triple Crown events,
thus further nurturing fan interest.
What about a horse that is injured? Implement a standard that makes the horse
sit out one year after its mishap before standing. So, for example, a horse
that is injured at two would have to wait until its fourth year to stand. I
think this would be propitious in that it would forestall the mysterious rash
of injuries that would almost definitely occur for most successful three years
olds! Certainly it would not benefit anyone to feign injury and sit out a year,
therefore taking a chance that the shine may fade from the star. It would also
have the further effect of allowing time to impose its propensity to allow
clearer vision of value.
To do this would not curtail business one iota. I'm certain bidding for future
stallions would be just as heated as ever. However, I think it would have some
positive effects, one being somewhat reduced prices paid for a future
stallions. Since buying a colt at three
would now carry more risk, there would
be a ripple down effect through the industry. The risks are manifold. The most
obvious one is that a colt does not continue to be as dominating a runner as it
matures. There is also the risk that a colt from the following year's crop may
become the shiny new gem outshining the previous year's model. And, of course,
with every start that proves durability comes the risk of disaster. It will
also result in something that we rarely see in racing anymore - the best horses
from different crops competing against each other to prove superiority. So if
the connections of a colt risk racing a horse into his fourth year before
selling its rights and it does prove to be dominant, that huge payday will
still be there. The difference would be that we could be more certain a horse
is worth the price.
This year we
would have had an example of how this would play out if Big Brown and Curlin
had met in the Classic. If Big Brown won the race he would, in my mind, be
absolutely the best horse running. If he lost to Curlin but ran well it would
hardly diminish his value. However, next year we would be able to see if BB
would maintain his dominance when he ran against the best of the three-year
olds at year's end as well as maturing horses of his own crop. We would also
get to see if his negative traits would be his undoing or not. This year, such
a regulation would also have had the effect of assuring fans that they would
get to see BB run again, as his injury is not career ending. In turn, the
answers to these questions would truly inform us of his value as a stallion to
promote the well-being of the breed. This last point may be the best result of
this scenario; it would have a long term positive effect on the durability of
the breed. And added durability is something that almost everyone would have to
agree is desirable.
There are
negatives also. One of the most obvious
is a later start for some horses. There would be less of a need to get horses
to the track at two. I happen to think
that is a positive but I know many - especially owners - will see it as a
negative. I know we have recently heard from Dr. Bramlage about the positive effect racing at two has on
the longevity of a horse's career. But I
for one don't believe it to be true. And in a letter printed in the October 11
issue of the Blood-Horse, Dr. Mark A. Rothstein (BH4890) points out one of the
most obvious reasons: (paraphrasing)
there's usually a good reason a horse doesn't start at two and it's also likely
the reason that those that start later don't last as long. In short they were
flawed from the beginning.
Another negative
might be a lighter schedule for many horses. Again, I would look at this as a
positive. I'd sacrifice a few races for being able to see a horse have a longer
career. Especially when it would result in the competition between different
crops that I have already mentioned. While I'm certain others will have a
longer list of negatives, I think the positives are far more plentiful.
This could all
be accomplished without anyone ever missing a beat in the industry. It would
not cause one problem if the next crop of new stars of the breeding industry
had to wait an extra year to start their service. There are enough stars in
that universe already. No void would
occur. Somewhere along the line someone is going to have to take a financial
hit to straighten things out. This idea limits and possibly eliminates the need
for anyone to lose. It may just cause a one year delay.
