The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

Bill — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 02:31:55 GMT

To Susan-

If a horse cannot breeze 1:12 for 6F with a rolling start, he/she does not belong within 100 miles of a Kentucky Derby. My proposal was specific to this distance.

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

Bill — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 02:29:49 GMT

For those convinced this was a freak accident of the sort that "just happens" in horse racing, see if you've the same conclusion after putting this to the microscope.

I've already posted 4/26 that EB had 9 works/races for the year in 18 weeks, and traveled about 56 furlongs at speed. Yet, this inadequate workload, less than every other horse in the field and half as many as a lot of them, only scratches the surface of the problem. (and thanks to Bill documenting this in the comments to my last post as I type).

Consider that EB worked/raced only one time each in December and January and twice February, four times in 12 weeks or once every three weeks. This light a workload is dangerous for any horse much less one pointed to the Derby. EB's pre-March schedule was insufficient for bone development and actually would cause resorption of speed specific bone. Every trainer knows, or ought to know that.

Every trainer additionally ought to know that you always (100% of the time) avoid surprising a horse with a sudden increase in workload--Mandella e.g. in On The Muscle, "the works are progressive" Yet, EB commencing 3/10 suddenly increases her work/race workload from once every three weeks to almost once a week. At this point Jones is just begging for trouble. He knows it, I know it, and everybody that trains horses knows it.

EB's works were other than progressive, the total work load was also insufficient to prevent a fracture. For further clarification please note-- Readers of the blog will understand that race specific "fracture resistance" requires the horse to travel at least :12.5/f in their works. Slower even carrying 215 lbs will fail to get the job done. The blog is just now on"frequency" and how often we must do this for fracture resistance, but confide that it's way more frequently than once every two or three weeks.

The above means that the race ready appearance and strength of the filly, due in all likelihood to what Jones was doing with her under 215 lbs. on off days, is irrelevant to EB's bone development. Regardless of how fit, cardiovascularly, anaerobically, aerobically, EB had gotten from Jones slow day galloping schedule, the schedule for Derby horse bone development was grossly negligent. And, again, to clarify, you are unable to get this bone development by suddenly increasing the schedule 7 weeks out.

Now, Jones claims his filly was in perfect health going into the Derby. Unlikely. I will guarantee with my last breath that after that :58 work on 4/27 followed by the 2 minute lick under 215 lbs 3 days later that this filly showed significant heat in exactly the area where she fractured. How do I know this. Again most trainers will understand you're unable to get away with this sort of back to back work unscathed. Never happens, and in particular would never happen with a filly this young, this tall, and this lightly trained. The probability: Pre-Derby this horse was showing heat in her lower cannons, which will explain why Jones went very easy from 4/30 to the Derby.

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

Bill — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 02:29:31 GMT

Number of Furlongs/horse at race speed prior to 2008 Derby:

101 Smooth Air

96 Pyro

94 Big Truck

90 Z Fortune

88 Colonel John

82 Bob Black Jack

81 Tale of Ekati

81 Behind At The Bar

80 Anak Nakal

79 Dennis of Cork

74 Gayego

74 Visionaire

71 Recapturetheglory

69 Adriano

64 Cool Coal Man

64 Court Vision

63 Monba

57 Cowboy Cal

56 Big Brown

52 Eight Belles - RIP

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

ThoroFan — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:56:48 GMT

We shouldn't be so critical of the NTRA Alliance accreditation efforts. When they succeed at this, and they will, others standards such as thoses mentioned above can and will be included. That's the development process and a smart way to drive policy/procedural change. As a background, the NTRA Accreditation process is modeled after health care's JCHCO approach. This approach began in the early 1900s with just a few standards, Through years of revisions and refinement it has developed into a solid approach to assuring that when we need healthcare the providers meet the highest standards, period. Give the Alliance a chance, it can make racing better for everyone horse, fan, owner, trainer and associated professionals.

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

sceptre — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 04:59:02 GMT

Slew, some others, and this author, you are missing the forest for the trees. It has been published widely (Dr. Rick Arthur, etc.) and shown that well over 90& of breakdowns had a pre-existing pathology. It would, therefore, seem advisable that more efforts be devoted to recognizing these "pathologies"-by closer veterinary scrutiny-BEFORE the inevitable happens. Yes, some drugs may, in part, contribute to these orthopedic pathologies, but wouldn't it be nice to detect them before it's too late? At the same time we should also focus upon all the various causes, but not at the expense of ignoring the end cause...And Slew, Secretariat was not bred with the intent to produce a speedball-which he decidedly was not. So, once again, how do you manage to come up with such nonsense?

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

Slew — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 13:01:38 GMT

I'm not too sure what to think. You bring up Barbaro and Eight Bells because their breakdowns were on a national broadcast. But I see horses breaking down every day on tracks throughout the country. Will a pre-race vet check eliminate the problem...I doubt it. Will getting rid of medications allow for stronger bone growth...yes. Will breeders stop using Unbridled's Song as a sire? Probably not. There is no simple solution. What effect does a diuretic actually have in decreasing bone strength. Do they exacerbate osteoporosis? Doesn't Churchill now keep 2 year olds off the training track until their actual, chronological birthday? That would help. We need to do so much to help prevent breakdowns, so we have to start somewhere...and if cardio tests help, that's one step. But we should keep in mind that we will probably never eliminate all breakdowns...but even 10% would be heading in the right direction. Perhaps we should recognize there may never be another Secretariat, so stop breeding for the most speed, and go back to breeding a sturdier, medication free horse.

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

pNewmarket — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 11:52:48 GMT

Why not certify the racetracks AND the horses?

In Britain the British Horseracing Authority grant licences to racecourses to allow them to race. The course is inspected at the start of each year to ensure all health and safety measures are up to standard, as well as the quality and cleanliness of the facilities. The courses are then subjected to random "spot checks" during the year and if at any stage the BHA are not happy the licence is withdrawn and the course is forbidden to stage race meetings.

This is exactly what happened with Great Leighs Racecourse, though their licence was revoked due to financial problems rather than safety matters.

More info here:

www.guardian.co.uk/.../horseracing

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

Ange — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 17:33:55 GMT

As a trainer, owner & breeder, some of the changes I'd like to see are:

1. No more 2 year old in training sales. February is way to early to be asking these babies to work a furlong in 10 seconds.

2. Necropsies on any horse that breaks down in the morning or during a race to see if there was an actual issue with the bones. I believe that some of these breakdowns could be due to some sort of deficiency. Maybe we need to be looking at the nutrition of mares & foals to insure good strong bones.

3)And yes, changes to the mandatory works required before races. And make them consistent across North America. Right now each track is allowed to set their own rules.

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

Dawn in MN — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:03:41 GMT

I say Yes, certify horses, AND tracks. In that order.

Every possible method of reducing and preventing breakdowns must be tried and tested. Again in that order.

It is a fact of the flight animal anatomy that sometimes their legs break. Basic anatomy.

These horses are living, breathing, feeling, beings of great courage and strengh. They deserve no less than the best.

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

PomDeTerre — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 14:47:25 GMT

Another thought on this issue- stiff penalties, fine & suspensions need to be placed when it can be proven that something was known to be wrong with a horse up to the start of the race. Specifically, of course, why has nothing been done about the Life At Ten debacle, despite pre-race admissions to a national audience, the trainer and jockey are still unscathed. Had Barbaro not been the KD winner, I truly believe that he would have been scratched after the gate break-thru at the Preakness. And George Washington's demise at the BC Classic in 2007 was inexcusable. The trainer was abolutely in the wrong for allowing that particular horse to run over that track surface - a sea of mud- that day. His past performances clearly indicated he should have been scratched. Where is the accountability, and way are not actions take when such clearly irrational incidents occur? I am not suggesting that we should act in hindsight; proactive steps do need to be taken pre-race, but these tragedies are inexcusable and demand addressing.

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

Susan — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 13:22:44 GMT

Bill, while I agree monitoring heart rate plays an integral role in preventing injury, I've trained enough horses to know that some could not work in 1:12 if a lion were on their back.

IMHO, one of the biggest problems is the huge conflict of interest between racetrack management and prerace examining vets. I predicted with the banning of anabolic steroids, we would see a huge decrease in the sizes of racing fields. So, now we have shorter fields but are we actually having less breakdowns? Most examining vets are solely employed by the track and under extreme pressure from racetrack management because 1) Track simulcast revenue is hugely dependent upon the number of starters in the gate. 2) Scratching a horse from a large stable, especially a leading trainer, or a locally prominent owner often evokes outrage from the trainer/owner with threats to take their operation elsewhere. 3) Prior medication and ice obscure many issues. 4) The vet's exam is extremely limited, subjective and not more than a cursory look at a few steps of jogging.

Adding to the problem is that small trainers/operations are often threatened with loss of their stalls if they don't run their horses often enough irrespective of the fitness/soundness of their horses.

If the conflict of interest issues could be addressed, then something like a 15 second trot on an equine treadmill with force plate analysis indicating unequal weight bearing might provide objective criteria.

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

Mary Ann — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 12:33:59 GMT

I agree that a horse should be tested for soundness but I also believe Churchill was somewhat at fault for the Eight Belles tragedy. If you will recall, the track was sloppy the day before so on Derby day, the track was scraped terribly. I'll never forget that Derby Day morning when the track was rated fast when it was soup the day before. It's also possible that Eight Belles was wearing toe grabs. The combination of the track's surface and the toe grabs could account for the tragedy.

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

Convene — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 02:52:10 GMT

How about a certification program for horses entering the breeding shed? In some countries, some breeds are ineligible unless they meet specific criteria. I have serious reservations about horses (male or female) going to the breeding shed after breaking down on the track. They should be examined in great detail before passing on their gene-pool as some conditions/predispositions are genetic. I also have reservations about horses who dash off to reproduce at the end of their 3-year old season. Einstein was, I believe, 8 when he went. Zenyatta is 6. Shakis would have been 8 if not for a fatal injury at the eleventh hour. Time was, our horses' primary purpose was RACING; now it seems their primary purpose is stud-duty (or motherhood) before they've been out there long enough to prove their durability. Not only do we lose fan interest by retiring them before people can fall in love with them, we risk passing on genetic weaknesses as well - and neither thing is good for racing.

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

GoldenBroom — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 02:03:11 GMT

I would like to see warnings, fines and suspensions handing out to owners and trainers with horses that break down. Then the wouldn't dump into claiming races or run above the fitness or capability level of their horses for sure! A trainer's job is to train and condition. To do that they need to train a horses head and body and have them sound.

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

Racingfan — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 01:08:27 GMT

I also agree more needs to be done to protect the horses and especially those at the lower who do not benefit from media scrutiny and high profile situations. Measuring cardiovascular fitness may be helpful but I cant see it preventing breakdowns like Eight Belles. I feel that if procedures were implemented to actually check the legs themselves more(xrays etc) then some problems may be avoided. Why was I Want Revenge allowed to remain in training under those circumstances? That is the type of thing that needs to be corrected in my opinion. I am also wondering exactly why you "don't buy" the bad step explanation...? Do you have information on some pre-existing injury to her that was not disclosed or is this just a statement of your opinion that then casts a bad light on her connections...?

Robin from Maryland: the BREED THE BEST TO THE BEST AND HOPE FOR THE BEST is a statement most commonly attributed to none other than Native Dancer's owner A.G. Vanderbilt. Funny you would quote him while degrading his horse. Do you have any idea how many thousands of horses trace to Native Dancer and of those you can name three that suffered catastrophic injuries. When a horse appears in at least 75% of all pedigrees, there are going to be some who breakdown. That does not mean it was BECAUSE they were related to him! And how many other horses appear in the 5 generation pedigree of those horses and yet you blame him for their breakdowns....? He was the BEST which is why he appears in so many pedigrees and nearly ALL of the best runners around are his descendants and he died more than 40 years ago! He never broke down and was not unsound if you know anything about him at all. He suffered from foot bruises which ended his career and those were due to his tremendous power that resulted in a hard pounding stride and that is according to those who were associated with him!!

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

Linda in Texas — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:15:25 GMT

Well let's see. I have awful knees and it has now transferred to my ankles and thusly my calf muscles are not as good as they should be.

But my ticker is great. For a 70 year old my heart specialist dad would say great one for an old one

But i am not a horse. But i have

common sense. I have always wondered what happened to beautiful big girl Eight Belles.

I wondered how both ankles could break. The mention that perhaps she was a little lame in one and she compromised with the other and took too much weight and broke it also, is feasible. But her heart was strong to be coming in second ahead of all the other colts. So the theory that the heart rate would have telegraphed her impending breakdown I find not believable.

Friesian Fire and others in the stable she came from suffered issues. I wondered then if it was due to their training tracks but i am not an expert. We just never will know on so many. I am still wondering what happened to War Pass to expire one day after returning to the States to Lane's End in a Paddock Injury.

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

sceptre — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:03:44 GMT

Bill,

As I mentioned in my earlier post-and dreaded- your article may indeed prove counterproductive to racehorse welfare. Of those that responded, all, but one-Kathryn-seem to be in the need for better scrutiny camp, but it's very likely that many Kathryn-types have also read this and gained ammunition to support their laissez faire positions. Bill, it's difficult to know if your motives were altruistic, or in some sense self-serving, but it's apparent to me that you are unqualified to offer such a piece. I again chastise the BloodHorse for not doing the required editorial review prior to publication...Now, to address your reply(s) to me- Firstly, I read carefully the link (only evidence you offered) and must say that it was rather disappointing, and certainly far from convincing. I'm a physician, and can tell you that the "evidence/data she cites-for her "theory"-would be found wanting to the scientific mind. Be also aware that her work has never received any peer review (of this she admits). Despite this, you saw fit to accept her piece carte blanche. Bill, also on this point- you suggest that I take runs with a HR/GPS monitor, both before and after a cold-that I'll notice a difference in the readings. Oh, Bill, do you really think that such a suggestion/example serves well your case? If this is analagous to what we'd find during "trials" with thoroughbred racehorses, how could we differentiate musculoskeletal malady from a common URI? Your cited vet seems to allude that she might be able to distinguish between such conditions, but she offers no evidence whatsoever, and I doubt she could. Look, so much more can be done for these horses with the present technology-why focus your article on these less developed, esoteric means?...And, Pedigree Ann; exaggerating what Bill said about Big Brown's racing career (he didn't say that Big Brown's career ended after the Derby) doesn't help in attempts to put Bill to task. And also, Pedigree Ann, and others- don't be so quick to accept those "scientific" studies related to 2 yr. old racing vs those that didn't. Have you ever read any critiques of that study? Once again, not enough variables were addressed. I've spoken with Dr. Richardson, among others, on this very subject, and have been told that there have been no scientifically CONTROLLED studies on this issue. Yes, proper bone remodeling may indeed be vital throughout the future racehorses'earlier (and earliest) years-this also includes the proper amount of impact from birth 'til age two-But, I doubt very much that competing in an actual race at age two is preferable to a "proper" training regimen minus the actual competition (which is far more rigorous). Why not see what the supposed great Dr. Bramlage (protector of the industry) has to say about this point-or, does he neglect to address it?...Lastly, Bill- in your first answer to my post (your last paragraph)-you state"...you are correct here with this point..." Bill, better if you re-read this; what are you saying? What were you "forced to leave out"? Fact is, Eight Belles raced more, prior to the Derby, than any in the field. So you simply didn't do your research prior to writing your article. Just admit it-and learn the larger lesson. I've written many posts construed to be critical of Larry Jones. They printed it, and I then took much abuse from readers. Among many things, Mr. Jones boasted, in print, that a vet never entered Eight Belles' stall in the weeks directly preceeding the Derby. I suppose it was his way of letting us know that she had no soundness issues. If we assume his words were truthful, can you imagine the misguided faith he has in himself-to not feel that a vet may find something that Jones' lesser "education" couldn't "see"? And-others out there-, please don't cite the Eight Belles' necropsy findings. It certainly didn't prove that she was sound prior to the Derby-this I had discussed with various equine pathologists following the report's publication.

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

Bill — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 21:14:04 GMT

We need objective data to gauge whether or not a horse is 'safe' to run, not mere subjective vet opinions.

That is my main point. A Derby vet I know says we'll never see pre-race xrays or thermographs because half the field would be disqualified.

I have collected HR/GPS during and after exercise over 1200 times in the past 2 years, and those that breakdown show definite patterns of distress in training well before the catastrophe happens.

Eventers, thoroughbreds, endurance, etc. - all the same. I've watched 2 boards of vets conclude that breakdowns are always preceded by intense physiological fatigue.

I agree that injuries happen in sports, but some are preventable.

Let's just hope that the assumed scans that Barbaro underwent didn't resemble the treatment given to I Want Revenge before his late scratch:

The colt was x-rayed 04/10/09 and remained in training for the KY Derby.

Colt underwent ultrasound on 04/14/09 and remained in training for the Derby.

Colt had tendon sheath injected 04/15/09. Colt had both front fetlock joints injected with HA on 04/29/09.

During the previous month (in addition to tendon and joint injections) the colt received a 60 cc DMSO IV jug, IV baytril X 6, IV liquamycin X 4, IM adequan X 2, gastroguard paste ($280 worth), panacure powerpack, naquasone paste, injected “enzymes” and “vitamins” X 5, lasix X 3, dormosedan X 2, IV bute X 5, IM banamine, L-arginine (animo acid), robinul (decreases stomach acid), perhaps more.

If you few commenters are worried that a Derby class horse risks injury during a 6F breeze in 1:12 with a rolling start - then I give up.

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

Leon — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 17:19:54 GMT

Flora:

There is historical evidence that demonstrates that racing at two actually LESSENS the probability of injuries.

"Race track on site Thoroughbred veterinarian and surgeon Dr. Larry Bramlage says racing two-year-olds benefits bone and muscle growth in young horses. For some time, veteran veterinarian and surgeon Dr. Larry Bramlage has taken the stand that racing young horses is beneficial to their growth and health. This racing theory was recently confirmed by Dr. Sheila Lyons, an equine sports medicine expert who is based in Florida and Kentucky and has conducted studies on muscle hypertension.

New technical research that detects early fracture risks, reported by veterinarian Dr. Wayne McIlwraith of Colorado State University, also concludes that normal bone and muscle growth in horses should not be interrupted by two-year-old inactivity if a horse is expected to become a racer at age three."

You can inform yourself better by reading more at Suite101: Racing Two-Year-Old Thoroughbreds: Veterinarian Dr. Larry Bramlage Explains Equine Muscle, Bone Growth www.suite101.com/.../racing-twoyearold-thoroughbreds-a72087

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

Leon — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 17:07:07 GMT

I couldn't disagree more with your article. I'm certain that Barbaro had all kinds of vet exams performed on him before the Preakness; and no one had any doubts about his ability to handle its distance; he still broke down.

The number of horses that could be injured following a 1200-1:12 workout could actually increase; besides, there is a huge number of horses who are slow workers, but do extremely well when breezed in company; these horses would not qualify for the KY Derby under your plan.

If you really want to curb fatal breakdowns, I suggest an official injury report after each race provided by track vets. The NFL does a good job providing reports about players who are questionable or doubtful, or who will be out and placed in injury reserved.

Why can't horseracing do it?

Your proposal does not address claiming races, and I'm sure the rate of breakdowns for cheap races is much higher than for races such as the Ky Derby. Most owners and trainers who run an injured horse in a claiming race are trying to take advantage of other owners & trainers who are misinformed about the true condition of the horse.

I suggest the following rule change: If a horse breaks down or comes out of the race with a serious injury that would keep him out of training for several months, the people who claimed him would have the right to get their money back, submitting the corresponding health certificate issued by track vets in the next 48 hours after the claiming race. That would eliminate the incentive to run the injured horse.

The question is: How willing are owners, trainers & authorities to really do something about racing unsound horses?

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

sherpa — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 17:00:10 GMT

sceptre, I'm very glad you decided to comment. While reading Mr. Pressey's blog, I had to wonder what heart-rate had to do with Eight Belles' breakdown (although of course we must all agree that in the best or worlds, all horses should be "certified" as sound - not instead of, but as well as - the race-tracks).

PomDe Terre, I applaud your comment also. A drop in class such as you describe should set off alarm bells for track veterinarians and officials, resulting in immediate evaluation and (we hope) probable disqualification of the horse. The racing industry as a whole needs to acknowledge that seeing a horse - ANY horse - break down in a race turns away fans and potential fans in droves. Forcing a horse onto the track to die is no less cruel than forcing him/her onto a slaughter-house truck, and a lot more dangerous for all but the individual horse.

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

Pedigree Ann — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:55:31 GMT

Big Brown's career didn't end after the Derby. He ran in the Preakness and Belmont, and later in the year won the Haskell and a turf stake at Monmouth created for him. He was still running in September.

I save all my old on-line PPs and so have Eight Belle's pre-Derby record. She had 9 races in her career, all but one around two turns, more than any other Derby starter. Her 4 starts at 3 were as much as any of the other starters had. Her published pre-Derby works included

27Apr CD 5f :58 1/5 2/62

20Apr Kee 4f :46 3/5 2/39

31Mar OP 5f gd 1:01 2/5 6/18

10Mar OP 5f :59 4/5 1/28

Her size (large for a filly) combined with her sire (the infamous Unbridled's Song) probably contributed more to her break-down than her work schedule.

Flora, scientific studies refute your suggestion. Horses that race at 2 have LONGER careers and fewer in-race breakdowns than those who don't. It seems the earlier their bones become denser from exercise at speed, the easier it is to keep them that way. In the olden days (when I started going racing), serious 2yo races started months earlier than they do today and horses lasted longer. A horse like Affirmed would start his career in May, run 9 times at 2, and go on to be a champion at 3 and 4. Round Table won a 2yo stakes at Keeneland's spring meet, and he already had a couple of races under his belt.

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

Kathryn — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:48:15 GMT

Eight Belles' injury was just like that of any athlete in the sporting world. It was an accident. Plain and simple. Period. Barbaro's was the same. It was a fluke. And as for Big Brown finishing his career in the Belmont - you better do your research because Big Brown ran, and won, again, and again, and again. Get the chip off of your shoulder and wake up to reality. None of your ideas to mend the sport would actually help it, just harm it. Racing horses is an ancient tradition and all of your plans are bogus. Heart rate monitoring...fine, pre race check ups...fine. But having a horse run before a race just to see how fit they are is ridiculous and a recipe for disaster. This so called "plan" to aid racing would merely lead to more injuries and demise. Thanks for the try, but this plan would fail.

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

Bill — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 14:53:00 GMT

Sceptre (again)-

Here is another piece of research:

special.equisearch.com/.../EQMay08HeartofBreakdowns.pdf

Much info showing that breakdowns are due to intense physiological fatigue (certainly some musculoskeletal issues here)across all disciplines.

How much more 'research' do you need to see from me in order to answer your criticisms?

Where is your scholarly evidence that proves mine is out of whack?

Heart rate alone is useless, we agree here. But with GPS onboard so we can accurately measure the workload being done, and the horses response to it, we have a powerful tool that can be used for good.

Take a run tomorrow with a HR/GPS monitor, say a mile in 9 min. A week later do it again while having a head cold. Your HR numbers will suffer, even though your cardiorespiratory fitness is identical.

re: The NTRA Should Be Certifying Horses, Not Tracks

Bill — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 14:48:13 GMT

to Big Blue Sea-

If a horse breaks down breezing 6F the week before the Derby, that is unfortunate but preferred to breaking down on national TV on Saturday and taking 4 others with him.