Having grown up in what most would consider the tail end of the Golden Age of racing. Mom and step-pop Md racing family, claimers. Father who was involved in the Big Show. Worked for some “names” in the game in the early 70s as a groom. Around a lot of the “names” in a business and social level.
IMO I don’t put a lot of stock in what the “studies” have to say about things.
A different era and a different mentality. Trainers and owners.
I don’t think horses are much different, I don’t think breeders are breeding softer/weaker horses.
Sprint races have be the norm for decades. But racetrack in the east carded jump races most days of the week. At least one. That pretty much faded out in the 70s.
Yes, the racetracks and races offered had declined. But so had the foal crop. Water seeks its own level. There are plenty of horses being bred. Supply outstrips demand. Plenty of horses not enough people interested in owning them.
The average horse IME ran 2-3 times a month. Stake horses ran at least 2 times a month on average. A lot of horses depending on things were given a break for a couple of months in the winter. My experience in my early years was strictly in the Mid-Atlantic area.
Owners and trainer were “game-sporting”. They were willing to run, win-lose or draw. Now and for a number of years now trainers are reluctant to run unless they have a VERY good chance of winning. Or have to run a horse to keep the racing secretary happy when asked.
Racing has become much more of a business, money management. Esp at the top end. Racing has been “marketed” by my generation as a business. Which set the bar very high for trainers to fulfill owners expectations. IMO racing is, should be looked at as entertainment. Like spending money on skiing, a boat, vacations. going to Vegas. Having fun win-lose or draw. No buys a boat expecting to make money. At least with racing the is a big pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. We’re all chasing it, very few find it. But it is there.
IMO the single biggest change that has cause a decline in starts. When the DRF started publishing a trainer’s Win %Stats. EVERY modern day owner I have talked with about choosing a trainer is based on this number. Trainers know this. The train, pick races for this number. Far better to run a horse once a month with an excellent chance of winning. Then running 3 times to win one race. Number of “places” doesn’t carry a lot of weight when an owner is looking at a potential trainer.
The rise of the “supper trainers” has changed the dynamics considerably. A huge amount of horses are in the hands of a few trainers. They know their win % is what keep owners calling. Small trainers know this also. IMO it falls under the term, expression; “The perfect Storm”.
When I was offered an assistants trainer job by Woody Stephens, one of several working for him at the time.(I didn’t take it, that’s another story) Mr Stephens was at the top of his game. Still considered one of the best there ever was. But he never had much more than 40+ horses in his barn. I can’t think of any legendary trainer’s barn I was in had much more. Most had less.
Some of the supper trainers have 200-300±. They manage more than train. Wayne Lukas figured this out in the 80s. Surrounded himself with TOP staff and assistants. IMO he was the first Supper Trainer. I was in/around his barn a fair bit back then. Impressive.
There are too many races being offered. Plain and simple. The reason for that is more complicated then it looks on face value.
Yes, social media has and does come into play. The industry was VERY slow to embrace, use to its advantage. Allowed BS to spread like wild fires kept unchecked. The horses had long left the barn before the powers that be figured out they better start closing some of the barn doors.
For me the writing on the wall became very clear in one simple statement. It came from someone was hoping, trying to get into the sport as an owner. Not big money, had plenty to be a “blue collar” owner.
He said; “I love racing, always wanted to own a racehorse. But my wife doesn’t think it is something we should be associated with”.
This was a good 10 years ago. It was shocking. But given I have been on, following “social media” in one form or another since the mid 90s. It was not totally surprising. I wrote to some of the powers that be that I have known for along time about this “statement”. How the industry HAS to start doing something. It was basically dismissed.
I hate being right about things I would much rather be wrong about.
