In 2000, 71,153 thoroughbreds started in at least one race.
In 2018, 50,474 thoroughbreds started in at least once race.
That’s a 29% decrease in starters from the year 2000 to 2018.
Yet interestingly enough, the number of owners with at least 1 start decreased by nearly 36% from 2000 to 2018.
To me, that supports the theory that we are losing more owners than physical horses.
A stat that I think would be interesting (but I don’t think is readily available without a lot of legwork) would be the number of unique owners in the past v. today. I suspect that 36% drop in owners is even greater, as so many horses today are owned in partnership. And I don’t just mean syndicates, I mean being owned by multiple syndicates or owners at once; syndicates or owners who also own horses on their own, or in different partner combinations. For example, “China Horse Club, Head of Plains Partners LLC, Starlight Racing, WinStar Farm” (Justify’s racing ownership group). That combination would get a separate entry on the list from each of their individual statistics. It creates a new owner to be counted towards the total, when in reality, it’s not a “new” owner at all. I would bet money we see more of that type of ownership arrangement today than in the past, but my perception could be wrong…
If you read for content, you will see “horse shortage,” not “number of starters.” There are plenty of horses who don’t run in a given year, not sure why you think number of starters is equivalent to number of horses born each year. A weaning won’t run, nor will a yearling. If you read LairieB’s comments she is specifically talking about yearlings, none of which have started. Or are there yearling races of which I am unaware? Still dumbfounded? Maybe we should shorten the word.
I think starters is a more important statistic than total number of horses when citing inability to fill races as an argument that there is a horse shortage. I believe that for a few reasons:
Total foal crop is 2+ years out from filling any races. Total foal crop can be influenced by factors independent of racing (the 2008 recession, the abortions of 2001, state politics, etc.). You can have fluctuations in foal crop that do not necessarily influence the number of runners.
LaurieB is saying there are not enough people willing to pay to buy yearlings to become racehorses, which is why the foal crop is dropping. I’m saying that statistics also show the total number of racing owners is declining, and declining at a more significant rate than the number of starters. The two ideas support the same statement that Halo introduced to this thread: that we are not in a literal horse shortage, we are in a shortage of people willing to pay to support racehorses. I’m not sure why you are now trying to pit them against each other. Although I can’t say I’m surprised.
If a race does not fill, those 4-5 horses that entered but did not get to run don’t start, do they? And those 4-5 horses have owners, right? But the horses don’t get counted as “starters” and the owner does not get to count a “start.” So “starters” is not a number that adequately measures the population.
Have you read a condition book lately? No? Laurel has been writing 5-6 extra races every racing day. They then choose the races with the largest number of entries to use. So every racing day, there are probably 20 horses and owners who are not getting counted as “starters.” And that’s just Laurel.
The product of this industry is a horse race, and there are not enough horses to fill the races. That is absolutely clear and irrefutable.
And again, looking at one sale of one segment of the market is not representative of the population. Have you tried to claim a horse recently? There are eight way shakes. Using that statistic, there 8x as many owners as horses, they just can’t get into one. If you are going to measure something and extrapolate to the population as a whole, your sample has to be representative of the population, and the buyers at the Keeneland September sale are not representative of the population.
Starters reflects the actual population of racing horses. As we all know, there is always a percentage of racehorses who never start. Hell, we’re all having this conversation because the OP shared a link about “wastage” in the thoroughbred industry.
Regardless of how you want to spin the argument, it doesn’t change the fact that owners are decreasing more than starters.
Another statistic I find interesting: for nearly all of the 21st century, the percentage of starters as compared to total foal crop has remained steady around 76% (you can pull that using Jockey Club & Equibase data). The current statistic for the 2016 foal crop is that just under 70% of foals have started. Granted, the year is not over yet, and it’s not uncommon for horses’ first start to be delayed until late 3 year old or 4 year old, but I’m curious to see if that number jumps up to the same level it has historically reached within the next year or so. One would think that if the problem was number of horses alone, the percentage of starters out of the total foal crop would creep upwards, not downwards. But then again, it may not just because of typical horse forces like deaths, injuries, unsuitability, etc.
Have you read a condition book lately? No? Laurel has been writing 5-6 extra races every racing day. They then choose the races with the largest number of entries to use. So every racing day, there are probably 20 horses and owners who are not getting counted as “starters.” And that’s just Laurel.
The product of this industry is a horse race, and there are not enough horses to fill the races. That is absolutely clear and irrefutable.
Yes, I have read a condition book lately. Are you claiming that horses that don’t run because their race doesn’t go will never start again, anywhere, within a 12 month period? Because that is the only way the problem you are stating would actually reduce the number of starters.
Unless, of course, you want to argue that owners are getting frustrated with the sport because they can’t run their horses frequently enough to support owning them… which circles back to the whole argument at hand-- we are losing owners, which is decreasing the number of racehorses.
And again, looking at one sale of one segment of the market is not representative of the population. Have you tried to claim a horse recently? There are eight way shakes. Using that statistic, there 8x as many owners as horses, they just can’t get into one. If you are going to measure something and extrapolate to the population as a whole, your sample has to be representative of the population, and the buyers at the Keeneland September sale are not representative of the population.
I am not looking at one sale. “Starters” has nothing to do with sales. Although the two trends support the same idea that several individuals are arguing here: that the perceived “horse shortage” is not a literal shortage in horse flesh, it is the result of dwindling interest in buying and racing horses, and buyers have become more specific in what they want.
Your point about 8 way shakes supports that same idea: not every horse is getting claimed. I don’t think claims are up, although I don’t have a statistic to support that. Do you have a statistic on that you could share? When I look at the charts, I see claiming races resulting in the same number of 0-3 claims, on average, which in my experience, has been pretty standard in claiming races for much of my life. People want very specific, desirable horses-- horses who have the conditions and performance record to run frequently enough to earn a living. When you have one of those horses, everyone wants it. When you don’t, it’s pretty unlikely your horse will get taken from you.
No one is arguing that racing dates and field sizes are dwindling. That is a fact. No one is arguing that foal crop is at historic lows; that is another fact. But if it was only a horse shortage, the problem could be remedied by simply breeding more horses. Making more horses is not hard. Making winners isn’t even that hard these days when you can pick up stakes producing mares for meat prices and breed her to a stakes winning stallion for free or cheap. But who is going to pay the tens of thousands of dollars to get the horse to the racetrack, then tens of thousands of dollars more to keep them in training?
It has become too costly for many small breeders to breed then race their own. Buyers of young horses don’t want to take that risk, either-- it better be a stake horse or else they aren’t going to invest tens of thousands of dollars in raising and training fees only to have the horse claimed off of them in the first start by some big time claiming stable for less money than they have into the horse. Claiming a useful horse isn’t a sure thing, either, when you are in an 8 way shake (your assertion) for anything worth owning yet won’t be able to find a spot to race your horse if you have anything less than that.
Which all goes back to my initial assertion: our dwindling numbers are all interrelated to the extreme cost of the sport, not because there literally aren’t enough horses to go around.
You can disagree, and I’m sure you will. I don’t have any more points to make, so I’m done.
Palm Beach, the fact that you are willing to repeat your assertion ad nauseum–without bothering to refute the arguments against it–does not make it true.
So you disagree that foal crops are declining, races are not filling and fields are short? There is a horse shortage. That is my assertation. Here are statistics to back it up. Am I misinterpreting the data?
Because owners dont own just one horse. The people who used to own and race 1-2-3 or so horses have left, and now the ownerships are dominated by owners who race 20 and 30 horses. Those people are the ones with unlimited resources to buy just the top 20%. Its not about the number of yearlings sold. You’re missing the entire point. People send yearlings to the sales to sell. Its not a dog and pony show. They have to sell them, even if they are taking a beating, which they are. And the gap between the 20% selling for real money, and those that sell for a loss widens.
I looked at the next racing day for several tracks, Gulfstream West has an average of 9.1 in each race, Aqu has 9, Churchill has 9.3 ( including 3 races with also eligibles), Woodbine has 9 (including 3 races with AE’s). It seems the racetracks with healthy purses are having no problems filling races. I dont see any horse shortages there. Gulfstream Park will likely get over 5000 stall apps for their 3100 stalls at GP and Palm Meadows this winter. No horse shortage there.
