Some different thoughts on that:
https://thehorse.com/148678/delay-ocd-surgery-for-optimal-racehorse-performance/
THANK YOU!!!
"It isn’t the first time Justify has had to overcome a physical setback. As a yearling, he was diagnosed with OCD lesions in his stifle joint. Corrective surgery followed, and the colt bounced back to command $500,000 from WinStar and the China Horse Club at the Keeneland September sale.
As a 2-year-old, Justify pulled a muscle in his hindquarter, sending him to the sidelines for 60 days."
So we have documentation of an unsound horse. They HAD to bring him along slowly or he would have gone kerplooey. Thank goodness he was in the hands of good horsemen.
3 Likes
"To determine the impact that stifle OCD surgery has on future racing performance in juvenile Thoroughbreds, the study authors followed 37 juvenile Thoroughbreds with stifle OCD who underwent surgery, 35 juveniles with hock OCD, and a cohort of age- and sex-matched controls with no evidence of OCD.
“We found that juveniles with stifle OCD that underwent surgery had significantly lower total earnings, fewer total starts, and fewer first place finishes compared to the controls.” Russell summarized.
Russell and colleagues concluded that juvenile Thoroughbreds undergoing surgery for OCD lesions of the stifle had significantly decreased performance as racehorses. They therefore recommend that delaying surgery might benefit some of these animals."
I’m questioning the control group - wouldn’t a control group of horses with OCD who do NOT undergo surgery be a better control group if you are trying to decide whether or not to do surgery? It’s almost commons sense that a horse without OCD anywhere is going to outperform a horse with OCD that has surgery. Probably the OCD horses were doomed to be lower earners from the get go, surgery or no surgery.
1 Like
Agree. You would have to compare those with OCD who had surgery to a control group of horses with the same condition that didn’t.
I think this was a badly written/edited article (as science/medicine articles often are when written for general audiences) and I would want to look at the original study.
This interested me:
“OCD lesions in the stifle occur at a site that articulates with the patella (kneecap), and removal of cartilage is not an innocuous procedure in this joint,” Russell explained. “There is evidence that OCD lesions in the stifle joint can reattach for up to 12 months after birth. Therefore, surgery may not be necessary in many juvenile Thoroughbreds.”
i.e. the idea that it is almost fashionable to have surgery done before yearling sales when it might not be necessary.
Of course you have to know how many horses raced as two year olds and how many didn’t, and the win percentage of each, to attempt to show whether or not racing as a 2-year-old (or not) makes a difference in your chances of winning. There are so many fewer horses that don’t race as 2 year olds that of course there are fewer TC winners who didn’t race as 2 year olds. To find out if the 1 TC winner who didn’t race as a 2 yo versus the 12 who did is a statistically significant difference, you’d have to know something about the relative population sizes of each.
But back to the original point, I feel the whole magic thing about Justify. Of course AP was incredible because he broke the long dry spell, but I think Justify is a charismatic horse, too, even if in a different way.
You forgot “the Triple Crown.” Because that is what we are talking about. And you do NOT have to have the number of 2 yos who raced/did not race. We already have the results, we are looking backward at an existing set of data. So the formula is: Raced 2yo Winner/Total Triple Crown Chances vs. Unraced 2yo Winner/Total Triple Crown Chances. Every year, 1 horse has a chance to win the Triple Crown. That never changes.
12/143 = 9% and 1/143 = .7%
You can probably check the Equine Injury Database to see if your percentages shake out wrt overall winning. That data shows that overall, horses who run at age 2 have a reduced risk of injury.
http://jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=Advocacy&area=10
How many horses who didn’t race 2 year olds have even entered the TC? If hardly any have entered, then of course there are fewer who won it.
Hypothetically: over the years since it began, if 98 bay horses entered the TC and 12 bay horses won it, but only 2 chestnut horses entered the TC and one of those won it – your argument would say that chestnut horses are awful! Only 1 chestnut horse won the TC! All horses have had an equal one per year chance to win! (That’s your argument - you claim every horse has that one chance per year to win, even if hardly any horses of that type have even entered the races.)
Whereas I’d say – wow, only 1 chestnut has ever won, but since only 2 have ever even entered, I don’t think you can say chestnuts are terrible.
Now, substitute raced as 2 yo vs unraced as 2 yo – that’s the argument I’m making. You absolutely must know how many horses of each type have entered or the percentages are meaningless. Your argument conflates chances/years without regard to the size of the populations you are drawing from.
Of course, there may be a lot more unraced 2 yo’s who enter the TC than I realize – maybe there’ve been a lot of them. I don’t know. Your conclusion may well be right; all I’m saying is I don’t think it’s supported by the statistic that you created.
You obviously think my argument is wrong, so no point in continuing to re-hash – no harm, no foul!
2 Likes
No, you are incorrect in both your use of statistics and the conclusions you are drawing from my use of statistics. We are using real data to look at the chances of having a Triple Crown winner who either did or did not race at age 2. The comment way back in this thread suggested that more people should not race horses as 2 yos because now we have a TC winner who did not race at age 2. The statistics do NOT support this.
There is ONE population - 3 year old horses - divided into 2 groups - raced at 2 and did not race at 2. Every year, there is 1 chance to win the Triple Crown and it will be a 3 yr old horse.
In the past 143 years, there have been 13 Triple Crown winners. So 13/143 = 9%. The chance of having a Triple Crown winner is 9%.
The chance of having a Triple Crown winner who ran at age 2 is 12/143 = 8.4%.
The chance of having a Triple Crown winner who did not run at age 2 is 1/143 = .07%. Why would you go with a success rate of .07% rather than a success rate of 8.4% ???
That argument seems a little weak to me. If you want to make a strong case, you need to come up with strong facts to back your case.
The debate is what circumstances make a triple crown winner. Color has nothing to do with it whatsoever, but running or not running as a 2 year old might. Chestnuts have won the triple crown as well as bays and they are always well represented in all the triple crown races.
Non 2 year old runners aren’t that rare either. Just since 1937, 61 horses who didn’t race as 2 year olds started in the Kentucky Derby, sometimes multiple in one year. Those included Curlin, Bodemeister, Coaltown, Pulpit, Materiality, Patch, Battle of Midway, Verrazano, etc. It builds a pretty good case against not running two year olds.
That being said, I’d still rather they didn’t run 2 year olds. I care more about the wellbeing of the horse than the results. And if everyone didnt run two year olds, that would level the playing field and the whole statistics thing wouldnt be needed. Of course that will never happen though!
As long as you realize that data from the Equine Injury Database maintained by The Jockey Club shows
In addition, 2-year-olds again had the lowest rate of catastrophic injuries compared to 3-year-olds and older horses, another trend over the nine years.
http://jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=Resources&area=10&story=1039
1 Like
Three year olds who ran as two year olds or who didnt? If they ran as two year olds, I could see that for sure as they have had more wear and tear.
But I was talking about long-term well-being as opposed to immediate. As someone who takes them once they are done racing, I’d prefer to get them not broken down for a change, thankyouverymuch.
I did not read the stats to answer your question. Thats why I provided a link… so you could read to your heart’s content 
Anecdotally (horses I know), horses who were brilliant at 2 and still racing well years later. You see it with jumpers (steeplechasers, point to pointers, hurdlers) a lot. They’re racing and jumping from aged 2 to as late as 12. Ten years of hard racing and jumping and then they “retire” to foxhunting.
But don’t just take my word for it.
https://thehorse.com/150857/early-ex…ed-racehorses/
Caveat: Thoroughbreds are a fast maturing breed (although there are always exceptions).
Also horses racing on turf have fewer injuries than dirt racers, according to stats.
I realize that happens too, but then there’s the mare (Sweet Baby Maya) I got recently that raced hard from ages 2 through 8, never placed well, and finally ended up in my lap with broken down joints and nutrition issues. I patched her up as well as I could and now want to find her a good home. She is incredibly sweet and a real fun, people-oriented horse, but I can’t get anyone to take her because they are scared of the joint issues that could return in the future. She is sound and rideable right now, but I’m an honest person and don’t want to knowingly (without mentioning the possibility) pawn her off on anyone and have her develop arthritis a couple years down the road. What’s to be done with horses like Sweet Baby Maya? I have the feeling that if she’d been allowed to wait until her joints were fully developed, she might not have these issues now.
I realize this doesn’t happen with every horse, but I am frustrated and therefore I rant.
Those types of horses don’t go nearly as fast as flat track horses. That is why they last longer.
The data indicates you are wrong. Your one anecdotal horse is not evidence. Sweet Baby Maya is not in equibase, did she run at bush tracks?
1 Like
That’s not her registered name. That’s just what we call her. She ran at mountaineer mostly. And it’s not just that one horse. This has happened multiple times. My first OTTB I got was injured whioe breezing as a two year old, missed his entire three year old year, and then came back strong as a four year old. He retired at age 6 on a winning streak. The data doesn’t include him or Maya, he was breezing, not racing and Maya never was injured, just slowly broken down. You can be sure that there are hundreds more like this that the data and statistics handily don’t include.
If you know of an organization that is tracking the information that “handily” isn’t included, have at it.
Meanwhile, both of your horses are part of the data, as are all horses that are registered with the JC, and The Equine Injury Database has information on probably 1 million races. Your first horse is part of the data, as is Maya. Maya raced at age 2 and went on to keep on racing until she was 8. How many starts did she have? Usually horses that stay sound to race stay sound. I’d take either of your 2 horses in a heartbeat, well before a horse that only started a handful of times. They are usually tough and good athletes. You probably didn’t pay much for either. Are you suggesting that race horse owners should retire their horses after only a couple years of racing and then give them away or sell them cheap? Not going to happen, racing is a business and if the horse is sound enough to run, it usually keeps on running. I’m sure though, if you had $15,000 or more to spend, you could walk into a racing barn and convince an owner to part with a low level claimer. There is a horse shortage, and race horses that are sound enough to keep running are not going to be sold to the secondary market unless the buyers open their wallets pretty wide.
1 Like
The data we were looking at was carastrophic injuries per start. So no, my horses are not included in the data as they were not injured during an actual race.
I take it you are a race horse trainer? I’m not suggesting that they give away competetive horses for cheap, but I am saying that when the horse is no longer competetive, the trainer should retire them honorably rather than continue running the guts out of them. I paid $600 for Maya, but she was in such bad shape I still felt ripped off. The other horse, Teton, on the other hand, I paid $1,000 for and I see that as a good experience as he was in better shape. I honestly think he could have kept running as he was still a competetive race horse and obviously loved his job, but I have a huge amount of respect for his trainer for retiring him at the top. Maya was just happy to retire to a slower paced life. Would you really keep running a horse like her? She had 46 starts, which I realize isn’t a huge amount, but she obviously wasn’t capable of the job. She only had three wins and two thirds. Her joints were crooked and sore and her trainer told me he would pump her up with bute before and after each race. Do you honestly think that’s right? I sure don’t.
I just don’t think that is true. Plenty of racehorses stop running because they are just too slow. My current TB was a Turf horse. I am in contact with his breeder/owner. He was a trier but not fast and he just ran out of races In which he was remotely competitive at 5. His owner kept his going way l8nger than was financially responsible because he had heart, but a slow horse isn’t going to stay in racing. My horse has been very sound though his ankles aren’t the cleanest, if I had to pick on him.
