Vet P.O.V. Barbaro’s gone to greener pastures…

January 31st, 2007  

Add Comment4 Comments

I am a self-professed horse racing junkie. That being said, I'm trying to figure out excatly what your advocating in this most recent column. If you are against furthering the sport of racing, I must respectfully disagree. However, if you are arguing that horses should not be bred (as is the trend now) solely for precocious speed, I am in full agreement. Somewhere along the line the horse racing industry lost sight of producing the 'best' horse, and focused primarily on producing exceptional juvenile runners. And, although many racing fans have shied away from saying so out of respect for the animal, Barbaro was a excellent example of how race breeding has gone awry.

Barbaro raced only 7 times in his life. On the day of his final race he was physically less than a month over 3 years old. Although his accomplishments should not be belittled, seeing as how he won 6 of the aforementioned races and a place in history by coming in first in the Kentucky Derby, the fact remains that he broke down before ever reaching adulthood (generally, age 4). Barbaro showed great speed while still a baby, but didn't have the genetic stamina to keep himself from falling apart. Further, had he survived, his connections would have done everything in their power to breed him...resulting in the creation of further blazing fast, but ultimately weak babies.

Let's compare Barbaro with another Kentucky Derby winning peer. Exterminator, winner of the 1918 Run for the Roses, raced for 8 years. He ran in 100 races, winning 50 of them (34 of which were stakes races). For further comparison, Whirlaway, the 1941 Triple Crown winner, won an allowance race in the three weeks between the Preakness and Belmont Stakes of that year. This is in sharp contrast to racing today, where trainers race their charges only a couple of times a year for fear of injury (Barbaro had a nearly unprecedented 5 week layoff before his Kentucky Derby triumph).

What Barbaro stands for is not that the sport of racing needs to change, but that the ideals of owners and breeders, now too influenced by high purses for juvenile races and the monetary lure of starting a stallion at stud before he even reaches traditional adulthood (like Preakness winner, Bernardini), no longer match the ideal thatthe sport was originally intended to promote. True conoissuers of the sport should be working towards overall improvement of the breed, not to make spectacular burn-outs.

Becky January 31st, 2007 02:44:00 PM

I am a self-professed horse racing junkie. That being said, I'm trying to figure out excatly what your advocating in this most recent column. If you are against furthering the sport of racing, I must respectfully disagree. However, if you are arguing that horses should not be bred (as is the trend now) solely for precocious speed, I am in full agreement. Somewhere along the line the horse racing industry lost sight of producing the 'best' horse, and focused primarily on producing exceptional juvenile runners. And, although many racing fans have shied away from saying so out of respect for the animal, Barbaro was a excellent example of how race breeding has gone awry.

Barbaro raced only 7 times in his life. On the day of his final race he was physically less than a month over 3 years old. Although his accomplishments should not be belittled, seeing as how he won 6 of the aforementioned races and a place in history by coming in first in the Kentucky Derby, the fact remains that he broke down before ever reaching adulthood (generally, age 4). Barbaro showed great speed while still a baby, but didn't have the genetic stamina to keep himself from falling apart. Further, had he survived, his connections would have done everything in their power to breed him...resulting in the creation of further blazing fast, but ultimately weak babies.

Let's compare Barbaro with another Kentucky Derby winning peer. Exterminator, winner of the 1918 Run for the Roses, raced for 8 years. He ran in 100 races, winning 50 of them (34 of which were stakes races). For further comparison, Whirlaway, the 1941 Triple Crown winner, won an allowance race in the three weeks between the Preakness and Belmont Stakes of that year. This is in sharp contrast to racing today, where trainers race their charges only a couple of times a year for fear of injury (Barbaro had a nearly unprecedented 5 week layoff before his Kentucky Derby triumph).

What Barbaro stands for is not that the sport of racing needs to change, but that the ideals of owners and breeders, now too influenced by high purses for juvenile races and the monetary lure of starting a stallion at stud before he even reaches traditional adulthood (like Preakness winner, Bernardini), no longer match the ideal thatthe sport was originally intended to promote. True conoissuers of the sport should be working towards overall improvement of the breed, not to make spectacular burn-outs.

Becky January 31st, 2007 02:47:00 PM

I also love horsae racing; always have, since I was a little girl. However, as I grew older and became more involved in animal issues, I realized the inherent cruelty of the "Sport of Kings". These majestic animals are over-bred, over-trained, and raced even before they reach maturity. Only a very few will reach the kind of greatness required to win major races; by far many will race in minor races at local tracks until they prove to be unprofitable. Then only a lucky few will be sold at claiming races and become show horses or family pets and live out their days in relative ease. By far many more will be sold off in lots to be sent to slaughter, bound for the European market as food, or to dog-food manufacturers and by-product renderers. Perhaps the legacy of Barbaro should be the reform of the racing industry as Becky suggests; toward the improvement of the breed and the sport, rather than the ever-increasing purses designed to make the wealthy owners yet richer.

Shellie January 31st, 2007 03:19:00 PM

What I'm advocating is racing reform: regulating or prohibiting juvenile races (as you mentioned), mandatory post-race blood testing, safer tracks, mandatory health insurance with greater benefits, artificial insemination and starting gate redesign, among others. I am not so well-versed in the particulars but I am aware that the industry has shied away from any changes due to "tradition." I have a problem with that. Breeding for soundness and increased stability is another issue altogether that I believe will be impossible to regulate. The goal will always be to make a faster horse. It's the fox guarding the hen house on that one. It's great to have a racing junkie reading. Thanks for taking the time to comment at length.

Dr. Patty Khuly January 31st, 2007 05:38:00 PM

Add Commment

Your Name:

CAPTCHA Verification