Slashdot Mirror
American Pharoah Overcomes Biology To Win Triple Crown
HughPickens.com writes: There are good reasons it's been 37 years since the last triple-crown winner. As Lexi Pandell writes, post-race recovery is no joke for a thousand-pound animal that can run more than 40 miles per hour. There are two weeks between the Derby and the Preakness, and three weeks between the Preakness and the Belmont. That tight schedule—and the super-specific needs of racehorses—means horses competing in the grueling back-to-back-to-back Triple Crown races have a big disadvantage against fresh horses. First, as a horse races, its muscles produce lactic acid. In humans, glycogen recoup takes about 24 hours. But horses take several days to process lactic acid and restore glycogen reserves. Trainers make sure their charges drink plenty of water and sometimes even use intravenous fluids to aid that repair process. Secondly, in addition to being the last race of the Triple Crown, the Belmont Stakes is also the longest. When a horse runs a tough race (or has a new workout at a longer distance), its muscles break down. Then, during rest, they reknit and adapt. A horse that has skipped the Preakness, however, has the luxury of time. Mubtaahij, who some picked to win the Belmont, had plenty of rest so he could be pushed for hard workouts two weeks prior to the Belmont.
Finally, at different points in its stride, a galloping horse puts all its weight on a single leg. That limb bears three times more weight than usual when galloping on a straightaway and, thanks to centrifugal force, a load five to 10 times greater on turns. This translates to skeletal microdamage. Race a horse during that critical period and you increase the risk of serious injuries mid-race. Two weeks ago, vets were forced to euthanize the promising gray thoroughbred filly, Eight Belles, when she collapsed on the track after completing the race at Churchill Downs, suffering from two shattered ankles in her front legs. A fresh horse won't face any of those problems. Even a horse that ran in the Derby but skipped the Preakness will have five weeks to rest, and plenty of time for normal skeletal damage to repair, before the Belmont. "So, American Pharoah, it'd be awesome if you win the Triple Crown, but you probably won't," concluded Pandell. "It's not your fault. It's science and those pesky fresh horses." Science was wrong.
Finally, at different points in its stride, a galloping horse puts all its weight on a single leg. That limb bears three times more weight than usual when galloping on a straightaway and, thanks to centrifugal force, a load five to 10 times greater on turns. This translates to skeletal microdamage. Race a horse during that critical period and you increase the risk of serious injuries mid-race. Two weeks ago, vets were forced to euthanize the promising gray thoroughbred filly, Eight Belles, when she collapsed on the track after completing the race at Churchill Downs, suffering from two shattered ankles in her front legs. A fresh horse won't face any of those problems. Even a horse that ran in the Derby but skipped the Preakness will have five weeks to rest, and plenty of time for normal skeletal damage to repair, before the Belmont. "So, American Pharoah, it'd be awesome if you win the Triple Crown, but you probably won't," concluded Pandell. "It's not your fault. It's science and those pesky fresh horses." Science was wrong.
Holy shit no. Odds heavily against you isn't zero odds especially when you have previous proof they can be beat.
If I put a red ball in one of one hundred thousand cups, your odds are still low even if you pick the right cup. Your odds didn't change.
Science was NOT wrong, you fucking imbecile. Science didn't predict who would win, it described why it's difficult to win all 3 races. It still is, this horse was just up to the unlikely task.
Two weeks ago, vets were forced to euthanize the promising gray thoroughbred filly, Eight Belles, when she collapsed on the track after completing the race at Churchill Downs, suffering from two shattered ankles in her front legs.
That happened in 2008!
I have no doubt that there are plenty of people who would dope a horse to win a race, but every loser would want to prove the winner had been doped if they could. So while there may be motivation to dope horses, there is intense testing and motivation to prevent it as well.
Lasix is commonly used to prevent EIPH (Exercise Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage.) Basically race horses bleed from broken capillaries in their lungs due to the tremendous increase in blood pressure they exhibit during a race. (It happens in people and other animals too, but most things I've read are about it happening in horses, particularly race horses.) Essentially horses have been bred to run fast as a primary objective and success comes with health consequences.
So giving Lasix to horses may come with a performance benefit, (since the diuretic causes them to be several pounds lighter) but not giving it to them comes with a known health detriment. Not everyone believes that the bleeding is something that should be treated that way and some horse owners choose not to use it, but there is no doubt that it is an effective treatment to prevent a common ailment. Since Lasix also acts as a diuretic, the counter argument is that the dehydration it causes is worse than the ailment it prevents.
There's an interesting parallel in human olympic athletes: asthma inhalers. They are allowed by the Olympics because they've been exhaustively studied and found to not give performance gains, despite the fact that more and more athletes have been using them and performing better. It turns out that humans at extreme exercise levels also tend to experience issues with their lungs, so top performers can benefit from something to counteract the damages their extreme performances cause.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
> So giving Lasix to horses may come with a performance benefit, (since the diuretic causes them to be several pounds lighter) but not giving it to them comes with a known health detriment.
The most casual literature review shows that it's used not only for treatment of bleeding but as a potent diuretic to lighten animals before a race. And since a bit of "bleeding" is extremely common in racing horses, getting the necessary waiver to use the drug is trivial. It seems to be an andemic part of horse racing, along with the "milkshake" treatment used to manipulate race horse blood pH. (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/milk+shake).
Given that the milkshake is forcibly applied through a nasal cannula, it's difficult to believe it's anything but a common, tacitly accepted, difficult to detect "doping" technique. The list of such techniques goes on and on.
You are right. Now, I'm not saying some racehorces aren't mistreated---that would be false. However, there's not nearly as much forcing as people think.
Firstly they're herding animals (just like people), if one does something then the others all want to to. The thing in question being running. I've done a bit of horse riding. If one horse in the group, or worse all but yours runs off to somewhere, my god your horse wants to run after them. Even the best behaved we-could-plonk-a-nervous-beginner-on-its-back horse will want to bolt after the others. This is why having some people lope off is a much more advaned riding activiy than simply loping.
Its hard to get a horse to go fast away from the group and it's VERY hard to stop a horse going fast to join the group.
And that's the nice ones.
Some horses are just bloody mental. Given half a chance and some vaguely flat ground they will launch into a flat gallop without regard to their own safety. Basically horses have somewhat strong personalities and that includes likes and dislikes. And some simply love to run.
Frankly even the really nice ones can get a bit frisky. Some horses seem to have some sort of sense of racing and if there's a bunch running in the same direction there's always one or two who like to try to be in the front. It doesn't correlate with herd leader either, it seems to be a personality thing.
And finally, go and watch the Grand National. Every so often, a horse loses its rider. The horses generally carry on anyway, sometimes even going on to win (though they're disqualified so it doesn't count for the humans). Why would a horse not only carry on a race but try to win if it didn't want to?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
That's because it's difficult to get a horse to stay put long enough to have the bones heal. Hint for you- I happen to have a horse that was one of the last live covers he made before making a spiral break of his leg. The stallion, SJ Mikhail +++ (Hint: This is the highest level of champion of record status within the Arabian Horse Association), developed a spiral break of his leg similar to what had happened to Barbaro and lived. Freak accident in the case of Mikhail- there wasn't any speed or even that much hard riding (You don't expect a Western Pleasure horse to be galloping down the rail like in Working Cowhorse...) The reason that they trend to put down horses after a leg break, unlike humans, is because they're not sound even to be "merely a horse" once the leg breaks- and the odds aren't good because the horse won't do the right things for it to heal up, normally. The main reasons we don't put people down is we're like the friggin' Terminator over the rest of the Animal Kingdom. You heal differently/better than most of the rest. You're smart enough to largely not do stupid things so you CAN heal that way. As it is clear you don't know any of this, I strongly suggest silence and education until you DO get it. The feels won't get you very far, to be truthful.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas