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.
Altho since you bring it up.
It's really kind of barbaric what we do to horses for our own amusement now.
Not even 'pets' to most people involved. More like slaves we get to bet on.
...cruelty is OK so long as it's an old tradition!
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
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.
I don't follow horses and I found the article informative. I didn't previously understand how much pain these animals are subjected to for personal glory and profit.
The topic does touch science and current events so it's something I expect to see here.
if races are so stressful on the horses that sometimes they break and have to be euthanize, doesn't this type of event count as animal abuse?
That is nothing. You should check out what happens to a cow in a slaughterhouse.
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!
website am I on?
Yeah, what the heck. Who cares about an informative look at a high profile part of popular culture that happens to be more interesting once you understand some practical bits of biology? Who cares, when you're a desk-bound pixel pusher, how muscle recovery and performance might differ between equine and primate mammals, anyway? Why would any nerd-ish person be interested when the expected behavior of a complex system, as predicted by well-funded scientists, comes to be out-performed in an instance of that system where its breeding also manifests itself as grit and a powerful, winning competitive personality?
Yeah, boring stuff. Maybe if the runner-up had been called "System-D" or the winner had been named "Edward S" you'd be more interested? Because what's going on, biologically, in a thoroughbred racehorse under pressure is for sure nowhere near as interesting to a well-rounded, informed resident of the 21st century as the fatigue that sets in when the lithium batteries in a Tesla don't get the right treatment following a high-speed amateur race at the track.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Not only was science not "wrong," but if science was wrong there would be no story. The science says that this was a statistically improbable event. If the science was wrong, this would happen all the time and the fact that it happened again wouldn't be newsworthy. So not only is this the dumb clickbait that we know it to be, but contradictory to the whole premise. No internal logical consistency; complete garbage.
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.