Thoroughbred Horsepower May Have Peaked : Such Factors as Fragility, Dirt Tracks and Human Greed Halt Improvement

The memorable image of jockey Ron Turcotte looking behind him as he brought Secretariat into the home stretch in the 1973 Belmont Stakes has found its place in horse racing history.

It marked the first Triple Crown winner in 25 years and the race in which Secretariat broke the world record for 1 1/2 miles by more than two seconds. His 31-length victory was described by The Times’ Ross Newhan as “a victory of such time and proportion, a victory of such impact, that there can be no doubt this is a super horse.”

Kent Hollingsworth, the editor of Blood-Horse magazine, said: “He ran so far beyond reference points he left us with no measurable comparison.”

But Turcotte’s look back was also symbolic. The potential for great performances in horse racing was about to be behind it. The pinnacle was about to be reached. There was no other place to look because the future, after that race, would yield nothing better.

The point of Secretariat’s performance has nothing to do with the arguable claim that he was the greatest race horse ever. Instead, it mirrors a sport that some say has reached its upper limit. It is entirely possible that the best the sport can offer has already been seen.

Man bears the greatest responsibility for the problems in horse racing. In his greed and lack of understanding, he has not allowed the horse to get better, to improve its performance. But some of the problem has to do with the horse itself, an ill-equipped combination of muscle and bone that has little business doing what’s asked of him.

Blame man for hindering the development of thoroughbred racing for the following reasons:

--The lineage of all thoroughbreds can be traced to only three stallions--Darley Arabian, Godolphin Barb and Byerly Turk in the late 1600s and early 1700s--so the genetic pool is so small that there can be no improvement.

--With a small genetic pool, there is necessarily some in-breeding, weakening the pool even more.

--Because of the amount of money put up in races for 2- and 3-year-olds, a lot of immature horses are being raced.

--No effort has been made to improve the racing surfaces on which horses run.

--Training methods haven’t changed appreciably since horses started to race.

Before man is overwhelmed with guilt, however, it must be pointed out that, physiologically, the horse is one messed-up animal. The horse has to put up with:

--An inferior respiratory system, which means that the lungs can’t take any more oxygen.

--An inferior digestive system, which means that the horse can’t be immobilized for more than 48 hours.

--A skeletal structure that continually puts 1,000 pounds of stress on a three-inch surface with such jarring force that it breaks down easily.

--Usually not “knowing” when it is hurt, and consequently running when it shouldn’t.

--Just not being very smart.

Any combination of these factors would certainly be enough to hinder the development of the horse and of racing. But when all are combined, the evidence is overwhelming that the race horse has reached its upper limit of performance.

Perhaps the most visible example is the world record for the mile. Dr. Fager, a horse named for a Boston neurosurgeon who saved the life of trainer John Nerud, set the record of 1:32 1/5 on Aug. 24, 1968. No horse has broken that record.

Interestingly, Secretariat’s performance in the Belmont is not the world record but instead the fastest 1 1/2 miles ever run on a dirt track. Two horses, Fiddle Isle in 1970 and John Henry in 1980, have run faster times, but both ran on the downhill turf course at Santa Anita.

The world record for six furlongs was set in 1972 and tied in 1982. The record for 1 1/8 miles was set in 1973 and tied again in 1977 and 1978. The 1-mile record hasn’t been broken since 1977, and it was set on the Santa Anita turf course.

The 2-mile record was set in 1924, the 2 1/2-mile in 1948 and the 3-mile in 1941. Those records seem likely to stand, because few race courses subject horses to that kind of endurance anymore.

But despite the evidence and lack of significant records in the 1980s, not everyone accepts these theories. The lines of dissension are rather clearly drawn between the medical profession and trainers.

Wayne Lukas, the most successful trainer in the United States, although admitting that his sport is beset with problems, doesn’t think that the last of the great horse has been seen.

“I think there are going to be some more great athletes,” Lukas said. “I think we’ll breed another Secretariat. We’re not in a freezer, we don’t have our heads in the sand.”

But it’s the sand, or more specifically the dirt, that both trainers and doctors agree has been a major deterrent to improving the times of thoroughbreds.

Studies have shown that improvements in the track surface would lower times. Tracks, however, seem to make little or no effort in improving the surfaces.

“The tracks have been pretty much the same,” said George Pratt of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Pratt has done extensive research into track surfaces. “There has been no development (in the tracks). . . . Tracks have to be cared for in a more intelligent way. You put water on a track to do more than keep the dust down.”

Said Lukas: “Research says that if you bank the tracks seven degrees in the turns, the horses would run faster. But after someone says that, what happens? Nothing. You didn’t see any tracks rushing to fix the tracks. You didn’t see anything.”

A lot of trainers don’t like fast surfaces. There is a correlation between fast horses and breakdowns. Speed definitely causes injury. One rarely sees a slow horse go unsound.

Ed McGrath, a Louisville insurance agent who specializes in horses, echoes the concern with fast horses.

“I don’t want them to go any faster or their wheels will fall off,” McGrath said. “I think we’ve seen all we’re going to see (in speed records).”

McGrath contends that the most dangerous spot for a horse is on the track, which is why he almost doubles the insurance costs for horses in training as opposed to those on the farm.

“A horse running around a race track is in the same position as someone driving in L.A.,” McGrath said. “You may be the best driver in the world, but you can’t do anything about the idiot next to you.”

Swale returned to his stall at Belmont Park on June 17, 1984, in a playful mood. The horse had just completed a morning workout and seemed in fine condition. The aura of having won the Kentucky Derby and Belmont Stakes--the Belmont just a week earlier--was still around this 3-year-old with seemingly unlimited potential.

As Swale was being sponged off by his groom, he keeled over. By the time doctors arrived, five minutes later, Swale was dead.

Dr. Robert Fritz, Swale’s veterinarian, initially thought it might have been a heart problem that killed Swale. He watched silently as pathologists later cut and probed their way to the heart. Fritz expected to find a ruptured artery, but there was no evidence of that.

“Horses do die every day and we never know why,” Fritz told Steven Crist of the New York Times. “No one really cares, because they’re not Swale and we don’t perform autopsies. We can say it looks like one thing or another, but we don’t always know.”

Research into the horse is slim, but what evidence there is points to its imperfection as an animal. And the flaws, of course, start at breeding time.

“We haven’t improved a lot recently because in the last 10 years or so we have bred indiscriminately,” said Johnny Nerud, currently the president and general manager of Tartan Farms in Ocala, Fla. “We haven’t improved our breeding because we have been mass producing.”

But even if this factory-like breeding style weren’t popular, could things get better?

“It’s certainly true that thoroughbreds have fewer genetic differences than any other group (of horses),” said Ann Bowling, a genetic specialist in the department of reproduction at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine.

“(The depleted gene pool) leaves little for breeders to choose from. . . . The breed registry is closed, they are not introducing new genetic material. It is much more difficult to gain any improvement. It’s difficult to progress.”

The lack of genetic improvement only stands to perpetuate the physiological problems the horse endures.

“Because of selective breeding and the long time that horses have been bred, we may be at the physiological limit of the critter,” said Jerry Gillespie, a professor of veterinary medicine in the surgery and medicine department at Kansas State University.

“The horse is certainly superior as a runner, but they may have evolved as far as they are going to go,” Gillespie said.

“The cardiovascular system is developed way beyond the stress point. The cardiovascular system could deliver more oxygen (to the lungs), but the respiratory system can’t handle it. The respiratory system may not be able to go any harder or any faster than it’s going right now.

“The muscles and bones have also reached their limit. There is no question that bones, muscles, tendons and ligaments are at the limit. Either the metabolism can’t go any farther or the bones can’t take the stress.”

The psychology of the horse is also suspect. It doesn’t know when to stop, even when it’s hurt.

“The thoroughbred abuses its body,” said Warick Bayly, an associate professor of veterinary medicine at Washington State University. “It runs itself into the ground, which is usually what it takes to win. And because of certain hormones, he doesn’t know when he’s hurt. So, he hurts himself more.”

The training profession, much like the charges in their care, is rather incestuous. Training is a family business, and the only way to learn the trade is from another trainer. Techniques are passed down from person to person with few innovations.

“You have to remember that you’ve got 100 years of tradition in horse racing and for some reason people are very reluctant to change,” Lukas said about his peers. “It’s a hand-me-down profession, and the general reaction is this is the way it has been for years and this is the way it is going to be.”

There are two theories, which, of course, are diametrically opposed. One says that horses are not being trained as well as they should. The second maintains that horses are being trained as well as they can and no improvement is possible. As is usually the case, the answer may lie somewhere in the middle.

“Initially, I’d say that horses are not being trained right,” Bayly said. “But the more I’ve studied this, the more reluctant I am to make that statement. . . . You have to remember that you are training very immature animals. Given the physiological nature, there is no question that scientific training techniques are more intense and more taxing. When these young animals are trained, they are basically not strong enough to withstand a lot.”

And therein lies the biggest rift between those who race horses and those who repair them.

The big money and media attention for horses centers on the Triple Crown--the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness Stakes and the Belmont Stakes. Those races are restricted to 3 year olds. To get a horse ready for his 3-year-old season, he must be raced at 2.

Most veterinarians believe that 2-year-olds shouldn’t be racing. The horse isn’t fully developed at 2, and that, more than anything else, is why horses break down and the breed is kept from advancing.

“A lot (of 2-year-olds) crash and burn,” said Roy Poole, a pathologist at UC Davis. “There is certainly a maturing factor that they must go through. Conventionally, when you are talking about maturing, you mean the closure of the growth plates (on the bones). By the third year, they all should be closed . . . at least those (plates) that count.”

Bayly agrees with his colleague’s concern. “The thoroughbred temperament is extremely competitive, and when you place it with a relatively immature body frame, you have problems,” he said. “A good analogy would be to compare the records of horses to that of 11-year-old children. You should compare these young horses to children just entering puberty.”

Lukas bristles at the subject of running 2 and 3 year olds.

“What they say about 2 year olds can be true. But it is a judgment call. There are 2 year olds that can run a full stakes schedule and there are 2 year olds you wouldn’t even consider running until they were 4. That is strictly a judgment call. You must look at every case individually.”

Individually is the only hope, if any, that horse racing has to get better. On paper, there is no reason to believe that we’ll ever see better performances from thoroughbreds. Horse racing, it seems, is the only sport to have already seen its potential.