Factors for racing ability and sustainability
/
By Judy Wardrope
Everyone wants to be able to pick a future star on the track, ideally, one that can compete at the stakes level for several seasons. In order to increase the probability of finding such a gem, many buyers and agents look at the pedigree of a horse and the abilities displayed by its relatives, but that is not always an accurate predictor of future success. When looking at a potential racehorse, the mechanical aspects of its conformation usually override the lineage, unless of course, the conformation actually matches the pedigree.
For our purposes, we will examine three horses at the end of their three-year-old campaigns and one at the end of her fourth year. In order to provide the best educational value, these four horses were chosen because they offer a reasonable measure of success or failure on the track, have attractive pedigrees and were all offered for sale as racing prospects in a November mixed sale. The fillies were also offered as broodmare prospects.
Is it possible to tell which ones were the better racehorses and predict the best distances for those who were successful? Do their race records match their pedigrees? Let’s see.
Horse #1
This gelding (photographed as a three-year-old) is by Horse of the Year Mineshaft and out of a daughter of Giants Causeway, a pedigree that would suggest ability at classic distances. He brought a final bid of $275k as a yearling and $45k as a maiden racing-prospect at the end of his three-year-old year after earning $19,150. His story did not end there, however. He went back to racing, changed trainers a few times, was claimed and then won a minor stakes at a mile while adding over $77k to his total earnings. All but one of his 18 races (3-3-3) were on the dirt, and he was still in training at the time of writing.
Structurally, he has some good points, but he is not built to be a superior athlete nor a consistent racehorse. His LS gap (just in front of the high point of croup) is considerably rearward from a line drawn from the top point of one hip to the top of the other. In other words, he was not particularly strong in the transmission and would likely show inconsistency because his back would likely spasm from his best efforts.
Horse #1
His stifle placement, based on the visible protrusion, is just below sheath level, which is in keeping with a horse preferring distances around eight or nine furlongs. However, his femur side (from point of buttock to stifle protrusion) of the rear triangle is shorter than the ilium side (point of hip to point of buttock), which not only adds stress to the hind legs, but it changes the ellipse of the rear stride and shortens the distance preference indicated by stifle placement. Horses with a shorter femur travel with their hocks behind them do not reach as far under their torsos as horses that are even on the ilium and femur sides. While the difference is not pronounced on this horse, it is discernable and would have an effect.
He exhibits three factors for lightness of the forehand: a distinct rise to the humerus (from elbow to point of shoulder), a high base of neck and a pillar of support (as indicated by a line extended through the naturally occurring groove in the forearm) that emerges well in front of the withers. The bottom of his pillar also emerges just into the rear quarter of his hoof, which, along with his lightness of the forehand, would aid with soundness for his forequarters.
The muscling at the top of his forearm extends over the elbow, which is a good indication that he is tight in the elbow on that side. He developed that muscle in that particular fashion because he has been using it as a brake to prevent the elbow from contacting the ribcage. (Note that the tightness of the elbow can vary from side to side on any horse.)
He ran according to his build, not his pedigree, and may well continue to run in that manner. He is more likely to have hind leg and back issues than foreleg issues.
Horse #2
This filly (photographed as a three-year-old) is by champion sprinter Speightstown and out of a graded-stakes-placed daughter of Hard Spun that was best at about a mile. The filly raced at two and three years of age, earning $26,075 with a lifetime record of 6 starts, one win, one second and one third—all at sprinting distances on the dirt. She did not meet her reserve price at the sale when she was three.
Horse #2
Unlike Horse #1, her LS gap is much nearer the line from hip to hip and well within athletic limits. But, like Horse #1, she is shorter on the femur side of her rear triangle, which means that although her stifle protrusion is well below sheath level, the resultant rear stride would be restricted, and she would be at risk for injury to the hind legs, particularly from hock down.
She only has two of three factors for lightness of the forehand: the top of the pillar emerges well in front of the withers, and she has a high point of neck. Unlike the rest of the horses, she does not have much rise from elbow to point of shoulder, which equates with more horse in front of the pillar as well as a slower, lower stride on the forehand. In addition, the muscling at the top of her forearm is placed directly over her elbow… even more so than on Horse #1. She would not want to use her full range of motion of the foreleg and would apply the brake/muscle she developed in order to lift the foreleg off the ground before the body had fully rotated over it to avoid the elbow/rib collision. This often results in a choppy stride. However, it should be noted that the bottom of her pillar emerges into the rear quarter of her hoof, which is a factor for soundness of the forelegs.
Her lower point of shoulder combined with her tight elbow would not make for an efficient stride of the forehand, and her shorter femur would not make for an efficient stride of the hindquarters.
Her construction explains why she performed better as a two-year-old than she did as a three-year-old. It is likely that the more she trained and ran, the more uncomfortable she became, and that she would favor either the hindquarters or the forequarters, or alternate between them.
She did not race nearly as well as her lineage would suggest.
Horse #3
This filly (photographed as a three-year-old) is by champion two-year-old, Midshipman, and out of a multiple stakes-producing daughter of Unbridled’s Song. She raced at two and three years of age and became a stakes-winner (Gr3) as a three-year-old, tallying over $425k in lifetime earnings from 12 starts. Although she did win one of her two starts on turf, she was best at 8 to 8.5 furlongs on the main track. She brought a bid of $775k at the sale and was headed to life as a broodmare.
Horse #3
Her LS gap is just slightly rearward of a line drawn from hip to hip and is therefore well within the athletic range. Her rear triangle is of equal distance on the ilium and femur sides, plus her stifle protrusion would be just below sheath level if she were male. She has the engine of an 8- to 9-furlong horse and the transmission to utilize that engine.
Aside from all three factors for lightness of the forehand (pillar emerging well in front of the withers, good rise of the humerus from elbow to point of shoulder and a high base of neck), the bottom of her pillar emerges into the rear quarter of her hoof to aid in soundness.
Although she shows muscle development at the top of her forearm, the muscling does not extend over her elbow the way it does on the previous two horses. Her near side does not exhibit the tell-tale muscle of a horse with a tight elbow, and thus, she would be comfortable using a full range of motion of the forehand.
Proportionately, she has the shortest neck of the sample horses, which may be one of the reasons she has developed the muscle at the top of her forearm. Since horses use their necks to aid in lifting the forehand and extending the stride, she may compensate by using the muscle over her humerus to assist in those purposes.
Of the sample horses, she is the closest to matching heritage and ability.
