Is Speed A By-product Of AI?

[Patuxet]

A poster on another forum notes that the upcoming issue of "Trainer Magazine" contains an article entitled "Where did the 15 seconds go? How standardbred horses have got 15 seconds faster but thoroughbreds haven't."

Artificial insemination is allowed by the USTA.

[NORTHSTAR1]

standarbreds used to run on loose dirt with crude bikes ----now they have precision aerodynamics and they run on 'concrete" --i think that eats up a lot of the 15 seconds -----also the purse size gets them moving --thoroughbreds continue to run just fast enough to win and havent figured out the ideal surface yet

[Barn 31 T-breds]

There are a number of reasons why harness horses have been steadily dropping time from their finish times.

1. AI = this is the single biggest reason. with the implementation of AI, there is no need for cheap, slow, backyard-bred horses anymore. even the bottom classes at most harness tracks are loaded with well-bred animals. AI accomplished two important things: it brought prices down, and improved quality.

2. Modified sulkies caused an immediate and dramatic drop in times when they were introduced 35 years ago. Overnight, horses who used to have weight pressing down on their girths suddenly had leverage pushing up. Add to that the fact that these sulkies were much lighter and narrower, and added speed was a natural byproduct.

3. The composition, and contour of racing surfaces. Most tracks are composed of stone dust these days, rather than dirt. Tracks are firmer and more steeply banked than before, making turns easier to negotiate at high speed and allowing horses to skip over the shallow, hard surface.

4. Racing styles also changed. Many years ago, it was common for a field of standardbreds to race indian file until the stretch, then fan wide and drive to the wire. All of the above improvements made it possible for drivers to be more aggressive, with fields making several moves before reaching the stretch.

[casallc]

Quarter Horse, Paints and Appaloosa racing times have also increased while TB's remain stagnant. No tires or carts involved to lay blame on. Dinosaurs don't fare well in a high tech environment.

AI, done properly, is no cheaper than live cover. It is still labor intensive and requires basically the same number of people (only more highly skilled) to achieve the same goal. The BIG difference is that it is more efficient and safer for both humans and animals, resulting in maximizing the potential for stallions, mares and owners involved. The only thing AI hurts is the egos of entrenched Kentucky snobs and some farms (to a lesser extent).

[Barn 31 T-breds]

Quarter Horse, Paints and Appaloosa racing times have also increased while TB's remain stagnant. No tires or carts involved to lay blame on. Dinosaurs don't fare well in a high tech environment.

AI, done properly, is no cheaper than live cover. It is still labor intensive and requires basically the same number of people (only more highly skilled) to achieve the same goal. The BIG difference is that it is more efficient and safer for both humans and animals, resulting in maximizing the potential for stallions, mares and owners involved. The only thing AI hurts is the egos of entrenched Kentucky snobs and some farms (to a lesser extent).

QH, paints and appys are not major racing breeds and those who may be able to make a valid comparison between them and t-breds are likely few and far between. I will take your word that those breeds have increased (decreased?) their times over the years. Could it be that those breeds simply had much more room for improvement? I don't know for sure, but at any rate its irrelevant to the question posed at the beginning of the thread.

As far as AI costing as much as live cover, again, that may be so but it is not my point. When I say that it brings prices down and improves quality, that means the price and quality of racing stock, not of the process of mating itself.

It lowers stud fees and prices in the sales ring, reducing the need for cheaper homebred stock.

[Bast]

QH, paints and appys are not major racing breeds and those who may be able to make a valid comparison between them and t-breds are likely few and far between.

I think there are some QH breeders who would disagree.

Racing QHs are largely TB, anyway, so we have the anomaly of a chiefly TB (15/16 and more) animal getting faster while the source isn't. There are some races allowing QHs and TBs, running farther than most QH races and shorter than most TB races. If QHs weren't competitive, this would not be happening.

[Barn 31 T-breds]

I think there are some QH breeders who would disagree.

Racing QHs are largely TB, anyway, so we have the anomaly of a chiefly TB (15/16 and more) animal getting faster while the source isn't. There are some races allowing QHs and TBs, running farther than most QH races and shorter than most TB races. If QHs weren't competitive, this would not be happening.

I saw a race once that was open to paints, appaloosas, QH & TB. It was at a fair in Oklahoma. A paint won. I don't think that proves that paints should be considered a major racing breed.

I know what racing QH's are, and the reason they are not a major racing breed is because very few people care enough to bet on them.

When the day comes that a QH card can handle, say, $5 - $10 million, then there will be cause to reconsider my position on the subject.

[Bast]

When the day comes that a QH card can handle, say, $5 - $10 million, then there will be cause to reconsider my position on the subject.

Money bet on a race defines the quality of the horses?

[Barn 31 T-breds]

Not quality. Popularity.

Hence, whether or not it's a major racing breed.

I'm sure they're fine horses. They just aren't the kind most people want to see race.

[Bast]

Not quality. Popularity.

Hence, whether or not it's a major racing breed.

I'm sure they're fine horses. They just aren't the kind most people want to see race.

Most people don't even know what a Thoroughbred is. That isn't out there in the culture anymore.

[griff]

I don't understand why AI, properly done, would be as expensive as natural cover.

I don't have any experience with equine AI and my bovine AI experience is dated but bovine AI was once very cost effective. Fact is it was cheaper than having our won bull.

What makes equine AI so expensive

griff

[Bast]

What makes equine AI so expensive
griff

The only thing that would do so is the same thing that makes diamonds expensive.

[Barn 31 T-breds]

The only thing that would do so is the same thing that makes diamonds expensive.

I'm pretty good at deciphering cryptic messages, but this one has me stumped....

[Bast]

The only thing that would do so is the same thing that makes diamonds expensive.

I'm pretty good at deciphering cryptic messages, but this one has me stumped....

Diamonds are not rare. Demand for them is based strictly upon De Beers very successful ad campaigns convincing women they had to have a diamond engagement ring, but more importantly on the source mines feeding the stones out slowly. They have plenty of them; diamonds should be cheap, but they keep the vaults locked up tight.

Simple greed and manipulation keep diamonds pricey.

[Barn 31 T-breds]

Yes, I know. The russians have their own huge supply of diamonds and threatened to dump them on the open market years back unless they were included in the cartel.

what i dont understand is how this is applied to AI. AI is neither common nor rare. It's "supply" has nothing to do with it's cost.....

now, if you are comparing the diamond cartel to the inner circle of elite breeders who conspire to prevent AI in thoroughbred racing, then I agree....