Talk:Secretariat (horse)/Archive 1

Picture?
I can't believe an article this good does not have one decent photo of this horse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.202.10 (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Terrific Article!
Whatever the quibbles, and I side with the previous poster, this is a terrific article. Bravo! to the authors. &mdash; J M Rice 18:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes this is a great article. Kudos to the author(s). --BAW 22:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Heart Size, Which is it?
"Unlike most enlarged hearts, Secretariat's showed absolutely no signs of disease. Popular belief is the heart weighed 21 pounds (9.6 kg); the truth is, the heart never was weighed and was only estimated."

From Phar Lap: "Phar Lap's heart was remarkable for its size, weighing some 6.2 kg, compared with a normal horse's heart at 3.2 kg. (Although in 1989 the famous Secretariat's heart weighed in at an astonishing 9.6 kg)"

In response to the above paragraphs. I have some information from a person at the necroscopy. Secretariat was necropsied (animal autopsy) to determe why he developed laminitis, for insurance purposes. The intention was to bury him in his entirety. The veternarian performing the necropsy was not permitted to retain any parts, but he was very experienced at this. He estimated the heart to be 21 to 22 pounds, though it was not officially weighed. This is his statement. Mfields1 20:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What's the problem, then. There appears to be no conflict - or maybe I'm just missing something. Secretariat's heart was 9.6 kilos, and the articles agree on this. Wallie 13:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The first statement was entered by a user who did not sign the entry. I'm guessing that the person doubts the heart size for Secretariat because it was not actually weighed but instead estimated.  I wrote (recently) to the veternarian who performed the examination, which was an official examination and done for insurance purposes.  This veternariam has performed thousands of necropsies on horses.  The owners (of Secretariat) wanted to bury him intact, but there was a limited amount of time available (for practical reasons) between death and the burial.  Often a

horse is cremated or only part of it buried. Anyway, from his experience he estimated the heart to be btween 21 and 22 pounds, and for the official record put it down as 21 pounds. He also stated "...the second largest heart I found was the heart of Sham, who actually broke the Kentucky derby record, but still lost to Secretariat. Sham’s heart weighted 19 pounds...". Mfields1 16:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on research I have done, there is no conflict regarding the estimated heart size of Phar Lap and Secretariat, thus I am removing the contradiction tag. There is no contradiction. Mfields1 16:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I want to clarify the statement I wrote from 5 June 2006. I wrote to the veternarian who necropsied Secretariat, who responded by email.  The email was then inserted into the article.  I should not have written "research" in my statement.  It was correspondence.  Not trying to open a can of worms but in reading the talk page it was an error to use the word research.  Mfields1 16:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm impressed. Well done! (The wonders of computers!). Wallie (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The ENTIRE SECTION about Secretariat's heart needs to be deleted as it is unmitigated garbage and POV. It has been pretty much established Secretariat's heart was the biggest ever on a thoroughbred. The writer of this section clearly has an ax to grind. Phar Lap's heart was in no way as large as Secretariat's, and, as noted by another commenter below, Sham's heart WAS measured and was regarded as the second-biggest ever observed by the veterinarians in charge. It was 18 pounds, by the way, not 19.--Susan Nunes June 18, 2007

Since apparently Secretariat's heart was handled and estimated by the same doctor who did Sham's autopsy, and who did many such procedures, I'm inclined to believe his estimate. I hadn't realized Sham's heart was 19 lbs. I do regard Sham as one of the greatest thoroughbreds in history, who had the unfortunate reality of being born in the same year as Secretariat. Had Sham lived in any other year, he would have run a much different Belmont, and perhaps won it and been a Triple Crown winner. His speeds in the Derby and Preakness were superb, him being the only horse in history at that time to run the Derby under 2:00, only to lose the race to Big Red.

There is no question in my mind that Secretariat was the greatest horse who ever lived. I will never forget watching the Belmont in 1973. Nobody will who watched it. He was so magnificent in the big races that his losses are irrelevant, and merely show how it takes immense good fortune not to lose a few races, because of all the variables which an affect a horse race. Secretariat had exceedingly bad luck; and it meant nothing. His world record win over Riva Ridge was an amazing performance. When you watched him race, his speed was almost supernatural when he turned it on. I've taped both the half-hour and the hour versions of Secretariat's "Sportscentury" shows, and watch them now and then, marveling each and every time I watch that horse run. Most of his victories displayed running which was truly breathtaking. The kind of speed you have to see to believe.

Examine the reality of his races. He was big and thus a slow starter. In the Derby and Preakness, that meant huge fields and terrible starts; and the resultant necessity to pass numerous horses wide on the final turn in the Derby and the first turn in the Preakness; yet he set the Derby record and also (unofficially) the Preakness record. Put him in a race with a smaller field, and you see a world record at 1 and 1/8 and also 1 and 1/2 miles. In other words, he was the greatest horse in history at every distance, and also spectacular on the turf. I'll bet that final race is Eddie Maple's greatest racing experience and memory in his life by light years.

Bob Woodley

I took the heart stuff out in my large edit, because it wasn't encyclopedic. However, in the form it was put back in, it isn't worth debating. The story appears to be fishy for several reasons, and the article properly notes that. talk--66.92.37.74 (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately these reasons are not listed and that's rather a helpful thing if that's the aim of this horrible entry. I took it out. It has no place here. Whether Phar Lap's heart size would have been known by Swerczek says zero about the "veracity" of his estimation. Zero. Neither does merely repeating Swerczek's avowal of not having actually weighed the heart. It absurd to question the veracity of an estimate merely by reminding that it is an estimate. As to the silly question regarding the chances that both Sham and Secretariat would have such large hearts, we know that Sham's heart WAS weighed. We might also answer this question with another parallel question: what are the chances that a horse will break the Kentucky Derby record and yet finish second to another horse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.143.249 (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite high, given that many track records are set in races that are not won by big winning margins, and until the advent of the Breeders' Cup Classic (run only occasionally at Churchill), the Derby, a race restricted to three year olds, was just about the only race of consequence at 1 1/4 miles run at Churchill Downs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.22.170 (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Should someone add that it was proven that he was given heart growth hormons, because the trainers and owners addmited it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.136.75 (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If folks review the wikilinked article on the circulatory system of the horse, there is additional information -- there exists a rare genetic characteristic that does cause unusually large hearts in a few Thoroughbreds. It's been documented and sourced.  There is also no such thing as a "heart growth" hormone for horses, especially not in 1973.   Montanabw (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A broodmare sire - not a "failure as a sire"
Secretariat was not a failure as a sire. He became known as a very prominent broodmare sire once the discovery of the X-factor was known. It even states this in his article. I think the "failure" as a sire portion should be removed or at least changed to include that at the time he was considered not a prolific sire because he did not pass his incredible speed to his get, and his sons were not of his caliber nor valued as sires themselves. In racing history a sire is generally prized because he can also produce incredible sires. However he became one of the best, if not the best, broodmare sires because of the updated knowledge of genetics and thus of x-factor genetics - the reason for his large heart and why only his daughters could pass this onto their offspring. Storm Cat is known as a current terrific broodmare sire. Looking at his pedigree you'll see Secretariat on the bottom side (the dam or female side) of his pedigree.

I just feel that ever mentioning that Secretariat was a failure as a stallion need to be removed or changed. He is simply a different kind of sire not a failure (hardly a failure!) Nikidun 20:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I fixed this one. He wasn't a "failure"; he was a pretty good sire who sired some fine horses but probably faced unreasonable expectations. talk--66.92.37.74 (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Only one problem with the article...
...at times it reads like it was written by fans. Yes, there is no shame (quite the reverse) in being awed by Secretariat, just as it is with Man O' War, Count Fleet, Citation, etc...but Wikipedia should have complete neutrality, almost a scientific tone in discussing his achievements. Other than in the slight fanboy tone, the article is superb. --Chr.K. 10:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I know. But what can you do? The horse was that good. Even in a scientific tone, it will still sound like a fan has written it. :) Wallie (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I fixed this one, I think. The article has a more encyclopedic tone now. talk--66.92.37.74 (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Actually there was a problem breeding Secretariat at first and he was evetually tured out with a herd of mares and covered an appaloosa mare thus creating the appaloosa line of secretariat horses begining with First Secretary. 173.30.229.18 (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)g.bradshaw2009 his biggest fan.

Greatest horse qualifier
There is no need to put in a note about comparing American to European horses. Secretariat's racing conditions are also vastly different to Man O'War's or Citation's but that doesn't mean they can't be compared in the minds of fans or racing experts. Like I said before, the Nijinsky II article makes a similar statement without qualifying it to apply only to European horses. I don't think it needs a qualifier and I don't think this one does either. Ronnymexico 19:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody can agree on who the greatest is and where Secretariat ranks, the best approach is to leave this out. talk--66.92.37.74 (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

After the Triple Crown
The writer of the article says that "fans argue" that extenuating circumstances preceded the losses he incurred as a three, and that "allegedly" the horse was running a fever the week of the Whitney and that "allegedly" the horse was in training for the ManOWar and not the Woodward, the race he lost to Prove Out; also, "allegedly" the horse had developed a gum abscess just prior to the Wood Memorial. These are facts attested to by biographers and The Daily Racing Form's 1974 American Racing Manual. Fans did not make this up but retrieved it from reliable researchers and authors. How they affected his performances is another question, but that they occurred is not in question. §secremano —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.154.235.53 (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I revamped the discussion of his losses totally, simply reporting the facts and leaving out any characterization. This page really isn't the place for debates about the horse's excuses and whether they were valid. After Sports Illustrated put its archives online and with the help of the Secretariat website and the New York Times' archives, it appears that: (1) he did have an abcess before the Wood and that may have contributed to the horse's poor showing; (2) while he ran a fever before the Whitney, it was so minor that (a) Secretariat's connections don't blame the loss on the fever, and (b) there wasn't serious consideration given to scratching the horse; and (3) the press coverage of the Woodward at the time, along with the statements of Secretariat's connections on their website, indicate that he had no excuses in the Woodward and flat out got beat; the "he was mistrained" story appears invalid. But the only relevant encyclopedic facts are what happened in the races, not the theories as to what caused the losses. talk--66.92.37.74 (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC) - I have great respect for your work and article. Still I just want to relate what I have found. With regards to the Whitney, Secretariat was incubating a virus that the race invigorated. After the race it flared into a full infection that preempted his appearance in the Travers I believe. According to the Daily Racing Form, he lost quite a bit of weight in the weeks following. So as far as the race is concerned, the virus may have been something more than just a minor affair. Even more, Secretariat just held on to second as the third place finisher was catching him. One thing for sure, the Secretariat that ran that day was not the true Secretariat. We all recall that Secretariat quite easily handled Onion in the Marlboro. Also, keep in mind Secretariat's connections are wary about offering excuses for his losses for doing so is considered bad form; but other credible sources don't have to bother with such things. As for the Woodward, it can be safely established that his training was less than normal. The late DRF award winning columnist/author Joe Hirsch in this career work "The First Century" described it as 'meager'. And of course Nack and Wolfe described it in similar terms. Penny Chenery herself in an interview with Blood-Horse’s 'Talkin Horses' in 2007 commented that they didn't have time to sharpen Secretariat for the race. Whether or not it would have mattered can't be known for Prove-Out that day ran like Count Fleet. There is a well researched paper entitled "Secretariat and ManO'War Revisited" that addresses this topic. A Yahoo search will bring it up. Dear writer, this is not a debate, just a response to your response, revealing what I have found in my research. Still as you commented earlier, the main article is for the 'brute facts' on the tracks. The rest can be left for other places. Thanks. (I wish I knew how to sign this thing so that perhaps we could dialogue at another location....yours, secremano) - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.154.235.52 (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

1. It is quite true that he scratched from the Travers. However, that doesn't mean the Whitney loss was a result of the virus. If you go to the official website-- which is authorized by Secretariat's owner-- you will find that they don't blame the loss in the Whitney on the virus. Further, you can search the Sports Illustrated coverage of the race, and the connections didn't blame the loss on the virus at the time.

Bear in mind that a lot of this comes down to writers who loved Secretariat going back and trying to excuse the loss to an inferior horse. So it's natural that later on, comments got made blowing the virus issue up. But it isn't in the contemporaneous record.

Finally, you can view the Whitney on youtube. Your statement that the third place finisher was catching Secretariat is completely wrong.

2. Similarly, the official website doesn't offer an excuse for the Woodward. Again, the fact that 34 years later Penny Chenery might have said "oh sure" about the "no training" excuse isn't really definitive. If the loss was due to light training, don't you think they would have told the press that at the time? And yet if you look at the coverage of the race, it says the opposite-- that Secretariat had no excuses.

Look, I have no problem believing that Prove Out-- who ran the second fastest 1 1/2 miles on dirt-- ran his eyeballs out. But then, I have no problem believing that Onion and Angle Light and Sham did too. It's just that for some reason, this bothers a lot of fans of Secretariat-- there has to be an excuse for every loss, because the horse is perfect and could never lose to an inferior horse. talk _______________________________________________________________________________________________

As said earlier, your article is good, but this thing here is wearing thin.

1. Facts: the finishing time for the Whitney was something like 1:49 and change on a track rated fast. The only time Sec ran that slow or slower for that distance was in the Wood, the race he finished third. In the Arlington for that distance he ran 1:47 and in the Marlboro, 1:45 and change. Don’t you think he ran the Whitney poorly? And don’t give any bunk about strategy, that the horse was fooled with a slow pace; they tried that in the Preakenss and Turcotte/Sec would have nothing of it. Clearly there was something amiss; Even Onion's rider Vazquez commented after the race that he (Sec) "didn’t fire"; add to this his workouts before the race; despite what was recorded there were weaknesses and Turcotte himself suspected something. As stated earlier, Sec succumbed to a full fever the day following the race. In the days preceding the race, a temperature had been detected off and on.

2. I put only some stock in newspaper or magazine articles; they offer background but only touch the tip of the iceberg. More stock is found in the writers who have lived the track, been there most or all of their lives. Such sources are found at Keenland, BloodHorse and/or the DRF, and in the books they have written. Case in point: when Manowar lost to Upset, that was considered and still is considered one of the great upsets in racing. Little is said of the fact that he was turned sideways when the rope dropped. Now read his biographers and they tell what actually happened. I will continue: Sec's official site will say nothing of his losses, wont offer excuses because it is bad form, not because there aren't possible reasons that could be offered. After the loss to Prove-Out, Turcotte did indeed offer a possible reason: his training. And just because Penny didn’t say anything 'officially' doesn’t mean she wasn't saying things unofficially. All have said that Sec was entered 'at the last moment' because Ridge could not handle off tracks. All have said that Sec was being introduced to grass with some light gallops in addition to his regular gallops. But here are the facts: if you study Sec's training record located in the back of Wolf's book you can see that before the Woodward he ran fewer gallops on the main track, though he had a few light runs on grass. If you study his workouts before the Marlboro and his other races during the Triple Crown run, you will see that he ran more gallops overall in addition to the fast hard drills three or four days before the races. Those zingers loosened him up and put him on edge. The horse never lost when he had fast hard drills. Patterns were established that he responded to. He had no such workouts before the Woodward. Sec's team thought he could win on class alone and but for one horse, they were right. No one saw Prove-Out because the horse didn’t have much of a record to judge from. But in those late weeks of the season, Prove-Out was the real thing. His performance in the Gold Cup 3 weeks later proved it again. An article published in BloodHorse 2004 argues this point. I don’t agree with the writer’s conclusions, that he was unbeatable at the time, but the numbers he generated under Jerkin’s charge were pretty darn good. Still had Sec been well trained for the race, well drilled as he had been before his other races, something else might have happened, but ‘what that is’ will never be known.

3. Returning to the Whitney, you had better view the film again. The full chart has Sec in second by 5 at the head of the stretch. (it looked more like 3 or 4). At the wire it was reduced to ½, so in the final eighth he was not only loosing ground to Onion, but also to the show position.

4. no one is asking you to change the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.154.235.52 (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Andy Beyer was making his speed figures back then. I think he said in "Picking Winners" that Secretariat's figures were in the 120's consistently through the rest of his career, including the Whitney. The time of the Whitney was the result of a slow variant. Easy Goer ran a huge figure running 1:32 1/5 for a mile in the Gotham, and came back and ran some really slow time (1:50 and change, I think it was) in the Wood, but ran the same speed figure, because the track was much slower that day. You can't look at final time without looking at track speed.

In any event, the key issue for all of these things is WHEN the excuse was made. I have looked at a lot of the contemporaneous coverage of Secretariat's losses. The abcess before the Wood is substantiated. But the other excuses weren't offered at the time. So the point is, do you believe authors like William Nack-- who was literally allowed to sleep in Secretariat's stall and would never acknowledge the horse had any weaknesses-- or do you believe the contemporaneous coverage at the time of the races?

After-the-fact excuses don't really have any credibility, especially since there is a great desire among fans of this horse to offer them.

2. You are wrong about a lot of things here. First, while it is true that biographers fill in details, they also embellish and tend to believe stories that aren't always true. And the primary actors in any historical drama will tend, as time goes on, to embellish to protect their own reputations. Thus, you really shouldn't believe something that shows up for the first time in a retrospective written well after the fact, unless there's some persuasive reason it wasn't mentioned at the time.

Second, you are actually very wrong about Man o' War's only loss. At the time it happened in August 1919, it wasn't seen as a big deal at all. It was early in Man o' War's career, and it was seen as nothing more than one more hot shot 2 year old losing, the sort of thing that happens all the time in racing. It was only in retrospect that it became a big deal.

Nonetheless, the contemporaneous reports of the race indicated that Man o' War got a bad start. You should know, however, that too much is made of this excuse. That was a walk-up start, and walk-up starts were always a mess. Bad starts were common, including for good horses. Giving the command at the right moment was a combination art and luck. Of course, when it turned out that Man o' War was a truly great horse and not just a hotshot undefeated 2 year old, it looked worse in retrospect.

Secretariat's official website DOES mention the abcess before the Wood. So it isn't about not offering excuses because it is bad form. The horse's connections think the abcess is a valid excuse, and they don't think the other two are. And the thing is, if you look at the contemporaneous reports, THE SAME THING WAS TRUE AT THE TIME. So you have an official website that is consistent with the contemporaneous reports, and inconsistent with the tall tales of Bill Nack and other hagiographers. What does that tell you?

Lastly, you can't reduce workouts to this sort of a science. If you want to post his official work patterns before the Woodward and other races, that would be helpful, but I can tell you that Charlie Whittingham and Woody Stephens used to say that 1 1/2 mile races were very different from other races and the last thing that you wanted to do was put a lot of speed into a horse before a 1 1/2 mile race. So, the lack of a blowout 4 days before the race, even if you are right about this, proves nothing about the horse's training.

In any event, as I said, given that Sports Illustrated said at the time that the horse had no excuse whatsoever for the loss (other than Prove Out running his eyeballs out) and the New York Times didn't mention that the horse's loss was due to any sort of training issue, I don't see why we should believe an after-the-fact contrivance about his training, unless you can show us some contemporaneous reports on the issue. Work patterns alone tell us nothing.

3. I will concede that the third horse is about a length behind Secretariat at the wire of the Whitney. I am not sure what this proves (it is not as if Secretariat wins were always by huge winning margins), but you are right about this.

4. I know that. I am pleased how well the encyclopedic edit I did has been accepted by everyone who cares about this. But I do think that all of this, in the end, is about the refusal of Secretariat's fans to accept that the horse, like every other great horse, was capable of losing, had bad days, etc. It may also be about the difference between handicappers (who don't think much of racetrack excuses, because they are usually meritless and believing them doesn't make a person a lot of money) and horse lovers (who are more likely to take racetrack excuses at face value). (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC) - Now lets not get personal. I have some points to make and this will be my last entry.

1.When several authors corroborate one another, the burden of proof then falls on the one who alleges embellishment. I have come across several authors of good repute who have all sited the training issue with respect to the Woodward. The task is to prove that their work was not conducted independently, but depended on one source, say Nack. Davidowitz and Hirsch are a few that come to mind. You say training can't be reduced to a science. True. Whitingham trained the 7 year old Cougar for his win in the Anita H without using any prep races. He knew his horse, but every horse is different. What works for one may harm another. Manowar, like Sec, was trained with hard workouts before his races. And who can forget Citation winning the two mile Gold after running the Sysonsby mile 4 days earlier. Every trainer knows his horse. I recall reading somewhere that Allen Jerkins carefully tailored his training for each of his charges. All I know is that every time Sec trained and drilled well, he was 8 for 8; he never lost. When he sub trained and/or drilled poorly, he lost 3 of 4. At the very least this flags something. Except for the Woodward, which he sub trained, Sec trained and drilled well for all his 1.5 plus mile campaigns and easily won them. The burden of proof is to prove that his pre-Woodward activities had little to no effect on the race given the numbers just sited. The burden of proof is to prove that Lucien's training practices that he developed and tailored to Sec really had little to no effect on the outcome of his races. I don’t think that can be proven. In fact, correlation studies have been done that demonstrate a positive influence between Sec's drills and the outcome of his races. Once again, at the very least, it is a factor influencing to some degree his performances in the positive direction.

2.The track speed at Saratoga was listed at 17, using the DRF figure. These figures are not very reliable for a number of reasons, but anyway there it is. The DRF figure for the Arlington was 15, about the same. Both tracks were deep at the rail. Both have 9 furlong layouts. Sec ran a lively Arlington, but a subdued Whitney. The chart described his finish as "weakened" which was apt. As far as I can recall, Beyer didn’t score the Whitney or if he did he didn’t put it in the book. I don’t recall seeing it. It had rained some before the race, but by race day it had dried and Jerkins was pleased because that was the surface his horse needed. Even if it was slow, on Sec's best days he never had trouble with such surfaces. He ran the Laurel Futurity 1 1/16 as a two in the slop in near record time. He ran the Woodward in the slop and finished second breaking Gallant Man's record for the second time. (I hope this is not regarded as proof that Sec's lack of training before the Woodward didn’t affect his performance. The truth is, we will never know. One thing for sure, had he been fully trained, judging from his past performances, he would have ran differently.) On his best days, surface didn't matter. Sec, for the Whit was clearly not at his best. "Weakened" was an apt description of his performance.

3. I dont think it matters if a 'cause' for a loss is offered on race day or a day 30 years later. When a horse comes along of the stature of a ManoWar or Citation, people want to be able to explain his/her losses. As long as good data is available or if new data is discovered 30 years later, hypotheses can be presented and offered as POSSIBLE explanations, especially when the horse shouldn't have lost. People are still trying to explain Phar Lapp's death. Hypotheses are still being presented. Tests are still being done on blood and tissue samples that are years old. People are still trying to figure out how Ruffian broke down. Dismissing information about Sec's condition before or after his races, the Whitney in particular, as coming from a biased writer who by the way wrote for 'SPORTS ILLUSTRATED', but whose reports have never been professionally discredited, not even by Sec's team who at the very least acknowledged the virus situation before the Whitney but played it down, is risky. As said earlier, he is not the only one who has said such things. Others of high regard have said similar things. The burden of proof is to prove they are ALL biased. Offering excuses for losses happens all the time in racing, before, during and after the races, even years later. By the way I think Beyer can be added to the list of those that identified problems with Sec before the Whit.

4. Manowar's only loss is still a big thing even years later. It was not an upset as upsets are understood, it was not really a slow start as the chart described, it was a bad start, a bad break at the rope that occurred in a sprint race leaving little to no time to recover. Still, the cause, the 'excuse', was and is still offered, even years later. Dorothy Our's work on the horse explains this well. Excuses for Citation's loss, the loss that broke the streak that started for him as a two, are still being offered. It too was a race he should not have lost.

5. I think you are asserting that the observations to the losses at the time the races took place are the ones to be trusted, that years later subjectivism enters into the process. Maybe, to some degree. I still think not necessarily so, as long as good data is available. And I think that reliable authors retain that initial data, those initial reports and refer to them years later so that any current reviews made remain reliable.

6.You probably wont agree but so be it. Your article is well researched and presented. Thx.

147.154.235.51 (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)secremano --

The only point that is worth making at this point is that Daily Racing Form variants are useless. I can say this with personal knowledge as I made my own speed figure calculations for several years before the Beyers made their way into the Racing Form. Beyer was doing speed figure calculations in 1973; he just wasn't publishing them yet. But they made their way into his 1975 book "Picking Winners", and he discusses Secretariat's figures in general terms there. That's a more reliable source than the Daily Racing Form variants.

But if you want to do some original research (i.e., not for Wikipedia), you should be able to get the results of the day's races and the times that were run if you have library access to New York Times Microfilms from 1973. From there, it's not too hard to plug the times into Beyer's charts (at the back of 1983 book "The Winning Horseplayer") and generate a rough approximation of actual track speed and Secretariat's speed figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.37.74 (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

_________________________

Very interesting. Thank you much.

147.154.235.53 (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)secremano

--

Image copyright problem with Image:Secretariat-bookcover.jpg
The image Image:Secretariat-bookcover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --06:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)