I said it a dozen years ago , untill you take the human influence out of the horse,I don't believe "natural ie. barefoot for all" will succede . By influence I mean ,breeding , houseing , horses job , feed,enviroment . 11 years away from all of this and I glad to see the tiger hasn't caught his tail . Cheers Bruce Wright cjf

I believe he meant in the racing industry. In that industry here, there has not been a choice. There are strict shoeing rules and barefoot was not allowed in a race.

As to harness horses, here in the US most harness tracks are 'stone dust' hard. Much too hard to train even those good footed standardbreds barefoot.
One lady back east tried training her harness horses barefoot, and at home on her training track they went terrific but after a couple days on those east coast harness tracks they got very sore so she had to shoe them.

calshoer in gray

I believe he meant in the racing industry. In that industry here, there has not been a choice. There are strict shoeing rules and barefoot was not allowed in a race.

In many parimutuel jurisdictions (If memory serves: TX, LA, AR, KS, OK, CO, NE, etc.), a horse can race barefooted if the trainer obtains stewards' permission beforehand. It's treated like any other equipment change (e.g., blinkers off/on, no stick, spurs, bar shoes, etc.) and must be published in the official program.

calshoer wrote:
What he is talking about Patty is how nice it is to see a change in the industry based on a decision in the Race industry. Why should it matter to the horse industry in a whole what the raceing industry does? How many horses do you shoe based on how race horses are shod.

My point was the choice has always been their in the horse industry. Regardless of what the tracks does. I certainly hope I do not get a request to shoe a jumper the way Big Brown was shod. Just because someone read about it on Fran's blog.

Hi all,

Having spent a few years on the track I would question the sanity of a jockey that would climb on a barefoot horse. Oh and since when hasn't ther been a choice in foot care.

Kevin

George Geist wrote:
Well fact of the matter George horsemen out here have trained and qualified horses barefoot long before I was shoeing it has been a matter of opinion as well as a matter of finances for years.

The decision is kind of supriseing to me considering the fact that track stewards have had the ability to determine if a horse could run barefoot or not for as long as I can remember.

First of all lets talk about what artificial/synthetic/allweather surfaces are. They are primarily wax coated sand with rubber buffing and small plastic bits and nylon type fibers. Tapeta Footings, Polytrack, Cushion track all use different formulas. I only have first hand experience with Tapeta footings but I believe they all use very fine high silica content sand--the same specification that glass makers use. Because of that the synthetic tracks are much more abrasive than traditional dirt/sand tracks.

Having worked with these surfaces I would expect a regular workout regimen along with competition to be too abrasive to be sustainable

James Duncan

cowboy_bc wrote:
Why wouldn't a jockey ride a barefoot horse? Good traction. I haven't ever shod horses on the track so maybe I'm missing something.

ps. nice wade saddle!

PerformanceHorseshoeing in gray, stuff deleted

Why wouldn't a jockey ride a barefoot horse?

I can think of two reasons, both related to traction and biomechanical efficiency. Depending on the type of race, a jock gets either 10% of whatever their horse earns, or they're paid on a sliding scale based on the finish position of their horse, called a "jock mount." Under most track conditions, a barefooted horse can't run as fast as shod horses of the same class, so it follows that a mount on a barefooted horse might not pay too well.

I've seen shod vs barefooted QH hooked up several times when somebody's beertalk overcome their common sense and they got to bragging about how they could pull the shoes off their horse and still outrun somebody's shod horse. Big mistake! On dirt or sand, grabs made a tremendous difference and the shod horse invariably broke light on top and improved his position thereafter.

Good traction.

Nossir, demonstrably inferior traction under most track conditions. Which fact brings us to the second reason: Safety. Riding a race horse at warp speed is a fairly dangerous proposition and doing so on a horse operating at less than optimum biomechanical efficiency due to being handicapped by a lack of traction might be straw that broke the jockey's back.

If any of you have broke a racehorse out of the starting gate (I have) you would immediately understand the traction issue. It is just about the most 'jet propelled' hair raising thing you can do on a horse. They drop down about a foot and pull with the fronts as they push with the hinds (pronk) for about two strides. Then they go to a regular running stride with the knees locked on landing and no longer pull.(Jocky club has an old super-slow motion video of race horses, really neat)

So the traction is certainly an issue for the start, but for the rest of the race I would not be worried about it on a good track surface.

With starting gate traction being such a big deal I always wanted (but never got the chance) to try training a few of the better footed ones barefoot ,then plating just for the race and removing the plates after. But I never had that chance. If I went back to the track now I certainly would try it.

If Barefoot horses would run sound and win at a greater percentage than shod horses, then any rules (witch have always allowed barefoot), or traditions would have changed literly hundreds of years ago.
I think it is wornderful to see that horses are finaly being alowed to run natural, with their spirts free, as they were meant to be, as long as there is a mutli million dolar, pulverized rubber tire, enginered synthetic surface beneith their hooves.

Rule books are funny sometimes in the wording(or lack of) .
I checked the current California CHRB one the other day and it was really amiguous except that it specifically made a shoe exception for mulesin the 'mule racing' section. There was no mention at all or provision either way for horses .
It only cited the 'responsibility of the horseshoe inspector' and said the inspectors job was to insure that the horse was correctly shod and that he could demand shoeing changes if needed. It doesnt even mention barefoot . So I suppose it falls on the shoe inspector's shoulders and I doubt they would want to run afoull of the stewards and allow it until there is a specific provision as for mules.
It probably never even was an issue until recently because everyone just automatically shod them.

calshoer wrote:
To be more specific: Rule 1853 states: "....The horseshoe inspector shall inspect the horseshoes of each horse. No horse shall be eligible to start in a race, and shall be declared by the stewards, if it is found to be unfit to race, not properly identified, or improperly shod."

Rule 1555 states: "....He (horseshoe inspector) has the authority to make adjustments and corrections in shoes of any horse as he may deem necessary, subject to the approval of the stewards."

Most adjustments made by Texas inspectors involve removing toe grabs, turn downs, or addressing other restrictions established by the association to protect the running surface of their tracks (dirt or turf). Turf horses are inspected earlier in the day, as well as in the paddock, while those on the dirt are inspected only in the paddock.

Texas rule requires a horse to be properly shod. This means a shoe of some sort. Texas stewards are required to adhere to this rule. Unusual circumstances do occur, such as steel shoes, and each situation is handled in a manner intended to protect the integrity of racing and the betting public, and not necessarily in that order.

So I guess the phrase "improperly shod" in there must have to mean "shoes". Except for mules. Which I know you love to shoe, Donny.