Talk:Secretariat (horse)

==Archive==Did Secretariat set the track record for all three events in the Triple Crown? YES HE DID!!!!!!!!,!!!!!!!!!,!,!,!!!!,,,!,!!,,!!!!!!including Preakness record which may have been eclipsed later) In the movie 'Secretariat', there is a Belmont pre-race news conference where Sham's owner states that his horse has finished second twice and beat the track record twice. If this is true (not Hollywood poetic license), then your opening paragraph should be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.64.146 (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Secretariat set the rack record for the the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness. He then won the world record for the Belmont. This can be verified here: http://www.secretariat.com/secretariat-history/. Kallimina (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

The entry for Secretariat says Farma Way won the 1991 Pimlico Special in 1:522⁄5, setting the current track record." Is this so?? Not mentioned in the entry for Farma Way, which horse is not listed as a winner in the entry on The Preakness.

I created an archive for old discussions. No sense bringing up stuff from 2006. All of the old discussions are in Archive 1, linked above. If it fills up, additional archives will be created. Montanabw^(talk) 22:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

How 'bout a mention of the jockey? That's kind of important, I'd say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.184.176.57 (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

He's mentioned, right in the intro, wikilinked to his own biography. Montanabw^(talk) 20:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I take issue with the phrase "Like the equally famous horse Man o' War". Man o' War doesn't hold a candle to Secretariat, and while the latter's legend will continue, the former's story will fade. This phrase should be omitted from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.179.137.246 (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately on the list of the all-time greatest racehorses, Man O War is actually #1 and Secretariat #2, so we are sort of stuck with that one. Montanabw^(talk) 20:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"list of the all-time greatest racehorses" if this refers to the Bloodhorse list it was for US racehorses only, as I will continue to point out till people stop implying otherwiseTigerboy1966 (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Why unfortunately? Man O' War was a better horse than Secretariat. He carried weight, only lost one race, beat a Triple Crown winner, set more world and track records, and won a race by 100 lengths. Racing fans still remember Man O' War 90 years after he raced. I don't think we can guarantee that Secretariat will have salience in 2063.

The article states that the time Secretariat ran in the Belmont is still a world record for a mile and a half on dirt. His time has been bettered on many occasions. E.g. A NZ mare called Horlicks ran nearly 2 seconds faster in the '89 Japan Cup. The race records still stand. Not sure about the track records? Not sure if this has been raised before or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Cup —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgardiner2000 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Verifiable sources are needed. Montanabw^(talk) 18:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This depends on how you define a world record. Usually, "world records" are not limited to particular surfaces, because most of the world doesn't have dirt racing. So you really can't have a true "world record" on the dirt. That said, the terminology is used in reliable sources (such as the Daily Racing Form), so it's OK in Wikipedia as long as the surface is specified. Obviously, many turf horses have run much faster than 2:24 (and even Secretariat ran just 2/5ths of a second slower on turf).

Heart size

Article is semi-protected, so I can't edit it right now, but the heart size issue was kept out of this article back in 2006 because it isn't documented and was a direct copy of a documented story about Phar Lap's heart. (You can see Phar Lap's heart here: http://crazyhorsewoman.blogspot.com/2009/01/phar-lap-for-real.html )

The heart size story didn't come out until years after his death anyway; it's not in any contemporaneous reports of the necropsy. Best to keep it out of here as non-encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.37.74 (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear. The first time the heart size story was published was June 4, 1990, more than 8 months after Secretariat's death, by William Nack (who spun a lot of tall tales about Secretariat, but that's really not an issue that can be dealt with in a Wikipedia article). http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1136808/index.htm However, my 1959 copy of the Encyclopedic History of Thoroughbred Racing tells the exact same story about Phar Lap's heart-- they were performing the autopsy, and they were shocked to discover the size of the heart. The difference is, Phar Lap's examiner photographed the heart and donated it to an Australian museum, i.e., the story is verifiable. Secretariat's examiner said nothing for eight months and then told an unreliable reporter; the heart was not saved and there are no photographs or autopsy reports that exist that confirm the story.

Under these circumstances, the story is too fishy to be considered encyclopedic. 66.92.37.74 (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the information is sourced, here to a source more recent than 2006. The condition is a genetic one, linked to the x gene, and has been discovered with several famous horses. It's weird, but not unprecedented. I added an additional source used in the circulatory system of the horse article for further verification. It does not appear to be merely a Bill Nack tall tale. If there is documented material questioning this assessment, then we could "teach the controversy" and add the opposing views. Montanabw^(talk) 01:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's fishy because it didn't show up in the autopsy. Nobody denies that the x-factor may be real; the issue is whether Secretariat's heart size was as big as the fish your great uncle swore he caught that day when nobody was there and he had to throw it back. Actually, one of the things that makes this ULTRA-fishy is the Sham part of it. Sham wasn't even that great a horse. Why would Sham, as opposed to Affirmed, Spectacular Bid, Forego, Seattle Slew or pick your favorite great 1970's horse, or some horse from some other era, have the second largest heart of all time? It's the type of thing that is almost concocted to make Secretariat look good.

If this is going to be in the article, it should contain some skeptical language because standard operating procedure if they found a 22 pound heart would be what they did with Phar Lap's-- weigh it, photograph it, put it in the necropsy report, and keep it. Not wait eight months, tell nobody, throw the heart in the grave, and then tell a Sports Illustrated reporter about it.

To do so would violate WP:NPOV. The facts are stated: The heart wasn't weighed at the time, which does of course stand for what it stands for: it was estimated a few years later, after another horse's heart (coincidentally Sham's) was necropsied and weighted by the same vet. His learned opinion was that Secretariat's heart was probably four pounds bigger. If you have a SOURCE for someone of equal respectability who has a learned critique of the estimate or wants to call the vet a liar, then source it. But until then, we must stick to WP:V and present the sources as they are and phrase things neutrally. Ranting and editorializing has no place in wikipedia. You might want to re-read WP:V also. Montanabw^(talk) 05:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Montana is correct. We can speculate on the talk page all we like, but we have to follow the sources in the article. If you have a source (a reliable one please!) that backs up the information you are giving us above, then please let us know - as Montana said, "teaching the controversy" is always a good thing. Dana boomer (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This individual sounds like the same one encountered a few years back, one who refuses to go to the source directly but instead adds his/her diatribe in places where he/she can't be challenged. Stories of Secretariat's heart size surfaced early in his career, when he was a young two to three year old. Here is a source that few consider suspect. The source is the 1974 Daily Racing Form Manual and the writer is Charles Hatton who had written for the DRF for many years. Here is what he said: "Medical tests indicate his heart (Secretariat's heart) weighs from 14 to 17 pounds, perhaps the largest among champions examined. His pulse is that of a horse physiologically well suited to cracking up oxygen into energy and staying big distances." Now this was Secretariat as a 2 to 3 year old, and certainly the heart continues to grow for at least another year or two. Horses continue to grow through 4 or 5 years of age, or so I have read. The rest is indeed speculation, but from an experienced pathologist. At the least, Secretariat did show early signs of containing an unusually large heart and the pathologist confirmed those early findings. Perhaps the DRF source can be included somewhere in this article. And just a quick note on the earlier discussion on world records on dirt. I believe it should still be considered a world record as long as the 'dirt' qualification is articulated. Dirt and turf surfaces are very different in terms of speed. Turf is a much faster, harder surface and almost always records the fastest times for distances ranging from 1 to 2 miles. The longer the distance, the greater the differential. Historically, turf has ranged anywhere from 2 to 3 seconds faster than dirt at 1.5 miles, and more at 2 miles. Most dirt tracks are found in the states, but they are also found internationally. I believe Dubai runs dirt courses as well. The surfaces are so different that all records should indicate the surface they were recorded on. The amazing thing about the 1973 Belmont was that Secretariat broke the 2:26 dirt barrier by more that 2 seconds which is what would have been expected on a good turf course such as at Santa Anita where the chute leading to the course used to be (or still is) downwardly sloped. rac www.sec@truevine.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.212.230 (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an example of a horse whose heart size grew between the time he was FOUR years old (1974) and the time of his death? Let alone one that was 50 percent larger? Look, if the claim was Secretariat has a large heart. Sure, he did. But the claim is that it was a particular size. WE DON'T KNOW THAT BECAUSE IT WASN'T WEIGHED. Got it? NO documentation. Just a fish story by a journalist who wasn't exactly credible on matters related to Secretariat. It's total hearsay and a Sports Illustrated story isn't a necropsy report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.37.74 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

listen buddy, you call the journalist working for a major magazine less than credible? by implication you indict the magazine itself. you call the pathologist who has worked many years for a major equine research university less than credible. so by implication you indict the university itself for employing a researcher who has character issues and who may even doctor his research. the pathologist was not alone at the necropsy. Dr. William Kaufman, the aged Claiborne veterinarian was also there. He would die 4 years later in sound mind and he never once issued a contradiction to the opinions of the pathologist. If you assert he too is (was) 'fishy', then by implication you indict the entire Claiborne operation for a conspiracy of silence. The burden of proof belongs to you buddy....I have read the necropsy report and it stated only the cause of death and any related issues that may have led to it, like liver disease. Unlike Phar Lapp, the cause of death was known. Unlike Phar Lapp, the necropsy was not exploratory, searching and weighing all possible reasons for a death. Unlike Phar Lapp, the necropsy was perfunctory, required for insurance purposes. As I have said, the lack of empirical proof for the heart weight should be noted, still the story should be told because it led to major heart equine research on this side of the Pacific. The Australians were many years ahead on this topic, but it was not until the observation was made by the American pathologist that serious research took place here. Your reservations are noted, but the story should still be told....Got it buddy????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.105.125 (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have always had some trouble with the statement regarding General Assembly and Secretariat: "Like Secretariat in the Belmont, General Assembly never duplicated that performance in another race.". This statement suggests that Secretariat and Assembly could not duplicate them, not that they simply did not do so. Secretariat ran the distance one more time on that course, and on a muddy track; and I don't believe Assembly ran much beyond his 3 year old season. Let me offer a little history to flesh out this point. It took several seasons for Kelso to duplicate his initial Jockey Club 2 mile time of 2:19 and change, a time he ran as a 3 year old. He ran the race several seasons and finally duplicated it at the mature age of 7. John Henry duplicated his initial 1.5 mile turf time of 2:23 a few more times, and had good Santa Anita tracks every time. He was a 5 year old when he first accomplished it. Like Kelso, he ran many seasons and so had many opportunities. (By the way, on the two races Henry ran on the Belmont turf track at 1.5 miles, Henry never came close to the time Secretariat set in the ManOWar.) What Secretariat did duplicate in that second running at that distance and on the muddy dirt at Belmont was break the former track record of 2:26 and 3 set by Gallant Man on a good track. The horse never ran slower than that time finishing the Woodward in 2:26 and 2, and the Belmont in 2:24. I think Andy Beyer in one of his books said that a horse may occasionally run an anomalous race, one so good but unrepeatable. Generally they fall back to their former ways. It is not possible to say what Secretariat, or Assembly for that matter, might have done had they ran a few more seasons. Horses get stronger as they mature. Seattle Slew, Affirmed, and Spectacular Bid to name a few ran their best as 4s. I would suggest rewording the statement to say "Like Secretariat in the Belmont, General Assembly never duplicated that performance in the races that remained on his schedule." I would suggest something to capture the fact that they never had many opportunities. Also, in regards to Secretariat, when he ran that Belmont, it was during the Triple Crown run, a time when Lucian had him at his fittest. During that time, he weighed out at 1130 pounds. For the remainder of the season he returned to his typical 1155 to 1160; and for those remaining races he was never again as fit and wound up as he was when he ran the Belmont Stakes. russ sec@truevine.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.212.230 (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is semi-protected, but it does not seem that anyone is working on it. Can we get it unrestricted so that it can be worked on and then put it back into semi-protection? I'm concerned with some of the citations listed here to deny Secretariat's heart size. Multiple sources including the ones at the Kentucky Horse park state that "On the day he died in 1989 at 19 years old at Claiborne Farm in Kentucky, a necropsy performed by University of Kentucky veterinary scientist Dr. Thomas Swerczek revealed that Secretariat's heart was roughly twice the size of a normal horse's heart." Dr. Swerczek estimated Secretariat's heart to be at 21 pounds. He did not weigh the heart because he was not allowed to do so. He estimated it based on Sham's heart which was measured to be 18 pounds and yet smaller than Secretariat's. This is cited in SHAM, IN THE SHADOW OF A SUPERHORSE. by Mary Walsh. Would the doctor not be considered an expert source? He, I believe, still lives in Lexington, KY. Kallimina (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Any user with a user name more than four days old can edit the article, the protection just keeps out the vandals, and we had a bunch of them when the movie came out. As you can see, the article does not dispute that he had a large heart, and I am the one who has been fighting with the Phar Lap crowd (who are mortally offended if ANY horse other than Phar Lap is claimed to have had a large heart, it's an eternal edit war on that around here) for ages and ages -- the article's current wording is a carefully crafted compromise that seems to have toned down the last edit war (if no recent activity, it's due to being tired from the last round). We have to meticulously source everything on this issue because it is so closely scrutinized, and if you want to add a cite to the book on Sham, read WP:CITE and feel free to put in a properly formatted reference to any new material. Several people have expressed an interest in an article improvement drive on this article, the trick is doing it right. I for one would be glad to see it improved to meet the good article criteria, but it takes care to not make this a fan piece. I don't want to discourage anyone from improving this article, but we must remember WP:NPOV at all times and be careful to not imply that Secretariat was not only faster than a speeding bullet but could also leap tall buildings with a single bound (grin). Feel free to offer comments and suggestions. Montanabw^(talk) 00:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

With deepest respect, I have to suggest that if the editors of the Secretariat article must meet the standard of "good article criteria", they also must speak to the affection and optimism that Secretariat's accomplishments engendered in the public, and the excitement that surrounded his bid for the Triple Crown. To do otherwise would be a form of misinformation by omission, and less than fully informative for those that want to understand the context and climate in which Secretariat raced, and the factors that contributed to his status as a media darling. Cobaltcanarycherry (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)ccc

WP:NPOV trumps all. This article is nowhere ready for GA yet anyway, but I see no problem with appropriately worded and appropriately-sourced info on his popularity being added. I just don't want edit wars with the fans of Man O' War, Seabiscuit, Phar Lap and, for all I know, Black Beauty! Montanabw^(talk) 22:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Bold Ruler facts in the article

There is an error in the article, and as it is locked, I am listing it here. Bold Ruler ran 4th in the Kentucky Derby, not 3rd. Somethingroyal's half brother Round Table was in the third spot, behind Iron Liege and Gallant Man. Cobaltcanarycherry (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As soon as you've been an editor for a few more days, you should be able to edit, it's only protected for new and anonymous users. Welcome! Montanabw^(talk) 19:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Grammar and greatness.

Problems with this sentence.

"Secretariat is also the damsire of the great stallions Storm Cat (by Storm Bird), through his daughter Terlingua, herself an excellent racemare, and of Gone West, through his daughter Secrettame."

Take out the phrase in the middle and you have:

Secretariat is also the damsire of the great stallions Storm Cat (by Storm Bird),and of Gone West, through his daughter Secrettame."

If only Storm Cat is "great" then it should be "stallion": if Gone West is also "great" we need to lose the second "of".

I would prefer to lose "great" altogether, it's a very POV adjective. Better would be:

"Secretariat is also the damsire of the stallions Storm Cat, the sire of thirty-two Grade I winners, and Gone West the sire of such notable racehorses as Zafonic, Johar and Da Hoss."Tigerboy1966 (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Statua di Secretariat al Kentucky Horse Park.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Statua di Secretariat al Kentucky Horse Park.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Secretariat-Belmont.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Secretariat-Belmont.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No Picture of Horse

I note there is no picture of Secretariat himself in the article. Is there an IP reason for this? 38.111.35.2 (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problems finding an image that passes muster with WP:IMAGES. We had a Sports Illustrated cover for awhile, but they made us toss it. We basically have to do a Fair Use rationale for a non-free image and no one has done it yet. Montanabw^(talk) 23:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

I would still think of this as a start class as there are great screeds of text without references which contain pov statements.

"He had a fine balance between speed and stamina"

"Viewers heard the wonder in CBS Television announcer Chic Anderson's voice"

"He went to Saratoga, long known as the "graveyard of champions", and succumbed to the jinx, losing the Whitney Stakes to the Allen "the giant killer" Jerkens-trained Onion by a length"

etc

On the day I started editing wikipedia in earnest I vowed never to get into a dispute about three things: Secretariat; Sunday Silence vs Easy Goer and the nationality of horses foaled in New Zealand and raced in Australia. I have now broken all three vows. Ah well,  Tigerboy1966  17:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

well I've added references and taken out some of the duplication, toned down the pov etc, so it's ok for C. Tempted to get started on all the "x-factor" pseudo-science voodoo, but that's for another day. Tigerboy1966  18:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It was good to toss those unneeded adjectives and more refs always good. The x-factor stuff is actually quite interesting. Once you take out the big heart=better racehorse thing and just look at the issue that some horses really do get these weird gargantuan hearts, it's kind of fun. I've been dinking around with the bit on it in the Circulatory system of the horse#The"X_factor" article, too. But if you really want to dive headfirst into racehorse dramahz, just mention Phar Lap. (Did you make a vow on THAT one?). By the way, I won real money picking Sunday Silence! Hee hee! Montanabw^(talk) 18:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

tbh, I don't have the science to determine whether the x-factor stuff is pseudo-science or not. What annoys me is the way that the topic hitches a free ride on the back of Secretariat. One sentence explaining that Sec had an unusually large heart which could lend credence to the Circulatory system of the horse#The"X_factor" theory would be enough for me. The article doesn't for instance have two paragraphs on laminitis, just a brief explanation and a link. If you're ever feeling too happy and need bring yourself down, read the "Edit War" section of the Easy Goer talkpage and feel your will to live slowly draining away.  Tigerboy1966  07:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL! We could move the x-factor stuff to the circulatory system article, to the extent it's not already there. The main thing keeping it here is probably the war with the Phar Lap supporters over which horse had the (literally) biggest heart. Montanabw^(talk) 23:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Protection?

Hey Tigerboy and other TPSers: Should we consider requesting semi-protection of this article so new and anon IPs can't edit it? Seems to be a lot of low-level but ongoing IP/newbie edits that add nothing but cruft or "pink ponies and unicorns" stuff. It's kind of a gray area, though, so wondering if everyone else is getting as tired of tossing this stuff as I am. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 16:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I would support this although the problem is that when the protection has been lifted the nonsense will just start up again. Other horses have fans: Secretariat has worshippers. Look at Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century, and you will see how they keep altering the facts to suit themselves. Tigerboy1966  20:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)