Well, I think race horses DO care who wins, at least the same sexes do while the race is going on.
First of all, horses’s brains are pretty much hardwired to run like hell and try to be the first in any group of horses. If you’re in a group being chased by a pack of wolves or fleeing a fire, where is the safest place to be? In front. So, the ‘competitive spirit’ that makes horse racing possible is a simple survival trait.
Now, why should they actually care if they are first or second, as long as they were faster than the danger they were running from?
Horse herds always have a pecking order - dominant stallion who must compete with other (usually younger) stallions to maintain his position, and dominant (or lead) mare who bosses the other girls around. Along with these positions come both responsibilities and privileges.
Much of the interaction between horses involves affirmation or challenges of pecking-order position. There are several aspects to the ‘horse in the lead’ competition.
Most of the time the dominant mare actually ‘leads’ the herd. She picks which direction they will travel, where they will stop for food and water, WHEN they will stop and for how long, what trails they will follow, etc. While these are important decisions at any time, they are especially important on the rare occasions that the herd is fleeing predators, fires, etc. Having an inexperienced or panicing mare take the lead could be disastrous for the entire herd. So, one important aspect of being ‘lead mare’ is the ability to stay near the front of the herd and lead them out of danger in a hurry. Being ‘lead mare’ also means first at the water hole, first at that bunch of particularly succulent grass, first at the salt lick, etc.
In a ‘run for your life’ situation, the dominant mare will do her damnedest to stay at the very front of the herd, and may threaten a faster horse that attempts to pass her. In more normal situations, such as when traveling to water, the dominant mare may also threaten a subordinate that attempts to pass her in order to be first at the water hole. The other horse may decide to challenge the dominant mare’s position - part of this challenge may consist of ‘you can threaten me all you want, but I can outrun you and get there first’. And so a competitive ‘horse race’ occurs, in which both animals have a pretty high stake.
A second aspect is the competition for place in the pecking order, mostly among the younger horses. Each horse is trying to prove that it is stronger, faster, and/or smarter than the others. Since a horse’s life may depend on its speed (the slow get eaten), speed is an important factor in determing a horse’s place in the hierarchy. Not the only deciding factor, but the entire situation is probably much more complicated than mere humans can decipher from observation. At any rate, ‘races’ between the younger horses are one way of determining their placement in the pecking order (and fitness for survival). The benefits of higher placement in the pecking order provide motivation for competition.
Does anyone remember a Kentucky Derby a few years ago that came down to a two-horse race in the homestretch, and the lead horse attempted to bite the horse that was passing it? Sorry, I don’t remember which Derby or the horses’ names! Anyway, I was watching the race along with several other people and was the only person with much experience with horses. One horse had a pretty good lead going down the final straightaway, but the second place horse seemed to find another gear and started gaining on him. As he drew abreast of the lead horse, that horse turned his head and snapped at the passing horse. I commented ‘well, he just lost’ (and he did), but everyone else thought I was crazy. I pointed out the attempted bite, and they still thought I was crazy. They pointed out, in turn, that none of the commentators mentioned it, so I must not know what I was talking about.
After about 10 minutes of this hoopla, a commentator interviewed the ‘losing’ jockey. His comment? “When he took a bite at (horse’s name) as he came alongside, I knew it was over.” I’m afraid I’m a snide person - I rubbed it in an awful lot.
Why did the ‘horsey people’ know that the race was lost at that point? Because the losing horse wouldn’t have disturbed his balance and wasted energy threatening the other horse if he could have outrun him. He’d given all he had to give and was either running as fast as he could, or he was just too darned tired to put out any more effort. So his only option for remaining in front was to frighten the other horse into staying behind him.
Think that horse didn’t care who won?
Spend some time talking to horse trainers, jockeys, etc. or read some of the books/stories about race horses - they’ll tell you that the winning horse knows he won, and he’ll come off the track all full of himself and proud. The losing horses also know that they’ve lost, but it depends on the individual horse’s temperament whether or not it depresses him very much.
And there are numerous stories of good horses with a strong competitive spirit who happened to spend a season competing against a slightly better horse that beat them consistently, and the beaten horse becomes depressed and loses his competitive spirit.
Horses enjoy running and enjoy the competition - you could not force a horse to put out that much effort on something it didn’t enjoy. Ever watch a steeplechase, the Grand National, for example? One of the main hazards during the race are the riderless horses that continue to race and jump alongside the remaining competitors. Horses aren’t that stupid - if they don’t like doing something, they will stop doing it as soon as an opportunity arises. Jumping those huge fences at racing speeds is an extreme effort and dangerous to boot. But year after year, you will see many riderless horses not only continue racing, but actually stay on course and finish the entire race (they do two laps), crossing the finish line ahead of the ridden winners!
Ruffian, I’ve also heard that the ‘loafers’ like Alysheba are considered somewhat of a mixed blessing by trainers - they don’t overextend themselves and so stay healthier, but they don’t often break speed records unless forced to by the competition!
Lucretia, unless my info is hopelessly out of date, racing times for Quarter Horses have increased steadily over the years, albeit by tiny fractions of a second. Thoroughbreds have not shown a steady increase, but this is supposed to be because many Thoroughbred breeders used poor criteria for selecting breeding stock, especially studs. Quarter Horses are rated not necessarily by how often or how much they win, but by a ‘speed rating’ dependent on how fast they cover particular distances. For many years, (and possibly still now, I don’t know) Thoroughbred breeders selected studs by the amount of money they won, which is not necessarily an indication of the horse’s actual swiftness. You’ve got to breed speed to speed in order to produce faster horses.
