Who will retire first?

[Someday Silent]

Maybe I'm just being overly cranky and cynical, but in recent years it seems that after the TC races are over, another race starts-- the one that ends in the breeding shed.

We haven't heard a peep about Country House since a few days post-Derby (Mott said he was "acting like he was wanting to get sick"). Maximum Security is now having bloodwork done because his trainer isn't satisfied with things (per a DRF article). War of Will took the Preakness nicely but ran dismally yesterday, and Sir Winston seems ok enough but could also be one of those who falls off the face of the earth after the Belmont.

[metro]

War of Will had trouble again....wide....bumped.... and was the only horse who participated in all three of the TC races, let's give him a pass, at least for now.

[burnsy]

Co- Faves the survey has it close to what I'm thinking. Probably one of the "Derby Winners".

[the little guy]

People seem to be somewhat confused as to why a lot of 3YOs retire early. Farms will often buy the rights to top 2YOs with the stipulation that they retire at the end of their 3YO season. It's highly unlikely that that applies to the above group. Now, War of Will being a War Front has value, and he could get a deal ( for all I know he already has one ) but the other three are highly unlikely at this point. Assuming they don't retire due to injury, the others have limited appeal, at this point for sure, and definitely without significant achievement.

[dilanesp]

People seem to be somewhat confused as to why a lot of 3YOs retire early. Farms will often buy the rights to top 2YOs with the stipulation that they retire at the end of their 3YO season. It's highly unlikely that that applies to the above group. Now, War of Will being a War Front has value, and he could get a deal ( for all I know he already has one ) but the other three are highly unlikely at this point. Assuming they don't retire due to injury, the others have limited appeal, at this point for sure, and definitely without significant achievement.

This is right. This is why California Chrome, for instance, had a long career and ended up winning all the big stakes races he won. The breeding industry wasn't interested in him, so they could race.

And, of course, that's actually central to what's wrong with the sport. Imagine if Barry Bonds, being sired by Bobby Bonds, or Cal Ripken, sired by Cal Ripken Sr., had retired to the breeding shed after a couple of good years in the majors because of their value as sires. Baseball fans would have missed out on Hall of Fame careers. Yet the breeding industry thinks there's nothing at all wrong with doing this with top horses in the prime of their careers.

[burnsy]

Both of you guys are right. But that’s a major reason the older division lacks fire power. Face it, we won’t see another field like the Met until BC Day. I made those two faves because the Derby has been known to crush some horses and all indications are health wise neither is what they were right now.

[The_Turf_Monster]

I would love to see the jockey club not register a horse unless it was sired by a horse that ran at some higher age like 5

[the little guy]

I would love to see the jockey club not register a horse unless it was sired by a horse that ran at some higher age like 5

How many millions have you put into buying horses?

[Spalding No!]

And, of course, that's actually central to what's wrong with the sport. Imagine if Barry Bonds, being sired by Bobby Bonds, or Cal Ripken, sired by Cal Ripken Sr., had retired to the breeding shed after a couple of good years in the majors because of their value as sires. Baseball fans would have missed out on Hall of Fame careers. Yet the breeding industry thinks there's nothing at all wrong with doing this with top horses in the prime of their careers.
Bobby Bonds played for 8 different teams in a 13-year career. Never won an MVP or a World Series. Not in the HOF.

Cal Ripken, Sr. didn't play in the Majors and only managed the Orioles in one single losing season. Not in the HOF.

[The_Turf_Monster]

How many millions have you put into buying horses?

I've never spent a dollar on a racehorse outside of rescue donations (orgs, not quacks on twitter), which I think gives me a seat at the table moreso than most thoroughbred owners

[the little guy]

I've never spent a dollar on a racehorse outside of rescue donations (orgs, not quacks on twitter), which I think gives me a seat at the table moreso than most thoroughbred owners

Hopefully many of us have contributed to horse rescue, legitimate ones as you so kindly put it, as have most owners. The idea that you think that gives you more of a say about how people should run their businesses than those that actually put up their money speaks volumes about you....not them.

[The_Turf_Monster]

Hopefully many of us have contributed to horse rescue, legitimate ones as you so kindly put it, as have most owners. The idea that you think that gives you more of a say about how people should run their businesses than those that actually put up their money speaks volumes about you....not them.

When peoples 'businesses' involve pain-masking drugs to squeeze every last penny out of an animal before a breakdown or slaughter, I don't think they deserve a seat at the table about the direction of the breed more than people that donate for the betterment of those same animals they don't want to care for

[the little guy]

When peoples 'businesses' involve pain-masking drugs to squeeze every last penny out of an animal before a breakdown or slaughter, I don't think they deserve a seat at the table about the direction of the breed more than people that donate for the betterment of those same animals they don't want to care for

You're just flailing away here. Pretty disgraceful actually. You don't have a clue about what you are talking about yet feel free to make totally baseless accusations here.

I'm not even sure you deserve a seat at the children's table. You should probably be sent to bed without your dinner.

PA the Benevolent.

[The_Turf_Monster]

You're just flailing away here. Pretty disgraceful actually. You don't have a clue about what you are talking about yet feel free to make totally baseless accusations here.

I'm not even sure you deserve a seat at the children's table. You should probably be sent to bed without your dinner.

PA the Benevolent.

You're welcome to give us a synopsis of what the majority of owners do with their horses upon retirement, what they choose to purchase at auction or upon claim and most importantly, how they have the betterment of the breed in mind by sending 3 year olds to the breeding shed for 'business' purposes

[the little guy]

You're welcome to give us a synopsis of what the majority of owners do with their horses upon retirement, what they choose to purchase at auction or upon claim and most importantly, how they have the betterment of the breed in mind by sending 3 year olds to the breeding shed for 'business' purposes

I don't have to give a synopsis of anything. I didn't come here making libelous and baseless accusations. You did.

I'm not sure how someone who spends eight figures a year buying horses shouldn't be allowed to take some money off the table by reaching a rare stud deal. I understand it isn't a perfect situation, but given these people pretty much always turn around and spend that money on more horses, thus supporting the horse population, it's not as though it doesn't help support the ecosystem. You've gone from this to suggest somehow this suggests mistreatment of horses ( and I'm being nice ), when nothing could be farther from the truth.

You have displayed a complete misunderstanding of how owners conduct their business, yet somehow demand those that did not slander these owners should defend their position. It doesn't work that way. You should learn something about how the industry actually operates before throwing around spurious charges. It's admirable that you give money to horse retirement/rescue, but that doesn't buy you the right to smear anyone and everyone involved in the game. You have absolutely no idea what people do or don't do....that's been made pretty clear from your comments here.

[dilanesp]

Bobby Bonds played for 8 different teams in a 13-year career. Never won an MVP or a World Series. Not in the HOF.

Cal Ripken, Sr. didn't play in the Majors and only managed the Orioles in one single losing season. Not in the HOF.

You missed the point. It was about their SONS retiring early.

[dilanesp]

Hopefully many of us have contributed to horse rescue, legitimate ones as you so kindly put it, as have most owners. The idea that you think that gives you more of a say about how people should run their businesses than those that actually put up their money speaks volumes about you....not them.

Their businesses are run solely due to the permission of the state, which decides whether to permit horse racing and under what rules.

Arguments that appeal to the freedom of horse owners are bad arguments. If owners want freedom, they can choose a different business.

[dilanesp]

I don't have to give a synopsis of anything. I didn't come here making libelous and baseless accusations. You did.

I'm not sure how someone who spends eight figures a year buying horses shouldn't be allowed to take some money off the table by reaching a rare stud deal. I understand it isn't a perfect situation, but given these people pretty much always turn around and spend that money on more horses, thus supporting the horse population, it's not as though it doesn't help support the ecosystem. You've gone from this to suggest somehow this suggests mistreatment of horses ( and I'm being nice ), when nothing could be farther from the truth.

You have displayed a complete misunderstanding of how owners conduct their business, yet somehow demand those that did not slander these owners should defend their position. It doesn't work that way. You should learn something about how the industry actually operates before throwing around spurious charges. It's admirable that you give money to horse retirement/rescue, but that doesn't buy you the right to smear anyone and everyone involved in the game. You have absolutely no idea what people do or don't do....that's been made pretty clear from your comments here.

It is highly misleading to describe what goes on now as simply individuals taking some money off the table.

Justify, for instance, was owned by several investment syndicates which have a far more singleminded focus on money than TLG posits.

[The_Turf_Monster]

I don't have to give a synopsis of anything. I didn't come here making libelous and baseless accusations. You did.

I'm not sure how someone who spends eight figures a year buying horses shouldn't be allowed to take some money off the table by reaching a rare stud deal. I understand it isn't a perfect situation, but given these people pretty much always turn around and spend that money on more horses, thus supporting the horse population, it's not as though it doesn't help support the ecosystem. You've gone from this to suggest somehow this suggests mistreatment of horses ( and I'm being nice ), when nothing could be farther from the truth.

You have displayed a complete misunderstanding of how owners conduct their business, yet somehow demand those that did not slander these owners should defend their position. It doesn't work that way. You should learn something about how the industry actually operates before throwing around spurious charges. It's admirable that you give money to horse retirement/rescue, but that doesn't buy you the right to smear anyone and everyone involved in the game. You have absolutely no idea what people do or don't do....that's been made pretty clear from your comments here.

I have no issue commenting (hence learn the tort of slander before you comment using the term) how sending infirm and unsound from a conformation standpoint 3 year year olds to the breeding shed to further the breed is a bad idea. You're watching it play out across the country right now

[Someday Silent]

Hey, I wasn't trying to make people argue when I started this poll, but I think anyone with half a brain has noticed an accelerating trend over the years whereby "talent" and "worthiness of reproduction" has become almost arbitrary and based upon a narrow set of criteria that almost never includes longevity.

Of course, no one with any sense has the goal to breed/ own a horse that can run 50 career races if the horse finishes last every time.

On the other hand, the overwhelming focus on "brilliant" horses who only race 2 or 3 times has the drawback of creating horses who may not have the talent of their parents but possess the soundness issues. It's hard enough to rehome many of these animals.but how can you expect to rehome a horse that has a short shelf-life PLUS an inability to stand up to the training required for a second career?

I'm not saying people who put a lot of money in this business don't deserve to get a return on their investments. I'm saying that the rules for making money in the industry should be tempered by the knowledge that the "product" is a living being with a lifespan of 15 to 30 years, which changes the rules for all of us. (I donate to aftercare organizations too.)

[Saratoga_Mike]

A few years ago, Jeff Gural (Meadowlands harness) and then Woodbine restricted certain major harness races to participants sired by stallions that raced as a four-year-old or older. Does anyone know how this worked out? Still in place?

I agree with TLG -- owners of young horses pour a ton of money into the game and certainly have the right to take some chips off the table when they're fortunate enough to end up with a stallion prospect, but it would be nice to see more horses campaigned like Curlin.

[classhandicapper]

My 2 cents.

It's probably a bad idea to lump all owners together no matter what end of the buying spectrum they may be on. There are good and bad people in every business. Based on my very limited experience I'd say most owners care about their horses a lot. However, it's a tough business to break even. So if you have an opportunity to retire a horse early for significant money, you have to consider it. You can care about him just as much while he's making babies for someone else as you do while he's racing for you.

[dilanesp]

The problem is, breeding is the tail, not the dog. Nobody spends any money to watch horses breed. The breeeding industry is supposed to serve the sport, not the other way around.

Early retirements caused by obscene breeding syndications harm the sport.

[the little guy]

The problem is, breeding is the tail, not the dog. Nobody spends any money to watch horses breed. The breeeding industry is supposed to serve the sport, not the other way around.

Early retirements caused by obscene breeding syndications harm the sport.

Not clear and the second paragraph is a myopic vision of the game. Owners will not spend significant money at the Sales without the carrot of a stud deal to help finance their investments, especially on the high end. Is this "good" for the game? In some ways, no, but in others, yes. You HAVE to have that incentive.

Some owners breed to breed. There are many kinds in the game, and to put them all into the same box is a mistake.

You will argue this, as you are unable to acknowledge any potential flaws in your arguments, but it's actually quite factual.

[classhandicapper]

The problem is, breeding is the tail, not the dog. Nobody spends any money to watch horses breed. The breeeding industry is supposed to serve the sport, not the other way around.

Early retirements caused by obscene breeding syndications harm the sport.

To be honest, I don't fully understand the economics of the sport.

I assume most owners lose money, but they continue to pay high prices for young horses, which in turn helps support high stallion prices, which in turn encourages early retirement.

You would think at some point owners would stop paying as much for young horses to stem the red ink, which in turn would depress stallion prices and encourage more racing because you could make as much or more racing than breeding (as you often can with mares).

But you could have made that same argument a few decades ago and here we still are.

It must be the allure of winning big races and making that one big lucky score that makes the overall owner losses tolerable.

[dilanesp]

To be honest, I don't fully understand the economics of the sport.

I assume most owners lose money, but they continue to pay high prices for young horses, which in turn helps support high stallion prices, which in turn encourages early retirement.

You would think at some point owners would stop paying as much for young horses to stem the red ink, which in turn would depress stallion prices and encourage more racing because you could make as much or more racing than breeding (as you often can with mares).

But you could have made that same argument a few decades ago and here we still are.

It must be the allure of winning big races and making that one big lucky score that makes the overall owner losses tolerable.

The sport works better when owners get in for the love of the sport, not expecting to get a ROI. That's why it was the Sport of Kings.

[classhandicapper]

The sport works better when owners get in for the love of the sport, not expecting to get a ROI. That's why it was the Sport of Kings.

I can understand that, but I thought we'd eventually run out of people willing to take steady losses unless of course they have oil wells and can find hundreds of millions under the seat cushion. ;)

[elhelmete]

It always works out well when we want others to lose money so we can enjoy ourselves. :lol::rolleyes::rolleyes:


Everyone should read 'Wild Ride' about Calumet and Alydar. With respect to the topic being discussed here, the authors provide some excellent historical info about breeding, syndication, the tax law changes, etc. It will help anyone understand the synergy much better.

[the little guy]

It always works out well when we want others to lose money so we can enjoy ourselves. :lol::rolleyes::rolleyes:


Everyone should read 'Wild Ride' about Calumet and Alydar. With respect to the topic being discussed here, the authors provide some excellent historical info about breeding, syndication, the tax law changes, etc. It will help anyone understand the synergy much better.

Such a great book.

Good point as well:-)

[bobphilo]

I would love to see the jockey club not register a horse unless it was sired by a horse that ran at some higher age like 5
I don't recall the details but I think the German jockey Club had a rule that a horse had to race for a certain number of full seasons drug free to stand at stud. Not sure if that's still true.
I don't know how much regimentation the U.S breeding industry would go along and I understand that some horses may be forced to go to stud after their 3YO season subject to prior agreements, but shouldn't the Jockey Club at least require they complete their 3YO season and not be whisked off right after the Belmont, halfway through the year. If they claim a career ending injury, have them examined by a JC vet to verify this.

[bobphilo]

In getting back to the original poll, barring real injury, I can see good motivation to not retire any of these horses early (meaning before the end of their 3YO season). In winning the Belmont Sir Winston has not only put himself into the race for top 3YO but Global Campaign as well. At this point it could still go to Maximum Security, War of Will, Tacticus, Country House, Omaha Beach or Game Winner. Even Owendale could be good enough, though I don't think his connections are going for it. With the possibility of an Eclipse they all have good reason to stay in the race to increase their stud value above what they currently can get.
Having said that, It seems that War of Will and Country House seem the least likely to get back to the form required to win the upcoming big races and will probably retire first. Sir Winston has the most to gain so he is the least likely to retire early.

[dilanesp]

It always works out well when we want others to lose money so we can enjoy ourselves. :lol::rolleyes::rolleyes:


Everyone should read 'Wild Ride' about Calumet and Alydar. With respect to the topic being discussed here, the authors provide some excellent historical info about breeding, syndication, the tax law changes, etc. It will help anyone understand the synergy much better.

The betting side of the sport is also fueled by people losing money so we can enjoy ourselves.

This all sounds weird, but it's basically foundational to many sports. Know how much money sponsors sink into auto racing? How much rich folks pay for luxury boxes in stadiums?

Heck, how many parents mortgage the house to put their kids in tennis, figure skating, or elite basketball?

People love sport so they sink money into it. If people stopped, and only did it when it was rational, we'd lose a lot of sports.

[elhelmete]

The betting side of the sport is also fueled by people losing money so we can enjoy ourselves.

This all sounds weird, but it's basically foundational to many sports. Know how much money sponsors sink into auto racing? How much rich folks pay for luxury boxes in stadiums?

Heck, how many parents mortgage the house to put their kids in tennis, figure skating, or elite basketball?

People love sport so they sink money into it. If people stopped, and only did it when it was rational, we'd lose a lot of sports.

Point completely missed.

Party A relying on Party B to consistently lose $$ so Party A can enjoy himself will fail in the long run. Especially if Party A has no skin in the game, and/or wants enjoyment at a sub-optimal price.

Party B can do whatever they want, and they do.

Foal crop numbers are exhibit 1.

[Redboard]

Each year the Philadelphia orchestra has expenses of $50 million, but their ticket sales only pay for $18 million of that. The rest is supplied for by donors and patrons. (last week they received a lump sum anonymous donation of $55 million, which even for them was unusual)
People who love things irrationally sink money into it, so the rest of us can enjoy.

[elhelmete]

Each year the Philadelphia orchestra has expenses of $50 million, but their ticket sales only pay for $18 million of that. The rest is supplied for by donors and patrons. (last week they received a lump sum anonymous donation of $55 million, which even for them was unusual)
People who love things irrationally sink money into it, so the rest of us can enjoy.

Agreed...until they don't anymore.

And I would say the fine arts have a philanthropic bend to them that creates a halo effect for donors. Horse racing doesn't.

[clicknow]

People seem to be somewhat confused as to why a lot of 3YOs retire early. Farms will often buy the rights to top 2YOs with the stipulation that they retire at the end of their 3YO season.

Which is good for U.S. racing. :puke:

[the little guy]

Which is good for U.S. racing. :puke:

Your posting history here has already proven that you care little about entire stories, and enjoy trying to play gotcha. That was part of my response as to WHY horses sometimes retire at the end of their three year old seasons. No opinion was given in that post, and it was further expounded on later in the thread. But you knew all that. It was far easier for you to keep playing this game.

Off to the land of ignore. I curse myself for not doing this earlier with you.

[Someday Silent]

In getting back to the original poll, barring real injury, I can see good motivation to not retire any of these horses early (meaning before the end of their 3YO season). In winning the Belmont Sir Winston has not only put himself into the race for top 3YO but Global Campaign as well. At this point it could still go to Maximum Security, War of Will, Tacticus, Country House, Omaha Beach or Game Winner. Even Owendale could be good enough, though I don't think his connections are going for it. With the possibility of an Eclipse they all have good reason to stay in the race to increase their stud value above what they currently can get.
Having said that, It seems that War of Will and Country House seem the least likely to get back to the form required to win the upcoming big races and will probably retire first. Sir Winston has the most to gain so he is the least likely to retire early.

Thanks for your response. I was trying to generate discussion about the relative merits of this group of horses in regards to their futures on and off the track. We've all engaged many previous times in the general debate about whether owners/breeders hurt vs. help the sport with their financial decisions.

[Redboard]

It is a problem. It’s not a major problem like breakdowns, past-posting and high takeout, but one of those minor, annoying things that gets fans upset with the industry. A long time ago, they should have realized that the stars were being whisked off the track too early and did something like Hong Kong does, run all geldings. That way owners would have had to declare whether they are in the racing business or the breeding business. Do something for the fans. Not the owners, trainers or gamblers — the fans. Has racing ever done that? No, for years racing thumbed their nose at Peta and the general public, with the attitude that, we are the great racing, the only gamble in town! Well they are going to find out , sooner rather than later, that public opinion does matter.

[airford1]

Maximum Security. Every race he loses more value.

[deelo]

The money in breeding beats the money in racing every time. As a fan it's frustrating and easy to be mad at connections, but it's also an industry with logical business decisions to be made. You can't be mad, but you can be disappointed.

/end here if too long

Reminds me of a recent online argument which was the worst thing ever. Maximus Mischief was retired after injury. The connections were receiving all sorts of praise for "doing right by the horse." That's fine, whatever, but I simply pointed out that soft tissue injuries heal and don't pose risk to future racing, but they do cause power loss so he'd have to race at a lower class to win so it was really just a logical business decision in the end since he stood to make more money as a stallion.

I was then told that I was an idiot and everyone agreeing is an idiot and the assailant proudly proclaimed he had an owner's license so he knows and we don't. I was told if I wanted to keep acting like breeding was lucrative maybe I should just go ask Winx who made $20 or $30 million racing.

I then pointed out Winx is a mare to which he laughed and asked what's your point, mares can't breed? are you an idiot? I dare you to show me one single stallion who made $20 million.

As far as Winx, I gave him the birds and the bees talk about how mommies only have one baby per year and for his stallion challenge told him to google Tapit.

He deleted every single one of his replies and disappeared. Now there's just a thread of me out there where it looks like i'm talking to myself.

This was a racehorse owner who didn't know the difference between a stallion and a mare. Let that sink in. Our industry is in danger...

[clicknow]

You're welcome to give us a synopsis of what the majority of owners do with their horses upon retirement, what they choose to purchase at auction or upon claim and most importantly, how they have the betterment of the breed in mind by sending 3 year olds to the breeding shed for 'business' purposes

oh don't go there. I mentioned sending to breeding shed early was not good for racing, and he told me he was putting me on ignore. :)


As for what the majority of owners do with their horses "upon retirement", I think that is a good question and many race fans, as well as the general public, are unclear about that.

I think most people are just curious as to the protections owners are required to provide for horses they own/have owned. I know they have insurance policies but that is to protect their investment........what *insurance* does the actual horse have..... on paper?


1) Is there "money on the table" for each horse's retirement/aftercare, and/or humane euthanasia?

Because slaughterhouses aren't euthanasia, and rescues shouldn't be used as free retirement centers for owners who have no further use for horses

2) What are the legally-required arrangements for horses' life cycle?

Because they aren't commodities like real estate or stocks and bonds, and have a rather long natural life span.

3) Is there money set aside for the horse who raced, who earned (or didn't), who produced foals, etc. that follows the horse, like a trust fund of sorts?

[PaceAdvantage]

Why not just go back posting under your WinterTriangle account?

[burnsy]

Maximum Security. Every race he loses more value.

At this point the way this has played out. I don't think the money matters to these people. They don't really need it. Just by watching what's going on this is being run on emotion now. These people feel their horse was wronged and so were they. Right or wrong I think they want to prove something. Country House is now chalky, chalk to retire first.

I know they were saying Country House may be back or whatever.....I wouldn't hold my breath. I don't know how this thread became such a food fight....well, sometimes that's par for the course around here. :lol: But, this has been the nature of horse racing for a while. Its so obvious that racing actually takes a back seat to money. Sport of "Kings" is now a misnomer.

[dilanesp]

At this point the way this has played out. I don't think the money matters to these people. They don't really need it. Just by watching what's going on this is being run on emotion now. These people feel their horse was wronged and so were they. Right or wrong I think they want to prove something. Country House is now chalky, chalk to retire first.

I know they were saying Country House may be back or whatever.....I wouldn't hold my breath. I don't know how this thread became such a food fight....well, sometimes that's par for the course around here. :lol: But, this has been the nature of horse racing for a while. Its so obvious that racing actually takes a back seat to money. Sport of "Kings" is now a misnomer.

The Wests definitely feel they were screwed. So maybe the emotion is real. But knowing my profession, it may have also been ginned up by their lawyers, who saw a chance to make some fees on a case that isn't likely to win. Unfortunately, lawyers in this situation don't always make the best fiduciaries-- the best, most ethical lawyers will tell their clients "look, you really don't have much chance so if you spend the fees you aren't likely getting them back", but a lot of lawyers aren't ethical when it comes to giving up a big fee and may overstate the chance of a victory to get the client to come on board.

[clicknow]

Why not just go back posting under your WinterTriangle account?

Hi Mike, I think there was about a 10 year break there, not same email, didn't remember password and actually didn *remember* what username I had here (I've had several different usernames over the last 19 years on different forums......and on the day I felt like posting something last year, I just started a new account.

If you want to meld them for me, by all means, please do.


(I am somewhat *intrigued* by why you didn't PM that question to me though. ;))

There's a shade of accusatory undertone there......though I do not know why? Make no mistake. I am not at all ashamed or embarassed about ANY opinion I post here, or have ever posted here.... whether or not 1 person, 10 people, or the majority of people disagree with it.

If it's because I didn't agree w/one of your inner circle about owners retiring horses early to the breeding shed, or about trainers not knowing how to run the paycheck portion of their million dollar business......fine.


So------meanwhile my question about race horse retirement, where I suggested that *the horses themselves* have a right to *take something off the table* just like their owners do, seems to have gone unanswered.





You probably would not be suprised if I told you just how many people have walked away from horse racing in the last 10 years. People who were quite passionate about it. I noticed when I came back there were fewer *voices* that I was familiar with from back in the old days. As a matter of fact several forums I've been on in the past I've noticed just ....... dwindling down to low numbers.

I will continue to give my opinion on how it's all coming down around our ears, and how the status quo opinion isn't fixing it, and how the perception of horses being like poker chips that owners push around the table and then "cash in" doesn't sit too well with a whole lotta people anymore, and all the other things that are going to be recitfied (or racing WILL die) in the near future. Every decade brings a new consciousness with it, and a new generation. What was okay 70 years ago isn't okay today.



Am I sarcastic about it all sometimes? yeah, I am. Watching bettors getting ripped off, or watching horses suffer and/or die (among many other wrongs) doesn't require me to wear kid gloves. Political correctness has no place in many of these instances.

[the little guy]

Why not just go back posting under your WinterTriangle account?

Is it too much to ask you to please add the vomiting emoji to our options?

[PaceAdvantage]

Hi Mike, I think there was about a 10 year break there, not same email, didn't remember password and actually didn *remember* what username I had here (I've had several different usernames over the last 19 years on different forums......and on the day I felt like posting something last year, I just started a new account.

If you want to meld them for me, by all means, please do.


(I am somewhat *intrigued* by why you didn't PM that question to me though. ;))

There's a shade of accusatory undertone there......though I do not know why? Make no mistake. I am not at all ashamed or embarassed about ANY opinion I post here, or have ever posted here.... whether or not 1 person, 10 people, or the majority of people disagree with it.

If it's because I didn't agree w/one of your inner circle about owners retiring horses early to the breeding shed, or about trainers not knowing how to run the paycheck portion of their million dollar business......fine.


So------meanwhile my question about race horse retirement, where I suggested that *the horses themselves* have a right to *take something off the table* just like their owners do, seems to have gone unanswered.





You probably would not be suprised if I told you just how many people have walked away from horse racing in the last 10 years. People who were quite passionate about it. I noticed when I came back there were fewer *voices* that I was familiar with from back in the old days. As a matter of fact several forums I've been on in the past I've noticed just ....... dwindling down to low numbers.

I will continue to give my opinion on how it's all coming down around our ears, and how the status quo opinion isn't fixing it, and how the perception of horses being like poker chips that owners push around the table and then "cash in" doesn't sit too well with a whole lotta people anymore, and all the other things that are going to be recitfied (or racing WILL die) in the near future. Every decade brings a new consciousness with it, and a new generation. What was okay 70 years ago isn't okay today.



Am I sarcastic about it all sometimes? yeah, I am. Watching bettors getting ripped off, or watching horses suffer and/or die (among many other wrongs) doesn't require me to wear kid gloves. Political correctness has no place in many of these instances.Ummmm...who's Mike?

[Someday Silent]

The Haskel and Jim Dandy are coming up within the next two weeks. These will be mighty interesting races.