Big Brown= no class!

[kenwoodallpromos]

As I stated in previous posts, I define Tbred class as equal to (proving) stamina.
If the owners of Big Brown or any other stakes winner refuses to run their healthy horses any longer than they absolutely have to, neither they NOR their horses are proven to have any class!
And that includes any horses I have lauded!

[toetoe]

Uma traducao, por favor. Alguem ? :confused:

[Cangamble]

No class but lots of dough, and unfortunately that is the driving force when it comes to retiring early. From the business standpoint of the owner, they have little choice in this decision.

[Greyfox]

You're painting with too broad a brush.


The horse has demonstrated class. Give him his dues. He's a Stakes winner and Kentucky Derby Winner, maybe more. The horse has no say in who owns him.

The owners may or may not have class. Don't confuse the horse with the owners.

[DeanT]

Someone on this board wrote in a post (forgive me, I can not remember who):

"We used to breed to race, then we raced to breed, now we breed to breed"

So true. Randy Moss had that super piece on ESPN on another area of the board about this, among other things. Commercial breeders and speed hungry, big cash owners more concerned with speculation rather than sportsmanship have really done us fans (and the business overall) a disservice, imo. Long gone are the days when two owners got together and tightened a girth to decide which horse was faster than the other.

[Cangamble]

Someone on this board wrote in a post (forgive me, I can not remember who):

"We used to breed to race, then we raced to breed, now we breed to breed"

So true. Randy Moss had that super piece on ESPN on another area of the board about this, among other things. Commercial breeders and speed hungry, big cash owners more concerned with speculation rather than sportsmanship have really done us fans (and the business overall) a disservice, imo. Long gone are the days when two owners got together and tightened a girth to decide which horse was faster than the other.

Here is another good piece on the subject:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/05/13/ap5004802.html

[Cangamble]

http://www.drf.com/news/article/94537.html

See, it is strictly business, and they really have no choice but to retire him.

[Tom Barrister]

As Nero Wolfe would say: "Pfui."

They have a choice, and as so many before them, they have chosen the money.

Looking at it from a business point of view, a horse who is the first Triple Crown winner in over 30 years is going to command much more at stud than a horse who only wins the Kentucky Derby and is retired. That is the only reason Big Brown is being raced again. If the owners could get the same stud fee now as if Big Brown won the Triple Crown, he'd be retired today. The added reward is worth the risk.

So Big Brown will race in the Preakness, and if he wins and comes out of the race sound, he'll also race in the Belmont. That's as far as the horse's racing career will ever go. There won't be any significant added stud-fee value to win, say, the Travers and BC Classic, compared to the risk of a life-ending injury.

I don't know if there are still insurance companies (i.e. Lloyds) who insure horses for one race, but if such exists, I'd be surprised if Big Brown wasn't insured for his remaining race(s).

[Kelso]

Here is another good piece on the subject:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/05/13/ap5004802.html
From the article:
Gary Knapp, Big Brown's breeder, says his decision to choose Boundary as a mate for his mare, Mien, was based not on what the foal might be able to do at age 2 but what it could do at age 4 or older. However, Knapp said, no breeder should have to apologize for discovering a colt that peaks early if it was bred for the right reasons.

"When I'm planning my matings, I'm trying to breed the best racehorses I can," Knapp said. "All of us in the horse business are in the business of entertaining people who want to wager on horse races. The better horse we can produce provides the most entertainment."


Another clown who wants us to believe he's just another Walt Disney. What a crock of shit. He's breeding for the fattest, quickest profit he can make. ANY other consideration, if there is any, is half-a-stretch behind that motive. Bettors don't even make the field in his game.

Entertainment, my ass. These hustlers are no Disneys. When it comes to players, P.T. Barnum is much more like it (ya know ... "a sucker born every minute").

[kenwoodallpromos]

From the article:
Gary Knapp, Big Brown's breeder, says his decision to choose Boundary as a mate for his mare, Mien, was based not on what the foal might be able to do at age 2 but what it could do at age 4 or older. However, Knapp said, no breeder should have to apologize for discovering a colt that peaks early if it was bred for the right reasons.

"When I'm planning my matings, I'm trying to breed the best racehorses I can," Knapp said. "All of us in the horse business are in the business of entertaining people who want to wager on horse races. The better horse we can produce provides the most entertainment."


Another clown who wants us to believe he's just another Walt Disney. What a crock of shit. He's breeding for the fattest, quickest profit he can make. ANY other consideration, if there is any, is half-a-stretch behind that motive. Bettors don't even make the field in his game.

Entertainment, my ass. These hustlers are no Disneys. When it comes to players, P.T. Barnum is much more like it (ya know ... "a sucker born every minute").
True, that is ONE aspect of their business; and true, the only "entertaining" the industry cares about is for those who bet money, not non-betting fans. But not that "ALL" owners have that as their #1 goal.

[PaceAdvantage]

Shouldn't this thread be deleted on principal alone? I mean, come on now....

[BIG49010]

I second!

[chickenhead]

it should be forcibly permalinked to in kens signature line. As a warning.

[onefast99]

Paul Pompa is one good guy. I dont know the IEAH group but they seem to be having a lot of fun.

[David-LV]

Shouldn't this thread be deleted on principal alone? I mean, come on now....


No

If we agree or disagree.

It is just opinions like most of the other posts.

________
David

[Tom]

.....And that includes any horses I have lauded!

Including Secretariat? :rolleyes:

[Greyfox]

As I stated in previous posts, I define Tbred class as equal to (proving) stamina.
If the owners of Big Brown or any other stakes winner refuses to run their healthy horses any longer than they absolutely have to, neither they NOR their horses are proven to have any class!
And that includes any horses I have lauded!

Hmmm? You may be the brightest handicapper in this forum. Who knows?
Define class any way you want, but you're looking questionable in this post.

[PaceAdvantage]

No

If we agree or disagree.

It is just opinions like most of the other posts.

________
DavidYeah, but this thread is just an embarrassment....anyone who saw BB's first race knew class was his middle name....

[David-LV]

Yeah, but this thread is just an embarrassment....anyone who saw BB's first race knew class was his middle name....
Agreed,

I've been watching racing for 50 years and have never seen a horse with the explosive acceleration move of Big Brown.

It is a shame that greatness like this will have such a short racing career.

________
David

[kenwoodallpromos]

Shouldn't this thread be deleted on principal alone? I mean, come on now....
Delete if you wish- your opinioin that 1 race can prove calss is the ultimate response anyway!

[Semipro]

Delete if you wish- your opinioin that 1 race can prove calss is the ultimate response anyway!Pull the trigger:jump:

[ranchwest]

Delete if you wish- your opinioin that 1 race can prove calss is the ultimate response anyway!

Well, Big Brown is still undefeated. He won the Preakness easier than any horse I recall. He's going to be very short odds in the Belmont and will probably win after that workout they called the Preakness.

The fact that the plans for the horse don't match YOUR WISHES doesn't mean squat.

This is the best horse since Secretariat and if that bothers you, tough.

[PaceAdvantage]

Delete if you wish- your opinioin that 1 race can prove calss is the ultimate response anyway!I wasn't the only one....

[jcrabboy]

As much as I would love to see Big Brown race next year, horse racing is a business. The protection of an investment is understandable.

I think the horse has proven his class and then some.

Jimmie

[David-LV]

As much as I would love to see Big Brown race next year, horse racing is a business. The protection of an investment is understandable.

I think the horse has proven his class and then some.

Jimmie


Was horse racing not a business when Secretariat was putting up 16 wins in 21 starts?

Big Brown will never be able to show racing fans if we could ever compare him to Secretariat.

It appears that the owners have forgotten that the name of the game is horse racing. :ThmbDown: :(

_________
David

[ranchwest]

Was horse racing not a business when Secretariat was putting up 16 wins in 21 starts?

Big Brown will never be able to show racing fans if we could ever compare him to Secretariat.

It appears that the owners have forgotten that the name of the game is horse racing. :ThmbDown: :(

_________
David

If you want things to be different, then YOU put up the 50 million and you can do whatever you want with the horse.

[David-LV]

If you want things to be different, then YOU put up the 50 million and you can do whatever you want with the horse.

Its thinking like this that has brought the sport of horse racing almost to its knees.

What is he worth if he doesn't win the Belmont??

Greed is rampant !! :(

___________
David

[ranchwest]

Its thinking like this that has brought the sport of horse racing almost to its knees.

What is he worth if he doesn't win the Belmont??

Greed is rampant !! :(

___________
David

Nope, it is a free market. The guy who puts up the 50 million gets to decide. If you want to decide, you can put up the 50 million. I didn't put up 50 million, so I don't get a say. I abide by what the guy with the bucks says. He's the one who is actually in the position to decide.

[ManeMediaMogul]

Nope, it is a free market. The guy who puts up the 50 million gets to decide. If you want to decide, you can put up the 50 million. I didn't put up 50 million, so I don't get a say. I abide by what the guy with the bucks says. He's the one who is actually in the position to decide.

RanchWest is dead on.

Most of you guys work hard at handicapping to make a life-changing score.

Why disrespect Thoroughbred owners who make a life-changing score?

Would you decline a $50 million pick six payoff "for the good of the game"?

I can hear the quote now.

"I know that racetracks and horsemen make more money on churn, so, as a favor to the Thoroughbred industry, I am going to donate my $50 million pick six payoff to the horseplayers, in the form of betting vouchers, so they can bet on more favorites and aid purses at racetracks around the country."

Give me a break.

People that buy racehorses are entitled to make as much money as they can, when they can, because 99.9% of the time they lose their ass.

When you hit the BC Pick Six for $1,695,000 and move to the Caymans, you won't hear me say that you are not a sportsman because you don't gamble all your money back on TVG, betting on Matt Carothers marvelous selections.

I'll say, "Congratulations" and "Don't forget the sun screen."

[Cangamble]

I agree that if I owned Big Brown right now, I would be retiring him as soon as possible. If someone wants to offer the owners what they are getting from syndication to keep the horse racing........LET EM.

But I also think that the game needs to change. Don't allow a horse to stand as a stud until he reaches 6, or 5 at the very least.

[matthewsiv]

Yeah, but this thread is just an embarrassment....anyone who saw BB's first race knew class was his middle name....

You are 100% correct.

He has got better in every race.

[matthewsiv]

RanchWest is dead on.

Most of you guys work hard at handicapping to make a life-changing score.

Why disrespect Thoroughbred owners who make a life-changing score?

Would you decline a $50 million pick six payoff "for the good of the game"?

I can hear the quote now.

"I know that racetracks and horsemen make more money on churn, so, as a favor to the Thoroughbred industry, I am going to donate my $50 million pick six payoff to the horseplayers, in the form of betting vouchers, so they can bet on more favorites and aid purses at racetracks around the country."

Give me a break.

People that buy racehorses are entitled to make as much money as they can, when they can, because 99.9% of the time they lose their ass.

When you hit the BC Pick Six for $1,695,000 and move to the Caymans, you won't hear me say that you are not a sportsman because you don't gamble all your money back on TVG, betting on Matt Carothers marvelous selections.

I'll say, "Congratulations" and "Don't forget the sun screen."


You are absolutely right.

[jasperson]

I can understand rushing a derby winner into stud and get the big service fee, but I can't understand buyers. Derby winners are for the must part failures as studs and for the must part triple crown winners are also. They get the best mares and from them for the most part get average foals. Lets take the 2008 top money winner sires list for instance. The highest Derby winner is Fusaichi Pegasus a foal of 1997 with a service fee $45,000 and 170 racing foals They won 48 races and $1,394,097 at the time Blood stock published the list. He had 28% of his foals that won a race and the 170 foals average earnings was for $8,200 per foal. He stood 52nd on the list. Point Given a foal of 1998 was 27 on the list with 73 horses racing with 38% winners and a total earnings of $1,736,949 for neat $23,793 per racing horses and his service fee is $15,000. Which horse would you buy a foal from? If I was breeding a mare for a race horse I would breed to Point Given but the idiots will pay more for a Fusaichi Pegasus at the sale, because of the name. :confused:

[xfile]

Anyone who can say Big Brown has no class or to even judge his class at this point does not know the meaning of the word 'class' as it applies to thoroughbred racing. I've been around this game for over 30 years and I cannot remember a horse that totally dominated his Grade 1 opponents (peers) like BB does or has done so far. Can he beat the likes of an older horse like Curlin? An older horse like that? THAT would be a race I would pay just to watch. :cool: Hey, a new concept - pay per view horse racing. If we get a triple crown winner this year we might actually see a PPV. Who wouldn't pay to see a match race BIG BROWN vs CURLIN if BB wins the TC?

[xfile]

I can understand rushing a derby winner into stud and get the big service fee, but I can't understand buyers. Derby winners are for the must part failures as studs and for the must part triple crown winners are also. They get the best mares and from them for the most part get average foals. Lets take the 2008 top money winner sires list for instance. The highest Derby winner is Fusaichi Pegasus a foal of 1997 with a service fee $45,000 and 170 racing foals They won 48 races and $1,394,097 at the time Blood stock published the list. He had 28% of his foals that won a race and the 170 foals average earnings was for $8,200 per foal. He stood 52nd on the list. Point Given a foal of 1998 was 27 on the list with 73 horses racing with 38% winners and a total earnings of $1,736,949 for neat $23,793 per racing horses and his service fee is $15,000. Which horse would you buy a foal from? If I was breeding a mare for a race horse I would breed to Point Given but the idiots will pay more for a Fusaichi Pegasus at the sale, because of the name. :confused:

You are not taking into perspective "how" the recent triple crown, kentucky derby horses have been bred themselves. They are loving breeding to champion milers now-a-days nicked with a stamina mare hoping to get that speed and stamina result.

[PaceAdvantage]

I guess everyone forgot that Secretariat retired as a 3yo...never raced at 4....

And I personally believe that the Belmont Stakes (win or lose) won't be the last race for BB.

[Pace Cap'n]

I can recall Sports Illlustrated ragging on the retirement of Big Red. At the time, that (early retirement) apparently was just coming into vogue, and Secretariat was certainly the biggest name and for the most money to date. It was recognized at the time as being a detriment to the game.

[jasperson]

You are not taking into perspective "how" the recent triple crown, kentucky derby horses have been bred themselves. They are loving breeding to champion milers now-a-days nicked with a stamina mare hoping to get that speed and stamina result.
I am not really up to speed on the tb's but in harness horses the reverse is true.
The best cross is from a mare with a high flight of speed crossed to a stallion that was a grinder or as we say a horse with a motor that wouldn't give in. I am a believer in the mare for the most part. You can say I believe in the materal line more than the sire line. The sires sell and mare produce.
Jack

[David-LV]

I can recall Sports Illlustrated ragging on the retirement of Big Red. At the time, that (early retirement) apparently was just coming into vogue, and Secretariat was certainly the biggest name and for the most money to date. It was recognized at the time as being a detriment to the game.


Then the question is, is the game better off today then it was before the retirement of Big Red ?

In my opinion, I say NO and Sports Illustrated seem to have forcasted the future of horse racing.

Remember the movie Wall Street, is greed really that great.

________
David

[bigmack]

I can recall Sports Illlustrated ragging on the retirement of Big Red. At the time, that (early retirement) apparently was just coming into vogue, and Secretariat was certainly the biggest name and for the most money to date. It was recognized at the time as being a detriment to the game.
Hate to ask PC'n, could you dredge up a link to that effect. I'd love to read it.

[Semipro]

Anyone who can say Big Brown has no class or to even judge his class at this point does not know the meaning of the word 'class' as it applies to thoroughbred racing. I've been around this game for over 30 years and I cannot remember a horse that totally dominated his Grade 1 opponents (peers) like BB does or has done so far. Can he beat the likes of an older horse like Curlin? An older horse like that? THAT would be a race I would pay just to watch. :cool: Hey, a new concept - pay per view horse racing. If we get a triple crown winner this year we might actually see a PPV. Who wouldn't pay to see a match race BIG BROWN vs CURLIN if BB wins the TC?grand idea:ThmbUp:

[Pace Cap'n]

Hate to ask PC'n, could you dredge up a link to that effect. I'd love to read it.

I was just going off of recollection, I'll try to look for it, time permitting.

[csperberg]

Was it this article? http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1087969/index.htm

[ranchwest]

When the Breeders Cup Classic has a $100 million purse, there won't be many retiring horses.

People don't spend $50 million on a racehorse so they can live on the edge.

[Kelso]

But I also think that the game needs to change. Don't allow a horse to stand as a stud until he reaches 6, or 5 at the very least.THAT's the ticket! Change the market to make it work in the long-term best interest of the industry ... and of the fans.

Phase in a prohibition on runners in graded stakes, either of whose parents was less than a minimum age at cover.

[ranchwest]

THAT's the ticket! Change the market to make it work in the long-term best interest of the industry ... and of the fans.

Phase in a prohibition on runners in graded stakes, either of whose parents was less than a minimum age at cover.

Yeah, don't let horses run outside of the state where the sire stands, make the owners wear the silks in the winners circle, create handicap races based on which sire went to stud oldest, put jello in a pool and let the horse celebrate in it.

Can we get any sillier?

[Kelso]

Yeah, don't let horses run outside of the state where the sire stands, make the owners wear the silks in the winners circle, create handicap races based on which sire went to stud oldest, put jello in a pool and let the horse celebrate in it.Only if we don't stop the horsemen from putting the bucks before the horses. (You understand what that's all about, don't you?)

[raybo]

Yeah, but this thread is just an embarrassment....anyone who saw BB's first race knew class was his middle name....

Thank you! Anyone who has been watching this triple crown saga and doesn't see a load of class in BB must have blinders on, incorrectly, totally obscuring what's in front of them.

[raybo]

We can get into what true class really means, I guess. IMO, class is the ability to endure whatever pace is presented and still win, BB. And then there's the "heart" portion of class, meaning a horse that refuses to lose and will die trying to win, Eight Belles.

[David-LV]

I think this article hits the nail on the head when we talk about great horses.

________
David

Compliments of Eric crawford

Big Brown Is Not In Legends' Class Just Yet


May 19, 2008


Yesterday morning on the Pimlico backside, horse racing heresy was everywhere.
The name of Big Brown -- Saturday's Preakness winner who's now just a Belmont victory away from ending the 30-year Triple Crown drought -- was being thrown around with the likes of Secretariat, Affirmed and Seattle Slew.

Trainer Rick Dutrow said Big Brown will be "in the same breath" with those stars if he wins the Belmont on June 7.

Maybe. But he won't yet be in the same league.

Before we rush this colt to immortality, let's get something straight. Big Brown is a fantastic colt. A Triple Crown will make him part of history, but he'd still have some work to do if he wants to match the résumés of the three most-recent Triple Crown winners.

To ask an oft-posed sports question: Who has he beaten?

Nobody. There wasn't another Grade I stakes winner in the Preakness. The Kentucky Derby field proved so mild that 17 of Big Brown's challengers stayed home for the Preakness, and the one who didn't -- Arkansas Derby winner Gayego -- finished second to last.

This colt has been whipping up on an equine Conference USA. Can we equate Dutrow with John Calipari? Is Big Brown the Memphis Tigers of horse racing? And can he make free throws?

Big Brown has never been pressured in the stretch. Maybe he won't be in the Belmont. Dutrow said yesterday he's happy not to have a challenger like Sham was to Secretariat or Alydar to Affirmed. That might be fine for the purposes of winning, but eventually, Big Brown needs to face some big boys. Because he's so lightly raced and his opposition so lightly regarded, he'll need to beat older horses, Curlin in particular.

That hasn't stopped horse racing folks from talking about Big Brown in the most hallowed of terms -- comparing him to Secretariat, who won the Belmont by a record 31 lengths in maybe racing's most memorable performance.

"It looks like Big Brown might win the Belmont farther than Secretariat," said Paddy Gallagher, trainer of 10th-place Preakness finisher Yankee Bravo.

Before the hype starts piling up any higher, let's take a quick moment to remember.

Among the horses Secretariat beat to win the 1973 Kentucky Derby was Forego, who went on to be a three-time Horse of the Year winner and a Hall of Famer, even if he wasn't a great 3-year-old.

Secretariat also ran the fastest Derby ever (1:59 2/5) and beat a challenger (Sham) who also finished in less than two minutes. After the Derby, he continued to break records and beat 1972 Derby and Belmont winner Riva Ridge, also a Hall of Famer.

Seattle Slew didn't face a particularly top-notch crop to win his 1977 Triple Crown but went on to become champion older horse as a 4-year-old and beat the great Affirmed, as well as Hall of Famer Exceller.

Affirmed had to beat future Hall of Famer Alydar in all of his 1978 Triple Crown races and handed Spectacular Bid the last defeat of his great career in 1979.

Affirmed won 22 races, Seattle Slew 14, Secretariat 16. Maybe, at this point, the 5-for-5 Big Brown is close to where those were. But we likely won't ever know. After having his stallion rights sold for a reported $50 million, Big Brown probably has three races left, at most.

Without question, Big Brown could be the greatest of his time. But forgive me if I can't lump him with the greats of all time until he beats someone of his own stature.

[KingChas]

This year seems to have come down to a pissing match of people worried
that BB will be compared to Big Red should he win the TC.

I don't think any horse will ever tarnish Big Red's legacy.

I am sure the generation that watched Citation felt the same way when Secretariat came along.And to be honest I don't think Big Red tarnished Citation's legacy.

The problem is most of us lifetime cappers/fans are a little older (see studies)
and actually saw the 1973 TC. (77,78)

What people and writers are dissmissing is the fact if Big Brown wins the TC,
to the younger fans and our children this will be the greatest horse they have ever seen in their lifes.Follow me?

Like it or not that is the way it will be.
Get over it.

I know being on a forum we are much more hardcore in our outlooks,but look at this through the eyes of a younger /newer racing fan.

I am looking at this from a fans point of view not as a handicapper.
That's life. ;) And all this could be mute come June anyway. :D

[jma]

THAT's the ticket! Change the market to make it work in the long-term best interest of the industry ... and of the fans.

Phase in a prohibition on runners in graded stakes, either of whose parents was less than a minimum age at cover.

Of course out of fear of a horse breaking down or damaging its reputation by losing versus older horses, the owners would simply retire the horse at 3 anyway and have it sit in a field until age 6, when its stud career could begin. So, this isn't really a good solution. Or are you going to demand the owners race their horses a certain number of times each year as well?

[xfile]

I am not really up to speed on the tb's but in harness horses the reverse is true.
The best cross is from a mare with a high flight of speed crossed to a stallion that was a grinder or as we say a horse with a motor that wouldn't give in. I am a believer in the mare for the most part. You can say I believe in the materal line more than the sire line. The sires sell and mare produce.
Jack

I used to breed standbreds and yes it's truly a different ballgame than t-breds. Remember, the s-breds all run one mile while the t-breds run anywhere from 5/8ths to 10 furlongs and sometimes longer. :cool:

[ranchwest]

Only if we don't stop the horsemen from putting the bucks before the horses. (You understand what that's all about, don't you?)

Yeah, it's called investment.

[matthewsiv]

Only if we don't stop the horsemen from putting the bucks before the horses. (You understand what that's all about, don't you?)

You really do not like horsemann?

[matthewsiv]

I guess everyone forgot that Secretariat retired as a 3yo...never raced at 4....

And I personally believe that the Belmont Stakes (win or lose) won't be the last race for BB.

I hope that you are right.

It would be great to see a race with both Big Brown and Curlin in it.

This would decide how good Big Brown is.

I believe that this year's 3 year old colts are not as good as previous years,but this does not mean that Big Brown is still not the real deal.

:cool:

[razzle]

Was it this article? http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1087969/index.htm
csperberg,
Whether that was the intended article or not (I haven't finished this thread yet), it was well worth the read! Thank you. Riva Ridge and Secretariat were foaled in the liberating spring of '69 as I was mustering out of the Army. Written with a style that shames anything I've seen in racing in many years (save posts by Tim Sullivan elsewhere), that article brought back a lot of fond memories.
raz

[Kelso]

Of course out of fear of a horse breaking down or damaging its reputation by losing versus older horses, the owners would simply retire the horse at 3 anyway and have it sit in a field until age 6, when its stud career could begin. So, this isn't really a good solution. Or are you going to demand the owners race their horses a certain number of times each year as well?Certainly, retirement at 3 would happen. I don't think it would be common, however ... and I expect that even future TC winners would be entered to run for the million+ $ purses that are already out there. Some might not but, I think, most would.

Some owners will run their older stars and will see them break down ... often due to genetic flaws that wil thenl not be passed on. Others will see their stars mature splendidly at 4 and 5 ... set stakes, track, distance and earnings records ... earn their stall and board many times over ... and then command higher prices at stud than even the TC early-outs will.

It will be a business decision in each instance, just as it is now. Some business decisions will be wise, others not so ... again, just as now.

The objective is (or should be) to incentivize longevity ... for the good of the industry but, of much greater importance, for the good of the breed.

(And no, I would not require owners to run their horses in a minimum number of races. Wherever did you get that dumb idea? :eek: )

[46zilzal]

csperberg,
Riva Ridge and Secretariat were foaled in the liberating spring of '69 as I was mustering out of the Army.
Since these were born in consecutive years, that is a little hard to accept.

[Kelso]

Yeah, it's called investment.So "putting the bucks before the horses" is something you consider an "investment," hey Raybo? Interesting.

Somehow or other, I just KNEW you'd understand a concept as "silly" ... and selfish ... as valuing dollars more than horses, Raybo. Yup, somehow I just KNEW it.

(Say ... you aren't onw of those selfish "horsman" fellas, are ya? :eek: )

[Kelso]

You really do not like horsemann?You conldn't be more wrong. As I was pleased to affirm in another thread, I greatly admire horsemen for their commitment to improving the breed and for their ability earn a respectable buck from an interest we share.

Sadly, not all horsemen fit those characteristics. (In fact, the more I read this board, the more evident the failures become and the more numerous they seem to be. :eek: )

So I look with scorn, derision and disdain upon greedy, selfish horsemen. (You understand that, too, don't you?)

[razzle]

Since these were born in consecutive years, that is a little hard to accept.
How very clumsy of me, 46zilzal. Yes, one conceived, one foaled in that year, '69. A glaring error, how fortunate you spotted it. Keep up the good work.
raz

[PaceAdvantage]

Among the horses Secretariat beat to win the 1973 Kentucky Derby was Forego, who went on to be a three-time Horse of the Year winner and a Hall of Famer, even if he wasn't a great 3-year-old.Oh man, come on now....you can NOT gloss over that last part....Saying that Secretariat ran against Forego and bragging about it is like saying your horse ran against Cigar on turf....

Secretariat also ran the fastest Derby ever (1:59 2/5) and beat a challenger (Sham) who also finished in less than two minutes. After the Derby, he continued to break records and beat 1972 Derby and Belmont winner Riva Ridge, also a Hall of Famer.BB came within a whisker of breaking the GP record at 9 panels.

Seattle Slew didn't face a particularly top-notch crop to win his 1977 Triple Crown but went on to become champion older horse as a 4-year-old and beat the great Affirmed, as well as Hall of Famer Exceller.BB has no shot at racing at 4, so this comparison is a bit moot.

Affirmed had to beat future Hall of Famer Alydar in all of his 1978 Triple Crown races and handed Spectacular Bid the last defeat of his great career in 1979.Affirmed could be the most underrated horse of all time. If that's possible.

[ranchwest]

So "putting the bucks before the horses" is something you consider an "investment," hey Raybo? Interesting.

Somehow or other, I just KNEW you'd understand a concept as "silly" ... and selfish ... as valuing dollars more than horses, Raybo. Yup, somehow I just KNEW it.

(Say ... you aren't onw of those selfish "horsman" fellas, are ya? :eek: )

Well, first off it would be good if you could figure out my name.

Second, horse racing is a business. The object is to make a profit. So, yes, dollars over horses if the assumption is that this includes proper maintenance of the horse.

When you bet on horses, how do you measure your success?

[matthewsiv]

You conldn't be more wrong. As I was pleased to affirm in another thread, I greatly admire horsemen for their commitment to improving the breed and for their ability earn a respectable buck from an interest we share.

Sadly, not all horsemen fit those characteristics. (In fact, the more I read this board, the more evident the failures become and the more numerous they seem to be. :eek: )

So I look with scorn, derision and disdain upon greedy, selfish horsemen. (You understand that, too, don't you?)

Horseman Hater.

Please explain.

I love pulling your chain!
:D

[Kelso]

Well, first off it would be good if you could figure out my name.First off, my sincere apology to Raybo for taking his name in vain.
Following that, my sincere apology to you for paying more attention to your comments than to your name.


Second, horse racing is a business. The object is to make a profit. So, yes, dollars over horses if the assumption is that this includes proper maintenance of the horse.Our exchange began when you responded to my endorsement of a 5 or 6 year old breeding minimum (to qualify for registration) with a series of flippant suggestions for other changes to the game, ending with the question "can we get any sillier."

I am pleased to reiterate my reply to your question: (Things could be sillier) "only if we don't stop the horsemen from putting the bucks before the horses."

In other words, not protecting the horses from irresponsible owners who value profit above their animals' welfare would be a lot "sillier" ... indeed, more intolerably cruel ... than even your sophomoric ruminations. I closed by asking if you understood what that (bucks ahead of horses) meant.

To my shock and dismay, I then read your second response ... to wit: (Putting bucks ahead of horses is) "called investment." You did not affirm, assume or even imply anything, in your statement, about "proper maintenance of the horse."

It is most gratifying to know that you now concede the civil superiority of my position on the issue. For that awakening, I offer you my sincere congratulations. :jump: (No need to thank me.)

When you bet on horses, how do you measure your success?I measure my success in objective dollars and subjective pleasure. My degree of enjoyment plummets when I see a horse injured, particularly if the injury is a consequence of IRRESPONSIBLE BREEDERS meeting the demands of EQUALLY IRRESPONSIBLE OWNERS.

[Kelso]

I love pulling your chain! :DUh, I don't swing that way, Mattie. Maybe you should try Golden Gate Fields for that kind of action? :D :D

[ranchwest]

First off, my sincere apology to Raybo for taking his name in vain.
Following that, my sincere apology to you for paying more attention to your comments than to your name.


Our exchange began when you responded to my endorsement of a 5 or 6 year old breeding minimum (to qualify for registration) with a series of flippant suggestions for other changes to the game, ending with the question "can we get any sillier."

I am pleased to reiterate my reply to your question: (Things could be sillier) "only if we don't stop the horsemen from putting the bucks before the horses."

In other words, not protecting the horses from irresponsible owners who value profit above their animals' welfare would be a lot "sillier" ... indeed, more intolerably cruel ... than even your sophomoric ruminations. I closed by asking if you understood what that (bucks ahead of horses) meant.

To my shock and dismay, I then read your second response ... to wit: (Putting bucks ahead of horses is) "called investment." You did not affirm, assume or even imply anything, in your statement, about "proper maintenance of the horse."

It is most gratifying to know that you now concede the civil superiority of my position on the issue. For that awakening, I offer you my sincere congratulations. :jump: (No need to thank me.)

I measure my success in objective dollars and subjective pleasure. My degree of enjoyment plummets when I see a horse injured, particularly if the injury is a consequence of IRRESPONSIBLE BREEDERS meeting the demands of EQUALLY IRRESPONSIBLE OWNERS.

From what I've seen, horse owners measure their success in objective dollars and subjective pleasure, too. I suspect that when they put up $50 million, the objective dollars start outweighing the subjective pleasure by a considerable margin. Have you ever bet $50 million? I doubt you have, but if you did, how did you feel about it? Were you gushing with subjective pleasure?

For you to continue to support the position that horsemen should have to abide by unreasonable rules to satisfy your wishes instead of their own judgement is still silly. Horsemen should be able to do almost anything they want with their own horses as long as they aren't abusing the horse or fixing races. I'm sure there are a few other reasonable requirements, but, hey, it's been a long day.

At no time did I suggest that horses should be abused, so don't try to claim that my omission suggested, implied or inferred anything of that nature.

Horses are retired because there is more money in speculation than there is in purse money. As long as that is true, horses will be retired. And that is how it should be.

[Kelso]

I suspect that when they put up $50 million, the objective dollars start outweighing the subjective pleasure by a considerable margin. Have you ever bet $50 million?So what?

Encouraging more durability-demonstrated breeding should produce fewer breakdown-prone horses. The objective of my suggestion is improving the breed. All you want to discuss is maintaining your bottom line. (Typical, Ranchwest. Typical.)


For you to continue to support the position that horsemen should have to abide by unreasonable rules to satisfy your wishes instead of their own judgement is still silly.Sure is ... which is why I have taken no such position.

I believe that the issue I support ... increasing the mating/registration age ... will improve the racing industry by improving the thoroughbred gene pool. If that makes it less profitable for you to own racehorses ... that's just too damned bad. Get a job!

Your comment is laden with horseman's hubris ... the attitude that ONLY HORSEMEN REALLY MATTER IN THE RACING INDUSTRY. Horsemen, despite their desperate denials, are but one part of that industry ... and they aren't even the part that pays the bills.


Horsemen should be able to do almost anything they want with their own horses as long as they aren't abusing the horse or fixing races.Only half-correct, RW. So long as you guys stamp your feet, hold your breath and whine to be supported by pari-nutuel pools ... you don't make the rules.

What you want to lawfully do is, indeed, your business. I wouldn't have it any other way.

But when you freely elect to put your horses into the gambling industry, you must play by rules intended to protect and benefit that entire industry; not just to ensure that you make any profit at all from it. If the industry makes rules intended to improve the fitness of the animals it uses, then those rules are proper.

If you don't like the rules, fiind someplace else to race your horses ... and some other way to get your business subsidized.


At no time did I suggest that horses should be abused, so don't try to claim that my omission suggested, implied or inferred anything of that nature.Your glaring omission spoke for itself, Ranchwest. I didn't have to claim a thing ... so I didn't.

[ranchwest]

My omission didn't prove a damned thing because there was nothing there but a figment of your imagination.

FYI, I don't own horses. Never have. Probably never will. It's a long story that I don't really care to get into, but my handle has nothing to do with horse racing. I first rode a thoroughbred when I was 2, but that's another story, too.

You need to start buying these horses at $50 million a pop so you can save them from the stud farm.

[Kelso]

You need to start buying these horses at $50 million a pop so you can save them from the stud farm.You need to stop whining for players and thoroughbreds to cover the tab for greedy horsmen. Don't know as it's possible for someone as myopic as you to do so ... but it's still what you need. (And your glaring omission still speaks for itself ... volumes, with no imagination required.)

[Greyfox]

I first rode a thoroughbred when I was 2, but that's another story, too.



And you can clearly remember it too. Very precocious indeed.
I'm told, but I don't remember it, that I rode a rocking horse well at 2. ;)

[riskman]

Well, first off it would be good if you could figure out my name.

Second, horse racing is a business. The object is to make a profit. So, yes, dollars over horses if the assumption is that this includes proper maintenance of the horse.

When you bet on horses, how do you measure your success?


You understand that, too, don't you?(Kelso) ;) :ThmbUp:

[ranchwest]

And you can clearly remember it too. Very precocious indeed.
I'm told, but I don't remember it, that I rode a rocking horse well at 2. ;)

Photos don't lie.

[ranchwest]

You need to stop whining for players and thoroughbreds to cover the tab for greedy horsmen. Don't know as it's possible for someone as myopic as you to do so ... but it's still what you need. (And your glaring omission still speaks for itself ... volumes, with no imagination required.)

If you repeat a lie enough, the only thing that happens is that everyone realizes that you're telling a lie.

[Kelso]

You understand that, too, don't you?(Kelso) ;) :ThmbUp:Yup. Both of RW's points are so simple that even I can get 'em. (The most basic emotions ... such as pride and greed, for example ... are easily recognized and understood. Wouldn't your agree?)

[Kelso]

If you repeat a lie enough, the only thing that happens is that everyone realizes that you're telling a lie."Lie?" A "lie?" Now why ever would you interject so impertinent a concept as a "lie" to our debate, Ranchwest?

Are you referring to any "lie" in particular?

If so, what "lie" would that be, exactly?

(That means exact quotes only, if you please. Be very specific. Paraphrases have a nasty way of kicking back on the paraphraser ... can make him look shifty, manipulative, untrustworthy 'n all. I surely wouldn't want that to happen to a nice fella such as yoursellf, RW.)

[ranchwest]

Here's what you said.

You did not affirm, assume or even imply anything, in your statement, about "proper maintenance of the horse."


Here's what I said.

So, yes, dollars over horses if the assumption is that this includes proper maintenance of the horse.

So, not only did you tell a lie, you told a bold faced lie and you stood by it.

[rastajenk]

This has been an amusing back-and-forth, but if I were the ref in the ring, I'd stop it so that the mighty Kelso doesn't suffer permanent damage. :cool:

[Greyfox]

Photos don't lie.

Photo's can lie, but I'll assume this one doesn't.
Would you please post that photo on this message board, and let us observe you actually "riding" a thoroughbred at age 2.
(We're not just talking about a 2 year old sitting on a horse for a photo op with his parents on both sides to prevent a fall.)

[46zilzal]

I was in the saddle at 3 1/2.

[Greyfox]

I was in the saddle at 3 1/2.

http://www.woodentoystore.co.uk/images/59111_baby%20rocking%20horse.jpg

Undoubtedly you were. And a dang good rider too.
Now. Back to Big Brown's class. Two Triple crown wins gives him more class than 99.9 % horses will ever have.

[46zilzal]

No, up on a real Equs callibus.

[ranchwest]

Photo's can lie, but I'll assume this one doesn't.
Would you please post that photo on this message board, and let us observe you actually "riding" a thoroughbred at age 2.
(We're not just talking about a 2 year old sitting on a horse for a photo op with his parents on both sides to prevent a fall.)

There's no date on the pictures, so I don't know exactly how old I was. I'm obviously younger than you might expect, but I don't know exactly. I've got several pictures -- one with me completely alone, one with my uncle standing near me, one with my uncle holding the reins from a distance. The third one is already scanned in, but on a different computer. I'll try to get it and post it.

[ranchwest]

Photo's can lie, but I'll assume this one doesn't.
Would you please post that photo on this message board, and let us observe you actually "riding" a thoroughbred at age 2.
(We're not just talking about a 2 year old sitting on a horse for a photo op with his parents on both sides to prevent a fall.)

Here's the picture. I don't have any way of knowing how old I was. My recollection from that time is very vague -- nothing to suggest my age. In looking more carefully at the picture, my guess is that I was probably more like 4 in the picture, though I don't know whether I had ridden the horse before that or not.

Of course, now, I've got to admit that I was told that old Tex was 26 at the time, so it isn't like he was likely to break out into a gallop. lol

[Greyfox]

:ThmbUp: Thanks. We believe you. You're on it for sure.

[Marshall Bennett]

Looks like a picture from the winner's circle at Sam Houston . :D

[Kelso]

Here's what you said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelso
You did not affirm, assume or even imply anything, in your statement, about "proper maintenance of the horse."



Here's what I said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ranchwest
So, yes, dollars over horses if the assumption is that this includes proper maintenance of the horse.


So, not only did you tell a lie, you told a bold faced lie and you stood by it.Not so fast, horseman. :liar:


You deviously, but futilely, omit these embarrassing FACTS:

- my charge, above, was made in reference to your FIRST statement ... the one in which YOU SAID that it is "called investment" (your precise and complete statement) in response to my advisory regarding greedy horsemen who put "bucks ahead of horses."

- your lame, cover-your-ass response, also above, was your SECOND statement! (But you knew that, already ... didn't you?) :liar:

Shameful, Ranchwest .... utterly and irredeemably shameful.

But, by all means, keep digging yourself deeper. Show us what talking straight and dealing honestly with people really means to horsemen such as yourself. :liar:

I'm not the brightest bulb in the string, but I'm no track manager, either. Your disgraceful ... and pitiably feeble ... attempt at guile is wasted here, Ranchwest.

Henceforth, while your FIRST statement continues to speak for itself, RW, your abysmally unsuccessful cover-up (rhymes with LIE), above, will go far in confirmation.

Yup, shameful.

[Kelso]

This has been an amusing back-and-forth, but if I were the ref in the ring, I'd stop it so that the mighty Kelso doesn't suffer permanent damage. :cool:Go back and re-read the program, Rastajenk. Ya missed something. :eek:

[ranchwest]

Not so fast, horseman. :liar:


You deviously, but futilely, omit these embarrassing FACTS:

- my charge, above, was made in reference to your FIRST statement ... the one in which YOU SAID that it is "called investment" (your precise and complete statement) in response to my advisory regarding greedy horsemen who put "bucks ahead of horses."

- your lame, cover-your-ass response, also above, was your SECOND statement! (But you knew that, already ... didn't you?) :liar:

Shameful, Ranchwest .... utterly and irredeemably shameful.

But, by all means, keep digging yourself deeper. Show us what talking straight and dealing honestly with people really means to horsemen such as yourself. :liar:

I'm not the brightest bulb in the string, but I'm no track manager, either. Your disgraceful ... and pitiably feeble ... attempt at guile is wasted here, Ranchwest.

Henceforth, while your FIRST statement continues to speak for itself, RW, your abysmally unsuccessful cover-up (rhymes with LIE), above, will go far in confirmation.

Yup, shameful.

My post was #64. Your post was #66.

Why would you be replying to my previous post when both of my posts came prior to yours. The only reason would be to be devious.

Busted!

[ranchwest]

Not so fast, horseman. :liar:


You deviously, but futilely, omit these embarrassing FACTS:

- my charge, above, was made in reference to your FIRST statement ... the one in which YOU SAID that it is "called investment" (your precise and complete statement) in response to my advisory regarding greedy horsemen who put "bucks ahead of horses."

- your lame, cover-your-ass response, also above, was your SECOND statement! (But you knew that, already ... didn't you?) :liar:

Shameful, Ranchwest .... utterly and irredeemably shameful.

But, by all means, keep digging yourself deeper. Show us what talking straight and dealing honestly with people really means to horsemen such as yourself. :liar:

I'm not the brightest bulb in the string, but I'm no track manager, either. Your disgraceful ... and pitiably feeble ... attempt at guile is wasted here, Ranchwest.

Henceforth, while your FIRST statement continues to speak for itself, RW, your abysmally unsuccessful cover-up (rhymes with LIE), above, will go far in confirmation.

Yup, shameful.

And, once again, I'm not a horseman. To call me a horseman is a lie.

I hope you don't post any more because it is getting embarrassing having to call you out on all of your inaccuracies and devious posts.