Randy Moss: Don't Let Em Go To Stud Until 5

[Horseplayersbet.com]

http://mossblog.typepad.com/randy-moss-blog/2009/10/us-wont-see-the-star.html

I wonder where he got that idea from ;)
http://cangamble.blogspot.com/2008/05/how-to-fix-breeding-and-help-horse.html

Actually, my idea was that they don't enter stud until 6.

[bisket]

this is an excellant idea. it would seperate the contenders from the pretenders without a doubt. although lots of mares and racehorses are truly ready for the farm in their 4 year old year. i couldn't help but notice that curlin looked more and more like a stallion 1/2 way through his 4 year old year.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

What does this have to do with 99% of racing? This has nothing to do with helping racing survive. Does a person go to Turf Paradise on a Monday because Sea The Stars will race next year?

If you owned a horse and was offered $25 million for it, you should be able to sell it because racing it at 4 and 5 can only hurt its value and cost you a fortune in insurance.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

What does this have to do with 99% of racing? This has nothing to do with helping racing survive. Does a person go to Turf Paradise on a Monday because Sea The Stars will race next year?

If you owned a horse and was offered $25 million for it, you should be able to sell it because racing it at 4 and 5 can only hurt its value and cost you a fortune in insurance.
The argument is that if horses lasted longer the general public would become familiar with them and follow their careers.

From the breeding aspect, the horses able to hold their form the longest would become more valuable, and this would also cause the breed to become more sturdier as well.

If a horse hurts itself at a young age, probability is that its offspring will be prone to do the same, unless it was a freak injury of course.

[lamboguy]

horses are only worth what they can win. because of steroids they had been selling for what they can win and what the residual value could be. that game is now over. insurance company's should not insure race horses for $20 million dollars, they are just not worth that much in the real world.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

The argument is that if horses lasted longer the general public would become familiar with them and follow their careers.

I understand that. What does this have to do with helping 99% of racing?

From the breeding aspect, the horses able to hold their form the longest would become more valuable, and this would also cause the breed to become more sturdier as well.

You state this as if it's fact.

There are plenty of stallions that did not race a lot who throw plenty of sturdy horses and plenty of sturdy stallions that throw plenty of lame horses.

Also, If you asked 100 breeders or owners which they would rather breed to or own, the vast majority would pick a talented freak over a sturdy multi-year performer. So obviously the value rising due to longevity is a myth.

If a horse hurts itself at a young age, probability is that its offspring will be prone to do the same, unless it was a freak injury of course.

What is a freak injury....not on the racetrack? So a Barbaro-Eight Belles baby would have been a cripple or only some breakdowns are freak injuries? They should give away a Pioneer of the Nile-Mi Sueno baby away for free?

[Steve R]

The argument is that if horses lasted longer the general public would become familiar with them and follow their careers.
Not in a million years. The general public has little or no attraction to horses and even less to horse racing as a sport. Most people don't even know what they are looking at during a race. Ask 10 people on the street to tell you something about John Henry and you would be lucky to find one who knew who he was. He raced long enough, didn't he?

From the breeding aspect, the horses able to hold their form the longest would become more valuable, and this would also cause the breed to become more sturdier as well.
Brilliance and pedigree trump longevity. Always have. Always will. Curlin could have raced at his established level and been HOtY four years in a row and he still wouldn't have generated the excitement or been as valuable as Sea The Stars.

If a horse hurts itself at a young age, probability is that its offspring will be prone to do the same, unless it was a freak injury of course.
Raise a Native is one of the better arguments against this. Went 4 for 4 and bowed a tendon. There is no question that he is one of the two most influential sires of the last 50 years, and despite the belief by many that his descendants are more unsound than runners from other lines, some simple research will show that it is absolutely untrue.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I'm all into evidence. But cherry picking the few that hurt themselves and became great sires doesn't cut it with me.

Horses used to run a lot more back in the 60's and 70's. I guess we can blame drugs like lasix and other drugs as well, but I think we can blame breeding.

Face it, horses are bred to be superstars at 2 and 3. This is selective breeding, and it has to hurt horse's longevity overall.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

I'm all into evidence.

I'm into evidence too. You presented none with your statements.

Horses used to run a lot more back in the 60's and 70's. I guess we can blame drugs like lasix and other drugs as well, but I think we can blame breeding.

At least you said "think" on this one.

Back in the 60's/70's for the most part, horses were slower, competition was not as deep, closers were good horses etc. which helped horses to be able to run more.

Today you have mid-level claimers that if they race good can hang a 100+ Beyer or set a track record. Basically today, your horse needs to be 100% or you probably have no chance. That just didn't happen back then especially with the regularity it does today.

Barry Abrams races his horses like they did back in the very old days and people think he's a butcher. How many top trainers today would race Barry's horses 1/2 as much as he does even though obviously they have shown they can race that much? None would be my guess. Does that make breeding the culprit for less starts?

Maybe it's trainers, competition, having to exert 100% effort to be effective, having to show brilliant speed at some point in every race, the ability to find soft spots for big money, etc. which have caused a reduction in starts. But maybe it's just easier for some to blame it all on breeding.

Face it, horses are bred to be superstars at 2 and 3. This is selective breeding, and it has to hurt horse's longevity overall.
Nobody is arguing that horses are bred to be superstars at 2 or 3. You seem to not understand that it might be a human fault that causes horses to lose their longevity. If they would have stopped with Big Brown when he got the quarter cracks and given him 6 months off, would he be racing today if they wanted to keep him racing till he was 6.....of course he probably would if the humans did what was needed to keep him racing.

With the big money at 2 and 3 and 90% of the people involved with the best bred animals pressing them to be freaks at 2 and 3, are you really sure it's the breeding?

[macdiarmida]

Originally posted by Horseplayersbet.com
But cherry picking the few that hurt themselves and became great sires doesn't cut it with me.You and I have have no say in the matter. Unless maybe you're one of the guys spending multimillions on yearlings and unraced 2yos. And those buyers aren't trying to recover their investment (or gamble) by racing -- the purpose is to cash in by turning their horse into a sire.

I guess we can blame drugs like lasix and other drugs as well, but I think we can blame breeding.Get rid of all that crap and buyers would often be buying the get from altogether different sires. Probably not going to happen.

Face it, horses are bred to be superstars at 2 and 3. This is selective breeding, and it has to hurt horse's longevity overall.This has been pretty much been true in the past when horses had many more average starts. See the Jockey Club site for numbers. The Triple Crown races and many of the other prestigious fixtures were and still are for 3yos. Was there ever a major stakes for 4yos up only, in, say, the top 50 stakes in purse money or prestige (= important to breeders)? IIRC, purses for European 4yos and up have been squat for a long time, unless a horse can run in Group races.

Again, it's moot because it's not your call unless you're the one spending the big bucks on babies.

[joanied]

First of all, why do folks keep saying "it's their horses and their money, they can do what they want"....DUH:bang: we all know that...but we can discuss all this, can't we?

I read Randy Moss's article...and it is good food for thought...something we have discussed here and there over time...and IMO, keeping horses racing as 4 and/or 5 yr olds is a good thing...for racing, period. That is an obvious conclusion.
Yeah, money talks...and good horses can make their owners millions in the breeding shed...but, IMO, two things are being over looked in keeping them racing as older horses...the possibility of injury, which is a real threat, and the other is, simply put, being chickenshit:eek: ...the fear that a very good horse will not hold form racing into his/her 4 yr old year...Jess Jackson took that chance keeping Curlin racing as a 4 year old (hats off to the man)...and now he's taking another chance by running Rachel A next year...there is a good possibility she'll get beat...but at least everyone will have the opportunity to find out... the owners are affraid if a good 3 year old races at 4, and doesn't hold form, his value as a stallion will decrease...and, IMO, maybe it should!
Now, with the economy in a mess, and stud fees being reduced, you'd think that might be a good incentive for our 3 yr olds to race another year...the thing is, what would they be running for? It seems to me, just off the top of my head, purses for handicap races have been going down...so even if an owner is tempted to keep a good 3 year old racing, as far as the financial end of it...why would he?
In order to possibly keep these horses in training as 4 year olds...there has to be incentive...and lots of it.
Why not reduce purses for 2 and 3 year olds (except for the 'Classics' & BC races) and increase, substantially, for the handicap races...also, and this is an idea that might not be popular, but why not change at least some of the handicap races to equal weight races...
I already think the 2 year old races have purses that are ridiculous...lower those purses and trainers/owners will still run...they'd have to, really...get that foundation into the youngsters...but a two yr old doesn't need to try earning 2 million $$...it's insane. If the older horse division could offer purses of a million dollars, I think that might be a reason for at least some owners/trainers to keep them going...
If I had some good mares on the farm, I would much rather breed them to a stallion that raced as a 4 yr old, and won a few...they don't have to be champions, just good solid race horses that can proove they have some stamina/fortitude/soundess to race as a 4 year old...and we all know a horse isn't mature until they are 4 and 5 years old...seems to me, a good 3 year old that is sound would do nothing short of good... racing as a mature horse...and once retired, would attract if not more mares, at least a better book fo mares. It's like a no brainer:faint: !!

The Whitney, the Woodward, the JCGC, the Brooklyn, the Suburban, and other races across the country for older horses...make them all a million dollar purse...or more...and we might see more horses stay in training.
One more little thing...we need more colts gelded:eek:

[Imriledup]

I agree with Moss.

Imo, there are too many 'sires' out there who are glorified allowance horses. Lets prove you're great to be a sire.

[bisket]

prior to the 1980's the handicap races were just as important as the triple crown races. the breeders cup changed that. trust me i wouldn't miss the cup much if it went away. the coolmore boys are behind this breeders cup deal with the english betting shop. they're finally starting to feel the heat from the economy. all i can say is i hope they all get knocked back. it would be good fore the game.

[castaway01]

I'm all into evidence. But cherry picking the few that hurt themselves and became great sires doesn't cut it with me.

Horses used to run a lot more back in the 60's and 70's. I guess we can blame drugs like lasix and other drugs as well, but I think we can blame breeding.

Face it, horses are bred to be superstars at 2 and 3. This is selective breeding, and it has to hurt horse's longevity overall.

What you're saying is true, but ITP crushed you as far as logic in this argument...besides what he already said, I'd add that I don't see how you can legally force an owner to keep running. I can't see that standing up in court. You might say no breeding, but they might be better off keeping a star 3-year-old in the barn rather than sending him out to get drubbed at age 4 if he loses his form.

Also, even if there suddenly was a change starting today where horses started to be bred for stamina and longevity, how many generations would it take for us to really notice a change---if it took 40 years to get where the breed is now, it is 2050 before we have a sturdy thoroughbred again? It's a very, very slow process that is far from scientific.

Realistically, the positive impact of keeping a superstar horse in training through age 5 would be limited to the specific track that was hosting the horse's race that day, and that's ONLY if the horse holds its form for a long time and keeps beating top competition, which happens very rarely. Otherwise you have something like with Funny Cide, where he runs and it's nice if he's at your track that day, but no one really cares.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

If it was agreed upon that horses couldn't enter stud until 5 in order to have a legal foal that is eligible to race, a law could easily be passed.

Try running a horse that doesn't have foal papers. If jurisdictions stated they are barring horses from running who were sired by a horse 4 years or younger, that would be the rule. It can also be put into every races conditions if anyone worries about lawsuits.

You can have state bred races, you can also have races where it stipulates all horses must be by horses aged 5 or great at the time of conception.

[Imriledup]

If it was agreed upon that horses couldn't enter stud until 5 in order to have a legal foal that is eligible to race, a law could easily be passed.

Try running a horse that doesn't have foal papers. If jurisdictions stated they are barring horses from running who were sired by a horse 4 years or younger, that would be the rule. It can also be put into every races conditions if anyone worries about lawsuits.

You can have state bred races, you can also have races where it stipulates all horses must be by horses aged 5 or great at the time of conception.

If race sec's would start writing that into the conditions, people would be less apt to breed to a stallion under 5.

Good points.

[Show Me the Wire]

I really do not see any economical benefit or horse soundness benefit to racing by prohibiting breeding before a certain age. Is there any empirical proof that sires who race longer produce sounder foals?

It is a closed bloodline what is in is in it.

[WinterTriangle]

I think it's a great idea not to go to stud til 5 or 6.............IF, and only IF, we stop racing 2 year olds.

[Show Me the Wire]

I really don't see the validity of the point. How is it going to economically benefit racing on the whole? Also, is there any emperical evidence that a sire that competes longer throws off sounder horses?

[Robert Goren]

prior to the 1980's the handicap races were just as important as the triple crown races. the breeders cup changed that. Handicap races stop being important long before the Breeders Cup started. It stopped when a horse could make more as an unproven stud than he could racing. Stakes racing is today (and has been since the 1970s) about making a name which can fetch a high stud fee. On a side note, when was last time a horse carried a 130 lbs in a major handicap? My guess is that it has been decades.