Who will retire first?

[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]

Originally Posted by elhelmete

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


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]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Which is good for U.S. racing.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by clicknow

Which is good for U.S. racing.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by The_Turf_Monster

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]

Originally Posted by airford1

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. 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]

Originally Posted by burnsy

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. 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.