Who will retire first?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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]

Originally Posted by the little guy

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]

Originally Posted by the little guy

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]

Originally Posted by the little guy

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

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]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

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.


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]

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.

Such a great book.

Good point as well:-)

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by 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

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.