Corporate Horse Racing

[TiffaniO]

Originally Posted by Big Peps

makes zero sense. zero.

Last time I checked this is a forum to discuss horse racing, that is why we are here, stating that why do people spend time discussing trends in the game, etc. The owners are part of the game and IMO, worthy of discussion.

Do you really think this trend is good for racing? Nevermind, why waste time kicking that can down the road, clearly you are above it all.

I don't need to evaluate why I participate in the game but am "down" in discussing trends that I don't think lend itself to a great long term future. everything is unicorns and rainbows here

Just go ahead and spend your money while being miserable and have a fabulous day!

[Big Peps]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

It was a bad example, despite your opinion to the contrary. As noted, a group of friends owning their once-in-a-lifetime horse is far different than a group of business associate buying into and controlling large parts of a field.

A trophy used to be one of a kind, or maybe there would have to be an extra copy made for a partner. Now there are too many copies of trophies being made to count, and a guy can look like he's won as many Derbies as Calumet when he really bought in on a leg of each made horse.

But the worse problem is the concentration of top horses among few trainers. Let me repeat. Brown has 150 2-year-olds. By God, I hope he (one of his trainers, actually) can develop a good one or two from that group, and then he can bask in another Eclipse award, and get 200 2-year-olds next year.

well said.

That is crazy, 150?? WTF.

Be nice to see a few go elsewhere but to each his own, I guess.

150??? Do some of the owners ever even here how the horse is doing, other than equibase updates? DO they just wait for the horse to show up in the entries to figure out where they are running?

[Big Peps]

Originally Posted by TiffaniO

Just go ahead and spend your money while being miserable and have a fabulous day!

Miserable? Why because I would like to see some new faces in the winners circle on the big days. ( Owners and trainers)

Yes, that is the definition miserable. Weird

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by TiffaniO

Obviously you didn’t comprehend what I said...

I wasn’t comparing funny Cide to justify... I was pointing out the difference and to me, it doesn’t matter to me who owns the horse. Obviously you just like to argue.

As for Chad Brown have you complained personally to the Racing Commissions where he races? I’d guess not.

I, and most everyone else I would gather, understood exactly the point you were making with Funny Cide...

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by TiffaniO

What I don’t get is, why does it matter to any of us who owns the winner of the Derby? Or any other race? If the Funny Cide gang owns the horse or the owners of Justify own the horse, what difference does it make in your life and enjoyment of a horse race?

I would have to say I totally agree with this.

[TiffaniO]

Originally Posted by Big Peps

Miserable? Why because I would like to see some new faces in the winners circle on the big days. ( Owners and trainers)

Yes, that is the definition miserable. Weird

If you look back at the history of the Triple Crown you will realize that certain owners and trainers dominate for periods of time. Then they fizzle out and a new dominate trainer or owner comes along.

This is hardly a new trend. It goes back to the 1800s.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Big Peps

well said.

That is crazy, 150?? WTF.

Be nice to see a few go elsewhere but to each his own, I guess.

150??? Do some of the owners ever even here how the horse is doing, other than equibase updates? DO they just wait for the horse to show up in the entries to figure out where they are running?

First of all, I don't know where he gets the 150 number from. As someone pointed out to me about this, a huge portion of these horses would be on the farms and either will never race or aren't close to racing. Plus, again, I'd like to know where he got the 150 number from...

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

First of all, I don't know where he gets the 150 number from. As someone pointed out to me about this, a huge portion of these horses would be on the farms and either will never race or aren't close to racing. Plus, again, I'd like to know where he got the 150 number from...

From a trainer who is up there seeing them every day.

And what do you mean a huge portion would be on the farms, may never race, aren't close to racing, etc? That's true of everyone's 2yo crop, so how is that relevant? The point is that he has 150 2-year-olds, period. Other trainers may get in a dozen, maybe 2 dozen. 150 in a single crop is more than most trainers have in total. It's absurd.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by TiffaniO

If you look back at the history of the Triple Crown you will realize that certain owners and trainers dominate for periods of time. Then they fizzle out and a new dominate trainer or owner comes along.

This is hardly a new trend. It goes back to the 1800s.

Thanks, Tiff. I don't know what I'd do without you pointing out the obvious.

Again, this is a corporate feel, not single owners and their trainers who dominate. This has a cold feel, and a feel that isn't good for the sport.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

From a trainer who is up there seeing them every day.

And what do you mean a huge portion would be on the farms, may never race, aren't close to racing, etc? That's true of everyone's 2yo crop, so how is that relevant? The point is that he has 150 2-year-olds, period. Other trainers may get in a dozen, maybe 2 dozen. 150 in a single crop is more than most trainers have in total. It's absurd.

So what if he has 150? Do you want to penalize him because people desire his services?

As a bettor I couldn't care less who owns the horses. I just want full competitive fields.

[TiffaniO]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Thanks, Tiff. I don't know what I'd do without you pointing out the obvious.

Again, this is a corporate feel, not single owners and their trainers who dominate. This has a cold feel, and a feel that isn't good for the sport.

When are you hoping to be appointed to the Racing Commission since you obviously have the best interests of the sport in mind???

[TiffaniO]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Thanks, Tiff. I don't know what I'd do without you pointing out the obvious.

Again, this is a corporate feel, not single owners and their trainers who dominate. This has a cold feel, and a feel that isn't good for the sport.

Just remember Secretariat was syndicated before the Derby...he had numerous owners.

[SG4]

Originally Posted by AndyC

As a bettor I couldn't care less who owns the horses. I just want full competitive fields.

If you just care about full competitive fields then I would think this is definitely an issue you should care about. If certain owners & trainers are controlling a fair amount of the horse population, especially in certain divisions, that is most certainly affecting the competitiveness & field size of races. Chad Brown could probably fill up an entire gate for a F&M turf stake right now, and he's inching up with what seems to be 3 or 4 each race as it is now. If other trainers had some of his horses we'd probably see more in the entries as opposed to skipping races & pointing to the next one.

Now if one of the many partners involved owns like 20% of 6 different horses who could be pointing to a race, they might be a minority stake but I imagine they'll use some pull to not get all facing each other at once.

[TiffaniO]

Originally Posted by SG4

If you just care about full competitive fields then I would think this is definitely an issue you should care about. If certain owners & trainers are controlling a fair amount of the horse population, especially in certain divisions, that is most certainly affecting the competitiveness & field size of races. Chad Brown could probably fill up an entire gate for a F&M turf stake right now, and he's inching up with what seems to be 3 or 4 each race as it is now. If other trainers had some of his horses we'd probably see more in the entries as opposed to skipping races & pointing to the next one.

Now if one of the many partners involved owns like 20% of 6 different horses who could be pointing to a race, they might be a minority stake but I imagine they'll use some pull to not get all facing each other at once.

Quip is facing Justify... just sayin’

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by TiffaniO

Just remember Secretariat was syndicated before the Derby...he had numerous owners.

You really stated the above?

He was syndicated for stallion duty. He was owned in whole by Meadow Stable until he retired to stud.