Don't you think they will send Rags to GC for free?

Curlin winning was probably worst case for 3yos returning next year. Street Sense and Hard Spun were already gone so it wouldn't have mattered if they won. By Curlin winning they are now considering retiring him which likely wouldn't have been the case had he lost.

I stand corrected then, it was most definitely dislocated. I hope ESPN did their best to avoid showing it, it was very ugly. :(

Good point about the risk of the untimely ending, but I don't agree with your conclusion. Anguish is part of the game. The Barbaro saga did nothing to hurt horseracing. Horseracing got more good press that year than any year in the past 20.

You may be right about some owners sitting out rather than paying higher insurance, but I'm skeptical of that.

I'd certainly agree that keeping horses in training isn't going to single-handedly solve all the problems. But I do think a fan base is important, and it's not easy to have a fan base in a sport where the stars disappear as soon as they become familiar.

Didn't Funny Cide bring fans and attention to Finger Lakes when he ran his swan song race? Of course it would have helped if Funny Cide had raced at his earlier level a la Kelso or John Henry. But even with his diminished talent, he was a popular draw.

Anyway, as always I appreciate and respect your thoughts.

--Dunbar

Good point. That's sort of a Catch-22. If he loses, we get him back, but then maybe he's not all that great and the attraction of having him back isn't that great. Having won the BC Classic, we'd REALLY like to see him back next year, but maybe now he gets retired.

We're left rooting against all the really good ones winning so that they won't retire them!

--Dunbar

Magma do you go to the track?
Do you actually go to the track and bet?

I think I might actually put more into Street Sense's coffers than you do wagering at some maggot infested OTB. Get ye to Arlington or Hawthorne and then talk to me.

You are not suggesting that breakdowns are good or beneficial are you?

Fan base of betting customers is important...regular fans are not. Sorry but if you just just watch the sport and dont bet or participate you are really not important. Unlike other sports which have tv contracts that pay big bucks, ticket sales income and merchandising, all of which a regular fan will partake in, we only have betting as a revenue source. So if you dont bet, why should the industry care about you? You as a nonbetter or owner are not adding to the sport in any manner.It is one of the biggest problems that the industry faces is that its leaders for so long tried to sweep the gambling aspect under the rug instead of promoting it. Even now they hire marketing people who seemingly fail to understand the demographic that they should be going after.


If Funny Cide was a colt, what would he have been worth after the Triple Crown? $25 or 30 million?
If Funny Cide were a colt and campaigned for 2 more years with the same results, what would he be worth as a 5 year old? $5 million?

You do the math.

Whew! I was searching Blood-Horse for same tonight, just saw this.

Byk's list ALWAYS gets the early, accurate news! ;)

I'm saying that the spector of a breakdown is not a reason to rush a healthy horse off to the breeding shed. And I'm saying that Barbaro's breakdown brought the sport more positive press than any other event of the last 20 years.

In general, I don't think the occasional loss of a top horse to a breakdown will hurt the sport enough to offset the benefit of keeping the stars in training.

I agree with some of this. But I don't know how you distinguish the fans that end up being bettors from the fans that are simply fans. I was a fan from the time I was a kid, but didn't start seriously betting the horses until maybe 15 years ago. I'm one of the very few sports bettors I know who also bets horses.

In my mind, the industry should work on establishing a fan base. The betting fans will emerge from that fan base fairly naturally.

You are also ignoring the impact that a larger fan base would have on TV revenues. The current viewership of broadcast racing is a joke.

Okay, here's the math. I assume in most cases a deal would be cut at some point during the 3-yr-old year. Deals were cut with Street Sense and Hard Spun earlier this year before they finished racing. There's no reason that a deal couldn't be cut that includes another year of racing. Yes, the deal would be for less than what would be offered for immediate breeding. But I don't think it would be hugely less. And under the idea that Genuine Risk and I put forward, there would be no alternative but to wait anyway.

--Dunbar

Barbaro's story while unique in its effects will be the exception rather than the rule. If GW had been Street Sense the outcry in the US would be much more severe. We as an industry have no way to defend or spin breakdowns that will be acceptable to the general public. The more the public gets familar and attached to a horse the worse the kickback will be if there is a tragedy associated with him.

Almost every sports gambler that I know plays horses but maybe I am the exception to the rule because of where I live and where i grew up.


The farms will not allow their investments to contine to run and possibly decrease in value. Once a horse reaches a peak value there is no reason to risk them losing that value especially considering insurance premiums. If they sit out a year they sit out a year. Plus if other jurisdictions dont adopt the same rules what keeps them from shuttling them elsewhere until they are 5?

Seems to me if you didn't allow any horses to race in the country that were offspring of stallions under five and didn't allow any horses to stand here if they stood in another country before they turned five that it would decrease the stallion prospect enough in value to not make much sense for the majority of stallion prospects to stand elsewhere for that one year.

It would also lead to issues when dealing with Southern Hemisphere horses. It is an interesting idea but there are too many problems associated with it. Capping the number of foals per year does the same thing without all the complications. You need to find a way to decrease the value of the stallions a bit without to help the entire market. By capping the number of foals, you will increase the quality of books of mares to the top stallions by eliminateing the lesser mares. That in turn means many mares currently being overbred will need to find a lesser stallion which in turn will lead to lesser mares at the bottom of the chain finding racing a better option.

How about foals by stallion age? If you want to stand a 3yo he can only cover 20 mares. If you want to stand a 4yo he can only cover 50 mares. Then you have a set amount for 5yos and up. You could easily factor in Southern Hemisphere horses that way by setting a number for the SH horses by age. If you truly have a horse that can't race and want to stand him at stud as a 3yo or 4yo you could on a limited basis but if you have a horse capable of racing there is less incentive to send him to the shed while limited to a book of 50.

That is still too complicated. Cap the number at 90 for any age and you will lower the value of the stallion but they will still be valuble. They may raise the prices a bit to compensate but the market will not bear a wholesale rise in stud fees, they are overvalued now. You cant destroy the breeding industry because thousands of horses are owned and raced by those same people. Racing horses will be the first thing they will cut out.The 2 industries need to be more aligned and by nudging the value of stallions down it will have a trickledown effect on the whole breeding industry which should help the racing side. But doing things radically wont help. The fact is that many of our biggest owners are involved because they are trying to hit a homerun with a stallion deal. You have to still have that carrot to dangle or they will go elsewhere which will not be a good thing for anyone. But if the top were lowered while still being lucrative the same effect of them leaving should not be felt.

farms make a deal based on what they know a horse can draw at stud, x's the first couple years they can get that fee, x's # of mares bred. that # sets the initial price. most farms who set up these huge deals know they have to 'get out' after those first few seasons, while the name of that horse is still big, and before any of those first crops hit the track--hopefully to do well, but more often then not, horses stud fees decrease.
once they lock in a price, they can't take the chance of the horse going in a tailspin and lowering his value at stud. much as we like to think WE understand that horses are not robots, the truth is that losses will lower future value--take discreet cat for instance. he's really lowered his value. of course he's going to stand for his owner, so it's not as tho a big syndicate was put together, and there are part owners to keep happy. of course at times you also have horses such as lawyer ron, who improved his value at four, and will command a higher fee at retirement now than had he foregone racing this year.
also, once a syndicate is put together, and value set, insurance will have to meet that, pushing premiums thru the roof if you continue to race the horse--that's what forced smartys retirement.

Stud fees are only considered cheap in bizzaro world (see Jerry Seinfield)

street sense at 75k
hard spun is 50k
discreet cat, 30k
rockport harbor (i just read) 20k--that's high imo.
hell, i think they're all high anymore. look at friends lake for instance!

I did see some nice Friends Lake yearlings...

There aren't very many 2 million dollar yearlings by 20k stallions. Plus virtually all sales over 1 million are scripted anyway

I just saw this post. Tee hee. I was so happy for you when EC took the Turf. :)

This is such an interesting discussion- I'm sorry I haven't been on the past few days. I totally see your point, Cannon, and I agree that this speculating is just that, speculation, because the breeding industry would fight tooth and nail any changes, but I have a few questions 'cause I'm confused-

I don't see how making the stallion books smaller would cause prices to drop- that seems to go against the law of supply and demand- I would think the fewer mares, the higher the fee would go for a top stallion (though I can see your point that owners would keep mares running longer because they couldn't get a top stallion). I do think you're right that fewer permitted covers is a great idea, and better for the industry; I just don't see how it would encourage owners to keep top colts running.

I agree, owners could opt to sit out a year; in that case they'd be gambling on the industry's memory of a good season vs. a 4-year-old campaign. And yes, I agree they risk a stallion's "value" dropping after a bad year, but I think that's part of the problem- the stallions are overvalued to begin with- the insurance companies price the top ones with the idea that they'll all turn out to be AP Indy at stud. Which is ridiculous, but insurance companies are in the business of making lots of money while paying out very little, so you can't expect them to do different. The "value" is connected to breeding value, and I think we're focusing on how to keep them racing. And frankly, a lower breeding value means lower insurance rates.

Yes, breakdowns = very bad. But it's part of the risk of racing- the only way to avoid them is to never let the horse step out on the track, ever. I think that's for the owners to decide- is it worth the risk, and if it's not, they put the horse in a field for a season or two and hope the breeding industry still wants him when he's five.

In Funny Cide's case, we saw the natural progression of many athlete's careers- he naturally tailed off towards the end, though was still competitive at the right level. And I think that's okay, from a fan standpoint. He wasn't running Grade 1s, but I think here on DT there was a thread started every time he ran, regardless of the level of race. Which is cool; and indicates how people were attached to him.

Unless the industry is willing to try to make the jockeys stars of the sport (as they are in Europe, right? Much more famous there than jockeys here), the horses are the stars. A horse with a fan base that gets three years to cheer him will bring people to the sport, which would improve ratings, making it more attractive to TV, and even bring in more $$ with shirts, hats, all that stuff that other sports fans spend an awful lot of money buying (though I imagine A-Rod Yankees shirts are a bargain right now).

Cannon, I do agree that racing exists for gambling, and more casual bettors are what the sport needs, but I think it trickles down- the casual fan will bet when at the track, and he or she will come to the track to see a superstar. But they have to be around long enough for people to discover them, and at this point, that's less important to racing than keeping breeding prices as overinflated as possible.

But I also agree with you- any changes are as likely as Clive Owen picking me up from work today on a shiny white unicorn (though that would be awwwweeesooome).

Huh. I didn't put any question marks after my questions. Sorry.

Hey, Cannon- you mentioned that most sales over $1million are "scripted." Can you elaborate? I've heard lots of people say that the high priced horses didn't really sell for what they are listed as selling for, but I don't understand how that works. Can you explain to me? Keep in mind I really don't know anything about how the sales work... :)

probably bought ahead of time, and the auction just for show.
look at how many horses are bough back, reserve not achieved, and then they sell privately. often for less then they've been bought back for. i'm pretty sure it's because a deal was already in the works. hey, we'll sell to you for such and such, IF no one bids higher at auction. if they do, would the now jilted 'buyer' get part of that extra?
no doubt plenty of funny business behind the scenes. look at the green monkey story.

But see, that's just it! Everyone talks around what happened with TGM and his $16 million tag, but never in any sort of way I can actually understand. What? What happened? Pleeeasssee someone tell meeeee....

In the first example you gave- people can actually do that? Offer up a horse that's been sold? Then what, the purchasing agent just makes sure to keep bidding so that the people who bought the horse prior to the auction appear to win the the auction as well? Why don't they just pull the horse from the auction when the sale goes through?

I'm so very confused...

buzz chace recently bought a horse that was sold before it went thru the auction. so the seller listed, wasn't really the seller. in those situations, the horse is supposed to be pulled from the sale.
as for the green monkey, someone put up here (can't remember who, sorry) that the horse had already been purchased by coolmore, and then the auction and driving up the bid was bs, as the horse was already owned by the winning bidder.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/articleind...e.asp?id=36006

that's the link to the buzz chace story i talked about...note who the immediate underbidder was on the filly....

That's an interesting read; thanks for posting it!

It would not cause prices to drop but would limit the dollar amount a stallion would be able to produce which is where the value of a stallion exists. Currently there are horses that are breeding close to 200 mares. Cut that in half and you signifigntly lower the value of the stallion. Sure the top stallions prices may rise a bit but you still give incentive for the lesser horses like Lawyer Ron as a 3 year old to return and become stars. I still believe that the best horses may still retire and sit out a year with high values and not risk lowering them. The benchmark is three years worth of fees to cover the cost of the horse. Many stallions are capturing the cost by breeding to an excessive number of mares.

Insurance companies dont put the value on the horse. The market does that. They may chose not to insure a horse past a certain level but that is just business.

GR, Funny Cide had a lot of fans for sure but he was also the poster child of why people retire horses while they are on top. Dual classic winner to 3rd tier NY bred stakes loser. Lots of demand for one, not so much for the other. If you owned a dual classic winner that you could get $25 million for would you risk almost all of it to run him another year fearing a Funny Cide scenario?

Three Chimneys announced it will contractually limit the book on all it's stallions to 110 mares in 2008.

For the northern hemisphere ;)

this fits perfectly in this thread...just read this in the 10/20 bloodhorse (which i got yesterday, thanks so much bloodhorse for the bc preview which i got days AFTER the event)--in the 'what's going on here' article by dan liebman:


'If you think those with interests in stallions don't place horses with various consignors and run up the prices to infalte stallion averages, you haven't been paying attention.'

also, meras, regarding chace being upset. did you read the link, and catch the name of the immediate underbidder? it was the new, but undisclosed, owner. guy had nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by helping run up the price on his OWN HORSE. but chace didn't know it was his horse, he thought it still belonged to someone else. did that guy find out chace was interested, and gamble that he could drive up the fee? at any rate, it worked...til chace found out who the owner was, and was able to lower the price.

right now it's only voluntary to disclose ownership. why? who does it benefit?

certainly not the buyer.

caveat emptor.

yippee.


i like hamdans view of things much more.

There is more fiction involved with this story than Harry Potter.