See, you are pissed just like I said you would be.

i wish i had a dollar for how many times i've seen, heard that over the years. i wouldn't be up right now getting ready for work.

but hey, good luck with that bunch of b.s. you're touting-no doubt owners everywhere would be thrilled with you making arbitrary rules on what they can/can't do with their horses.
and i'd imagine any owner with a decent horse that they felt could win black type would make an honest attempt to do so-and if said horse couldn't do it in a reasonable time frame, he has no business being in the shed-nor would anyone make an effort to get him there.

said the only guy throwing insulting language around.

Hopefully not the one where you have any say in anything.:zz:

Perhaps if you came up with a feasible or original idea we wouldn't have to knock your 'ideas'.

I think I have a solution...

http://www.jewelbasket.com/purity-rings.html

[quote=pba1817]If there was a minimum age for breeding(meaning horses would run through their 5yo season), do you not agree that there would be more opportunities for horses to earn their graded victories through a career? Thus enhancing their stud fees in their retirements?

You guys can sit on your pimple filled, fat asses all day long and knock ideas that people come up with, but you had best start thinking about what else you are going to throw your money away on soon because unless the thoroughbred industry makes some positive changes, they wont be around too much longer.

How about coming up with some ideas of your own to fix the problems the industry faces??[/QUOTE]

I'll give you a few ideas. You've heard them before and they are not going to happen but it would fix the problems. Guaranteed!!! (this is just part of the list, but a good start)

1) We have to reduce the number of races on any given card. Field size average needs to increase dramatically.

2) We have to reduce the number of tracks running per day. Forcing gambling dollars into a few larger pools.

3) There needs to be a major overhaul of the wagering menu. Standard wagers across all markets.

4) Reduced takeout!!!

5) I agree with you PBA1817, No Cheating. Harsh Penalties for any infraction.

No kidding. Where is AssToDixie when you need a good one??

How do you define need the money? If you are a billionaire and your stable is bleeding millions a year, you just might "need" the money if you want to keep operating a stable. Just because you are rich doesn't mean you "don't eed the money" for something.

Sure running til 5 would give some horses a shot and graded earnings. Some ar late bloomers or suffered early injuries etc. The problem is that most horses will never be that good. The males should be gelded and raced where they fit. The issue is what to do with a nice filly that gets hurt while training for her 3yo debut. You can't breed her til she's 5 or 6 and meanwhile she needs vet care, board and farriery. She's a very expensive pasture puff and most owners simply cannot carry the costs of unproductive horses. The owner may have paid $100k or $1m for her and now she has no value (in fact she's a liability) for 3 years! This is not the way to encourage new owners to get involved.
Mares are the factories of the game. If you shut down production dramatically you will create havoc. You need to give breeders a chance to get products (horses) out there to the racing owners.

If a billionaire is losing even 20 million a year it shouldn't be enough to let off the panic button unless they and the financial advisor are complete morons. We're talking about 2% of their money at most. In interest alone they should be making 5% minimum.

I stopped reading your post at I wish... I deal in realities not wishes.

In my world, I have all the say, I am king, all of you must read my posts and stew over them.... getting all fired up and anal about what someones opinion is on an internet message board says a lot about you.

Lets hear yours??

I am all ears and enjoy the banter of this board, I do get tired of hearing about the poly/synthetic gripes though, that is old hat and here to stay.

[quote=odbaxter]Very refreshing to see someone who actually has a brain in their head and can think ON THEIR OWN.

This reminds me of most of us on this board.... http://tripp.fenderson.net/images/up...lear_thumb.jpg

Reality...What would you do here?

You paid $25,000 for 50% of a decent Silver Charm filly. Should eventually clear Allow conditions but probably not until she's 4 and Black Type is a very iffy proposition. Suddenly she get's hurt in Nov of her 3yr old campaign and doesn't look like she can run anymore, or at least without risking serious injury. You might be able to recoup your investment by selling her as a broodmare, but by adding another 14 months of care without return potential, your investment may almost double before you can even try to sell her. Assuming said owner doesn't own half of a winery, that is a difficult position to be in.

I don't disagree that the market is way oversaturated with inferior yearlings and colts that shouldn't be breeding, but creating a minimum breeding age isn't the answer, IMO. In theory, it has merit, but in reality it could create a lot of unwanted 4 yr olds and discourage owner/breeder investments

The positives will far outweigh the negatives IMO, with any change there has to be some sacrifice and some burden met. The few injured horses will have to be cared for until the breeding age is reached.

Having spent alot of time involved with "outplacing" slow, unwanted and retiring race horses I tend to think that the costs outweight the benefits. I hate to say it but unless they were of spectacular breeding and ownerd by the cream of the owners most would be cared for at the feedlots and at places like New Holland and others.
Look at it this way. Lets say they ban racing for 2 and 3yo's. The game will STOP. No one would buy yearlings and 2yo's would still be risky. Three year old sales would be the norm except that as a breeder, I don't want to have a 4 year investment cycle from breeding to sale. I can't afford to support all those animals that are non productive for that long and I don't care to take the risks that they will stay sound. No breeder, not Phipps or Jackson or Magnier and Tabor could do so. The game would cease.
This is an extreme example but it shows what happens when an outside force tells owners that they cannot use their animals to be productive, whether on the track or in the shed.

As I said in my previous post, there will be circumstances in which the owner will have to assume some responsibility for injured horses without an immediate sell off when the racing career ends.

Also, why is everyone in such a hurry to breed unsound horses as soon as their racing careers are over due to injury? Do you all recognize the insanity of this proposition and just how it has ruined the breed's stability and soundness?

Is it not impossible to think that by imposing a minimum breeding age would make owners/breeders focus on breeding sound horses instead of brittle and weak speedsters?

Your example is way off the chart and not relevant to the issue being discussed.

Sound horses get hurt too...

Obviously I'm not a breeder, but limiting the number of foals per stallion would seem to be a place to start. The knee jerk reaction of the breeder might be outrage that they can't maximize their stud fees, but limiting the number of foals and then yearlings might drive up the demand by limiting the supply. Based on the number of reserves not met at the Sep KEE sale and the declining middle and bottom averages, it certainly couldn't hurt.

That seems like a logical idea as well.

It is relevant (though extreme) because it is telling and owner that he or she cannot "use" is horse for several years. If a 2yo filly puts her leg through a fence and cannot be bred until she's 6 that's 3 1/2 years of liability. She wasn't "unsound" but was hurt. Don't think for a minute that most owners are going to keep her. If the owner tries to sell her he'll get nothing.

Under such a rule, IF Stardom Bound injured herself badly between now and her Nov. sale date (and cannot be bred til she's 6) what does she sell for?

She will sell for the same amount, possibly more.

BTW, who if the hell sells a champion horse anyway? That should tell you just how effed up this whole industry is. That particular owner says, UNCLE, enough is enough, the industry is a joke and he wants out.

Supply and demand is what makes any industry go round. This particular industry has very little going for it other than the degenerate gamblers... Too many unsound, suspect horses are floating around racing at garbage tracks and breeding to far too many mares. The field sizes are too small, there are too many races at too many tracks, purses are too small, cost of operation are too high, taxes are too much, insurance premiums are outrageous. As it is its a losing proposition for many/most involved. It has to be changed.

Spoken by a mutt who probably doesnt have 2 cents to rub together. If you want sacrifice lets see you put up your money and support the sport. Show the way by keeping your horses till they are 5 and then your opinion will count. Until then us people who deal in the reality of actually owning and paying for horses will do what we want with our property. And schmucks like you who think that the 'sport' of the game actually supports the game can keep whining or better yet just stop paying attention.

There are no real benefits linny. The Funny Cide thing is a perfect example. Who was a bigger name with a catchy story than him. He failed to do much to keep the sport in the mainstream because he simply wasnt a great horse merely a good one who was very good at the most important time. No one comes out to see a "famous" horse who is not winning. Curlin is another great example of how a campaign by the previous years horse of the year hardly creates a blip on the mainstream radar. His races were far from well attended and pretty much he is going to fade away like many others. This guy is just another jerk who thinks he has all the answers when he has zero undrstanding of the sport and how it works.

Since when have you become an expert on breeding horses? The breeds stability? Is it unstable? Yeah owners will keep all the slow sound ones to breed at 5. You are living in fantasyland. Why dont you just go over to a pretty horsie board and commiserate with those PETA lovers?

Yeah she will sell for the same...

That particular owner is in his 80's and his trainer is retiring but of course you knew this and chose to ignore facts when you can shoot off your theories.

You must be a democrat. You say how screwed up and expensive thinbgs are then decide to over regulate "for our own good", ignoring the fact that there is no valid reason to believe that your "idea" will actually accomplish anything except chase more owners away and cripple the breeding industry. Not to mention the fact that 3 and 4 year old mares are far healthier and more able to carry foals and give birth with less issues than older mares. Of course this is not important for you because you have a theory...

I love when people tell me I should "sacrifice" and "assume" responsibility.

So did Kobe Bryant before last season.

I wish some one would trade me the equine version of Pau Gasol

injured doesn't equal unsound.

killin time

people sell champions quite often. better than honour is arguably the most valuable broodmare on the face of the earth, she's up for sale next month.
hard as it is to get owners into the game, who automatically face at least 30k a year per horse in training...and you want to make it more burdensome? yeah, makes sense.

i stopped reading this at 'i wish'.


:D