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.