[Left Bank]

Originally Posted by Linny

I assume that you are referring to barry Irwin's comments.
I agree with him to a certain extent. Racings origins were in "improvement of the breed" and racing was just done to prove which animals deserved to reproduce. The issue I have is that what constitutes "proof" has changed, and diminished over the decades. With that change the breed has weakened. "Proof" used to involve 3 or more seasons of racing, taking on the best of challengers, carrying weight while usually racing 30 or 40 times. Horse transport was far more difficult "in the day" and yet horses shipped all over the country to race.
The current definition of "proof" involves earning a high BSF at 2 and maybe winning something at 3. For a "classic" colt, it means completing the TC. All you have to do is get throught the Belmont and somehow now you are a "top stallion prospect." You don't have to win the classics, just run and survive them. Forty or more years ago such horses were the cannon fodder for everyday races 2 years past their TC tries. Today they are elite stallion prospects.

By 2015, the fastest working 2yo at the sales will be bought and promptly retired, with nothing left to prove.

Didn't they already do that with Holy Roman Emperor?