Let me clarify than that the blood horse article I alluded to states Tosmah, pardon my previous spelling and thank you for correcting me
, was eventually bred to a good sire, but she never produced anything of any note by that sire. (As you state she only produced one foal by Ribot.)
The point I was making in my response to Freedy however was not that Tosmah wasn't bred to a good sire eventually.
The point I was making was that there is no guarantee that Rachel, or any female horse for that matter, will ever produce a foal. Rachel may only produce a foal her first few times and than stop producing - as Tosmah did. And if this were to be the case I would rather her first few times be with a proven sire since than she was be accorded a better chance to pass on her greatness to future generations.
I used Tosmah as an example to illustrate what the article implied which is if Tosmah had been bred to Ribot in the beginning, who was a proven sire, she would have been more likely to produced a top quality race horse if she were to have his foal.
If Rachel was my horse, which she is not, I would want to bred her to a proven sire and than when and if Curlin were to prove himself as a sire, I would breed Rachel to Curlin.
Rachel only has so many opportunities to produce a foal and each one should be to a horse who would accord her the best chance to produce a top horse. The owners of Tosmah made the mistake of not doing this and though there is no guarantee that Tosmah would have produced a great horse if she was bred to Ribot and had produced his foals in the beginning instead of Convex and Royal I. J. it certainly would have been more likely to have happened that way.
If you disagree please let me know because I would like to know what I am not seeing here if I am wrong in my thought process.
Please respond