Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Danzig188
oh, yeah...cause the shiek couldn't afford it, right?? the meyerhoffs did it, they raced the bid at four, to the enjoyment of all, and it cost them money to do so. yeah, i know all about business--and it's that mindset that is ruining this sport. it's no longer the involvement of those who love horses, want to enhance the breed, and show what they've accomplished by racing the best that they've bred.
yeah, things change, doesn't mean i have to like it. it's a shame that one race is suddenly the barometer of what a horse has accomplished, that one year is 'doing enough'. i think it's bs.
he'll be the greatest since GZ. but won't belong anywhere in the same league as those who have achieved legendary status.
again, like finley said a few years ago, great isn't so great anymore.
|
Well, it is a business.
I don't think that retiring horses like Bernardini ruins the sport. In fact, to me it is the oppsoite. I have no interest in watching or betting on one-horse races. If the Jockey Club Gold Cup and the Travers were your idea of excitement, I have to disagree with you.
I really don't understand a lot of the comments that come from fans. On the one hand, fans get mad when owners over-spend. It seems to turn fans off when owners throw their money around like it's "monopoly money". On the other hand, when an owner acts prudently and makes a good business decision, the fans get angry about that too. When an owner shows that he does care about the money and the money played a role in his decision, fans get mad at that too. I don't get it. Why don't you guys make up your minds? Should owners make prudent business decisons where they consider financial implications or should they just treat the money like it's "monopoly money"?