Which (if any) 3-yr-olds will run next year?

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

I think it's ridiculous not to root for Street Sense because he's going off to breed. Either he's good enough or he's not. If he is and this is your reasoning, it's pure spite which is crazy.

Sorry, but I don't feel either crazy or ridiculous. Possibly spiteful, though. Why should I root for a result that will add prestige to a horse who's been retired too early?

I'd rather get to watch winners of the Breeder's Cup races run another year, especially when they are just 3-yr-olds. And I'd rather see a 4-yr-old like Lawyer Ron win it than a 3-yr-old whose connections can't wait to cash in. I'm not sure why that seems so ridiculous to you.

--Dunbar

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Sorry, but I don't feel either crazy or ridiculous. Possibly spiteful, though. Why should I root for a result that will add prestige to a horse who's been retired too early?

I'd rather get to watch winners of the Breeder's Cup races run another year, especially when they are just 3-yr-olds. And I'd rather see a 4-yr-old like Lawyer Ron win it than a 3-yr-old whose connections can't wait to cash in. I'm not sure why that seems so ridiculous to you.

--Dunbar

I don't hold the horse responsible for whatever I might dislike about his management...I didn't hold it against Smarty Jones or Toccet and I got over issues with Point Given too. I don't cheat myself out of enjoying a top horse because of the future (hey now don't mess with Toccet, he could've been better). Horse of the Year doesn't mean how well or if he's gonna run next year, it's how well he's running now. I want him to have a great race. Can you still enjoy Secretariat's Belmont given he didn't run on at age 4? I mean let's apply this retroactively.

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

The Green Monkey

Done enough my friend, he's done enough There's no one for him to beat...because everyone's beating him but hey, semantics.

Not classic horses this year, but I think four very goods ones for next year are going to be Going Ballistic, Delightful Kiss, Zanjero, and Grasshopper.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Benevolus

Not classic horses this year, but I think four very goods ones for next year are going to be Going Ballistic, Delightful Kiss, Zanjero, and Grasshopper.

I'm still hopeful Ketchikan will join that list too. I guess Ravel is another that should be mentioned as well as the injured O'Neill horses (Notional and Great Hunter).

[cakes44]

Is Chelokee retired yet?

Sightseeing will be back for 2008. LOL

Originally Posted by cakes44

Is Chelokee retired yet?

I don't think so. I think he had a minor injury and will be back at 4.

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

I'm still hopeful Ketchikan will join that list too. I guess Ravel is another that should be mentioned as well as the injured O'Neill horses (Notional and Great Hunter).

Ravel could be anything. It wouldn't shock me if he turned out to be the top horse in the country next year. Hopefully he runs in the Clark at Churchill.

[Getaway]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Sorry, but I don't feel either crazy or ridiculous. Possibly spiteful, though. Why should I root for a result that will add prestige to a horse who's been retired too early?

I'd rather get to watch winners of the Breeder's Cup races run another year, especially when they are just 3-yr-olds. And I'd rather see a 4-yr-old like Lawyer Ron win it than a 3-yr-old whose connections can't wait to cash in. I'm not sure why that seems so ridiculous to you.

--Dunbar

What most of you still can't get into your heads is that it costs TONS of money to insure these beasts! Street Sense is worth MILLIONS and for smaller operations (not Coolmore or Darley or Shadwell....) it is just not economically feasible to keep them in training. While Im sure the connections of Street Sense are not starving for money, they have much more to lose by keeping him in training another year. They are not in any way cashing in...they have had a good run, and are getting out while they are ahead. Bernardini on the other hand last year was a whole different story. I just can't look at Street Sense the same way.

[Danzig]

it's not that the horse is suddenly valuable and ins is the problem, it's the potential loss of millions in stud fees. look at curlin, due to legal issues, he's got no deals. if there were no shadows being cast by lawyers, he'd also have a stud career worked out. so, his insurance is affordable and street senses isn't? no, it's that his potential value as a stud isn't on paper yet. there is a perceived value, but not a real value. of course his insurance may be high, but it's hard to believe that these millionaires (or in jacksons case, billionaires) are going to cry poor over insurance. another thing that gets me is that porter hurried to sign a deal for hard spun, and then bemoans the fact he can't run the horse at four. he wants a deal quick, before the horse possibly runs up the track, but then can't understand why darley might see a career at four as a problem?! of course HE can't, he no longer has a risk, only a reward.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Getaway

What most of you still can't get into your heads is that it costs TONS of money to insure these beasts! Street Sense is worth MILLIONS and for smaller operations (not Coolmore or Darley or Shadwell....) it is just not economically feasible to keep them in training. While Im sure the connections of Street Sense are not starving for money, they have much more to lose by keeping him in training another year. They are not in any way cashing in...they have had a good run, and are getting out while they are ahead. Bernardini on the other hand last year was a whole different story. I just can't look at Street Sense the same way.

yes they are.

street sense has no hope of making the millions in stud fees as a racehorse running for purses. tafel is no dummy, but he most certainly is cashing in.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes they are.

street sense has no hope of making the millions in stud fees as a racehorse running for purses. tafel is no dummy, but he most certainly is cashing in.

Exactly. It's about the money. And there's no law that people have to (or even get to) maximize their money at the expense of the sport.

--Dunbar

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes they are.

street sense has no hope of making the millions in stud fees as a racehorse running for purses. tafel is no dummy, but he most certainly is cashing in.

I was thinking about the breeding industry, as I was reading yet another article about George Washington today- one of the articles mentioned he was sold for a bit over $2 million as a yearling. It reminded me of how incredibly over-inflated the prices for racehorses are, because they're being sold not as racing prospects, but as breeding prospects, which happen to run a few times in an attempt to increase their value. GW, one of the few really expensive racehorses who actually had a chance to earn back what he cost, was retired upon having earned a little more than half what he cost, because he wasn't really purchased for that at all- it was for profits in breeding.

And because of the breeding industry, the successful intact horses are assigned these incredibly high values for insurance purposes, and yes, it does start to make no sense to run them because they can't earn enough to cover the insurance payments for an arbitrary figure set according to a possible future breeding success (which is about as rare as success in stakes races- Real Quiet sired a BC winner yesterday and stands for what, $5000? In Pennsylvania). And it has nothing to do with racing as a sport- it's this weird parallel industry that makes lots of money and doesn't really have anything to do with the reason racing exists (gambling)- a 6-1 shot pays exactly the same in a $2500 claimer as in the Kentucky Derby. But it does harm the popular face of the industry because it's hard to attract fans to a sport where the big stars have maybe an 18-month career.

And because of the big $$ involved, the racing industry won't do the most obvious thing to keep the stars running- regulate the breeding industry. Requiring the stud horse to be at least 5 years old is no less arbitrary than requiring the matings to be natural covers. But requiring natural covers drives up stud fees, while making horses reach 5 before breeding would result in a lot of precocious but unsound 2-year-olds being forgotten after they get injured and retired to replicate their unsoundness.

Anyway, so yeah, it's about the $$. And so I can sympathize with Dunbar finding it hard to root for a horse that is being rushed off to the breeding shed. As a person who understands $$ rules everything in this world, I comprehend it, but as a fan of racing I hate it, and in the end, fandom is emotional, not logical (see some of my 2006 posts on Lawyer Ron for proof of that!).

[GPK]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I was thinking about the breeding industry, as I was reading yet another article about George Washington today- one of the articles mentioned he was sold for a bit over $2 million as a yearling. It reminded me of how incredibly over-inflated the prices for racehorses are, because they're being sold not as racing prospects, but as breeding prospects, which happen to run a few times in an attempt to increase their value. GW, one of the few really expensive racehorses who actually had a chance to earn back what he cost, was retired upon having earned a little more than half what he cost, because he wasn't really purchased for that at all- it was for profits in breeding.

And because of the breeding industry, the successful intact horses are assigned these incredibly high values for insurance purposes, and yes, it does start to make no sense to run them because they can't earn enough to cover the insurance payments for an arbitrary figure set according to a possible future breeding success (which is about as rare as success in stakes races- Real Quiet sired a BC winner yesterday and stands for what, $5000? In Pennsylvania). And it has nothing to do with racing as a sport- it's this weird parallel industry that makes lots of money and doesn't really have anything to do with the reason racing exists (gambling)- a 6-1 shot pays exactly the same in a $2500 claimer as in the Kentucky Derby. But it does harm the popular face of the industry because it's hard to attract fans to a sport where the big stars have maybe an 18-month career.

And because of the big $$ involved, the racing industry won't do the most obvious thing to keep the stars running- regulate the breeding industry. Requiring the stud horse to be at least 5 years old is no less arbitrary than requiring the matings to be natural covers. But requiring natural covers drives up stud fees, while making horses reach 5 before breeding would result in a lot of precocious but unsound 2-year-olds being forgotten after they get injured and retired to replicate their unsoundness.

Anyway, so yeah, it's about the $$. And so I can sympathize with Dunbar finding it hard to root for a horse that is being rushed off to the breeding shed. As a person who understands $$ rules everything in this world, I comprehend it, but as a fan of racing I hate it, and in the end, fandom is emotional, not logical (see some of my 2006 posts on Lawyer Ron for proof of that!).

your so sexy when you talk like that...

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by GPK

your so sexy when you talk like that...

I just saw this post. Tee hee. I was so happy for you when EC took the Turf.

[GenuineRisk]

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).

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I was thinking about the breeding industry, as I was reading yet another article about George Washington today- one of the articles mentioned he was sold for a bit over $2 million as a yearling. It reminded me of how incredibly over-inflated the prices for racehorses are, because they're being sold not as racing prospects, but as breeding prospects, which happen to run a few times in an attempt to increase their value. GW, one of the few really expensive racehorses who actually had a chance to earn back what he cost, was retired upon having earned a little more than half what he cost, because he wasn't really purchased for that at all- it was for profits in breeding.

And because of the breeding industry, the successful intact horses are assigned these incredibly high values for insurance purposes, and yes, it does start to make no sense to run them because they can't earn enough to cover the insurance payments for an arbitrary figure set according to a possible future breeding success (which is about as rare as success in stakes races- Real Quiet sired a BC winner yesterday and stands for what, $5000? In Pennsylvania). And it has nothing to do with racing as a sport- it's this weird parallel industry that makes lots of money and doesn't really have anything to do with the reason racing exists (gambling)- a 6-1 shot pays exactly the same in a $2500 claimer as in the Kentucky Derby. But it does harm the popular face of the industry because it's hard to attract fans to a sport where the big stars have maybe an 18-month career.

And because of the big $$ involved, the racing industry won't do the most obvious thing to keep the stars running- regulate the breeding industry. Requiring the stud horse to be at least 5 years old is no less arbitrary than requiring the matings to be natural covers. But requiring natural covers drives up stud fees, while making horses reach 5 before breeding would result in a lot of precocious but unsound 2-year-olds being forgotten after they get injured and retired to replicate their unsoundness.

Anyway, so yeah, it's about the $$. And so I can sympathize with Dunbar finding it hard to root for a horse that is being rushed off to the breeding shed. As a person who understands $$ rules everything in this world, I comprehend it, but as a fan of racing I hate it, and in the end, fandom is emotional, not logical (see some of my 2006 posts on Lawyer Ron for proof of that!).

Good post but personally I believe limiting a stallions foal crop to a certain number would be a better option than making a stallion wait until they are 5. You may wind up with horses with legit injuries trying a limited, big money campaign with endings like GW. It would also lower the total value of a stallion because they would not be able to collect as much in stud fees which may lead to lesser horses who may stand for 15k or less stay in training to try to enhance credentials since they have the potential to make close to the breeding money on the track. Of course these things have no chance of ever happening.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And because of the big $$ involved, the racing industry won't do the most obvious thing to keep the stars running- regulate the breeding industry. Requiring the stud horse to be at least 5 years old is no less arbitrary than requiring the matings to be natural covers. But requiring natural covers drives up stud fees, while making horses reach 5 before breeding would result in a lot of precocious but unsound 2-year-olds being forgotten after they get injured and retired to replicate their unsoundness.

Wow! I've never heard anyone express that idea besides me. Thank you!

As you note, it's entirely possible for the breeding industry to be regulated in the interest of the overall horseracing business. Breeders would take a minor hit. They would lose one year out of a horse's, what, 12-17 year breeding life? As compensation for that, we'd see horses that become stars, like Street Sense, hang around another year. We might have seen Smarty Jones and Afleet Alex run another year.

In every other sport, the stars try to hang around as long as they can. That helps create fans. People relate to familiar names. In horseracing, as soon as a horse's name cracks the general public's radar, that horse is gone from the scene.

As it is now run, I see the breeding business as a giant pyramid scheme. Breeding costs are very high, despite the fact that few offspring will amount to much. As soon as any offspring shows promise, it, too, is whisked off to the shed to create another pyramid of its own. Because of the economics, breeders are breeding future breeders, not racehorses.

Maybe when there are 100 people/day coming to Santa Anita and Belmont, the industry will realize it has to take the step of prohibiting breeding with any stallion until it is at least 5 years old.

One of my two local papers did not have ANY coverage of the Breeder's Cup in today's paper. That's how large the BC is in the mind of some sports editors.

--Dunbar

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Wow! I've never heard anyone express that idea besides me. Thank you!

As you note, it's entirely possible for the breeding industry to be regulated in the interest of the overall horseracing business. Breeders would take a minor hit. They would lose one year out of a horse's, what, 12-17 year breeding life? As compensation for that, we'd see horses that become stars, like Street Sense, hang around another year. We might have seen Smarty Jones and Afleet Alex run another year.

In every other sport, the stars try to hang around as long as they can. That helps create fans. People relate to familiar names. In horseracing, as soon as a horse's name cracks the general public's radar, that horse is gone from the scene.

As it is now run, I see the breeding business as a giant pyramid scheme. Breeding costs are very high, despite the fact that few offspring will amount to much. As soon as any offspring shows promise, it, too, is whisked off to the shed to create another pyramid of its own. Because of the economics, breeders are breeding future breeders, not racehorses.

Maybe when there are 100 people/day coming to Santa Anita and Belmont, the industry will realize it has to take the step of prohibiting breeding with any stallion until it is at least 5 years old.

One of my two local papers did not have ANY coverage of the Breeder's Cup in today's paper. That's how large the BC is in the mind of some sports editors.

--Dunbar

While agree that it would be nice if horses raced longer the idea that the game will somehow be revived if a few of the big horses run at 3 is just not true.
1st problem - The greater the chance of a popular horse having an untimely ending which does far more to hurt the game than one staying in training and running does to help it. Making anything mandatory will always make people make questionable decisions especially when so much money is involved. The truth is that I am sure that you can get a much lower insurance rate if a horse is not in training and some may retire and sit the year out anyway. Or run in the Dubai race then retire.
2nd Problem - Racing fans are going to watch the big events regardless. New fans may not know who the hell is running anyway. Beside a few big days a year, it is not like the horses will run much anyway. Racings problem is that it needs new fans that bet, not just new fans.
3rd Problem - See recent campaigns of Funny Cide

[Danzig]

the breeding industry has got to self correct. read the other day in bh that altho keeneland sales were a 'success', only 1/4 of the breeders made back their money. obviously that can't continue. over the last few months, there have been some saying they are going to a lower priced stallion, as the prices aren't going thru the roof like in years past. and of course coolmore vs darley has some effect on that--for a few breeders. most of course never have the opportunity to have one of theirs get the attention of the biggest guns.
darley grabbed a few headlines due to their purchases of some of the top three year olds, but i think overall that the market is turning downward.