|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
10-31-2007, 03:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
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... 
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray 
|
|
#2
10-31-2007, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#3
10-31-2007, 04:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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...
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#4
10-31-2007, 04:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#5
10-31-2007, 04:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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....
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#6
10-31-2007, 05:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#7
11-01-2007, 06:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
every sport has rules to follow, from the owners thru the coaches and down to the players. why horse racing is different i don't know. why owners think that because they run horses, rather than owning a team, that they can do whatever they please, is beyond me. to not speak out imo is wrong. how else do you have change unless the problems are pointed out? so, some big shot owns horses--if he wants to hire a cheater as a trainer, we should all just shrug our shoulders? oh well...his right...is that how we're supposed to view it?
since some owners are not willing to hire a clean trainer, the sport must do what it takes to make sure that only those who are above board are in the sport. they need rules with real punishments, with limits set, and with lifetime bans when necessary. the sport must make sure the playing field remains level. the powers that be in racing are the ones who have to do this. after all, if a trainer cheats, he isn't just ensuring a win for himself--bettors are being ripped off, the very people who keep this sport going. you see stories days and weeks after a race where a horse is taken down--intercontinental for example, with her lasix given too close to race time. purse is redistributed--but what about the bettors who lost money on a horse who suddenly got moved into a board finish??
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#8
11-01-2007, 10:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Cannon, thanks for the explanation on how limiting a horse's number of covers would reduce the stallion's value- now I understand what you're saying (sometimes it takes me a second explanation to get it.
). Though again, I don't see it having any effect on staving off the retirements of top runners- as you said, it would motivate owners of 2nd-tier horses to keep their horses running longer, but I think 1st-tier runners would still be rushed off to breed, so again, no superstars.And I do understand your point on Funny Cide, but again, the figures you're estimating are what his value would have been as a stallion prospect, had he been intact- not his value as a runner. So while I agree FC would have been retired as a 3-year-old had he been a stallion, because he would have been at his peak value, again, what I was hypothesizing was ways to keep the superstars racing, and I don't see any way around that than making them wait to start standing at stud. Some owners, to be sure, will pull them from the track to wait it out, but that's not any different to the fan than pulling them to start breeding right away, so for the fan it wouldn't be a detriment, and might, in some cases, keep a horse running. And yeah, it'll never happen. (No sign of Clive and my unicorn yesterday, either.)
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
