Hank hates Jessica?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pba1817

My point is that if the industry would institute a minimum age for breeding to begin, then owners would be more inclined to run their horses for a longer period of time. Why not make the official minimum breeding age of 5 years? This will help the more recognizable horses stay in the limelight a little longer, and allow fans to be more appreciative of their skills and careers.

I have been to most of the tracks you listed.. some are great, some are ok, and some aren't so great.




Punishment should be worthy of an infraction, When you cheat the betting public and your fellow trainers/jockeys/owners, you should be JAILED, not fined/suspended. If racing officials and law enforcement would get in line on this "white collar" crime, then racing might remove the stigma of a cheaters paradise.

For a sample of the cheating that is accepted by this industry, take a look at the links here,

http://www.chrb.ca.gov/press_releases.htm
http://www.chrb.ca.gov/complaints.htm

One of the things that you dont understand is that a great deal of money that is generated by the breeding and selling of horses is used by owners to subsidize racing stables which rarely generate enough money to sustain themselves. You as a bettor fail to understand that the owners who put on the show almost universally at a loss have to have the ability to get money back in order to maintain the racing side of the business. Everytime I read about how there should be rules regarding who can be bred or at what age I cringe. That a signifigant portion of the industry which is already getting hammered by the economic downturn and the rise in costs should put in rules that will make it even harder to stay afloat so that "fans" can "enjoy" the two or three horses that actually carry any name value a few times a year is ignorant. What happens to the three year old who sustains a major injury? Just put him in the freezer for a few years and thaw him out at 5? What about the bills like insurance for those horses? What about a nice mare who gets sick or hurt at a young age? Just pay bills for a few years on them while they stand in the field looking pretty? This idea is something that guys like Bill Finley came up with and those guys have zero idea of what goes on in reality and why things like this are not only never going to happen but are extremely harmful for not only a lot of people but horses too. You gonna sponsor a filly tht gets abandoned at 2 because she got hurt and no one wants to pay bills on her for three years?

So if they stop publishing violation on the internet then the cheating will have stopped? Jail time for infractions? This is just more of the same crap unrealistic people put out there. No doubt that ALL sports have issues and racing among them but a lot of this "cheating" is nothing more than minor violations of poorly written and enforced medication rules that have no effect on the horses actual performance. Like I said before if they stopped publishing these violations on the internet would cheating just disappear?

[Danzig]

there is no way you can institute minimum breeding ages. you can't force owners to keep their horses on the track.
we've had this discussion before, how to persuade owners to keep their horses in training. it's a difficult proposition. one way you'll see it happen right now is that the economy is down, and the breeding market is down. there will be a lot less horses rushing to the shed this year than in years' past. it happened with the years of silver charm, real quiet, etc. if there is more money to be made on the track, they'll stay there.
also, chuck is right. the best horses back in the day didn't race on as often as some think, or run in as many races in total. man o war retired at 3 to avoid carrying weights horses hadn't seen before. he ran 21 times, and decades later, native dancer ran that same amount. count fleet retired at 3. yeah, he suffered an injury-but not one typically career-ending.
i do think it's a bit laughable at the announcements of stud deal for a few of these older horses, such as student council-he hasn't won since the pimlico special. i have a hard time thinking he'll be a good sire, but he does have a farm to back him up. tiago got a deal-ok. i don't see it for some of them, but some do. and the expenses can get huge for owners, and when they get an offer, they have to consider their bottom line. for many it's perennially in the red, so how can you really judge them harshly when they leap at the chance for some money to finance future racing endeavors?
you just have to hope that enough horses stay on to make things interesting, and wait for some others to come out from the woodwork.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

there is no way you can institute minimum breeding ages. you can't force owners to keep their horses on the track.
we've had this discussion before, how to persuade owners to keep their horses in training. it's a difficult proposition. one way you'll see it happen right now is that the economy is down, and the breeding market is down. there will be a lot less horses rushing to the shed this year than in years' past. it happened with the years of silver charm, real quiet, etc. if there is more money to be made on the track, they'll stay there.
also, chuck is right. the best horses back in the day didn't race on as often as some think, or run in as many races in total. man o war retired at 3 to avoid carrying weights horses hadn't seen before. he ran 21 times, and decades later, native dancer ran that same amount. count fleet retired at 3. yeah, he suffered an injury-but not one typically career-ending.
i do think it's a bit laughable at the announcements of stud deal for a few of these older horses, such as student council-he hasn't won since the pimlico special. i have a hard time thinking he'll be a good sire, but he does have a farm to back him up. tiago got a deal-ok. i don't see it for some of them, but some do. and the expenses can get huge for owners, and when they get an offer, they have to consider their bottom line. for many it's perennially in the red, so how can you really judge them harshly when they leap at the chance for some money to finance future racing endeavors?
you just have to hope that enough horses stay on to make things interesting, and wait for some others to come out from the woodwork.

I do wish that top horses would race more and run at 4 but does 2 campaigns of a top horse make a big difference when you are comparing horseracing to other sports where the stars play for 10 or more years. I just dont buy into the theory that the sport would somehow become mainstream if Curlin or Big brown were to run till they were 6. And while we can bag on Shiekh Mo for retiring horses and having bizzare campaigns with them there are a lot of owners that need to sell their horses at their peak because they arent billionaires. If they wind up in the breeding shed so be it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I do wish that top horses would race more and run at 4 but does 2 campaigns of a top horse make a big difference when you are comparing horseracing to other sports where the stars play for 10 or more years. I just dont buy into the theory that the sport would somehow become mainstream if Curlin or Big brown were to run till they were 6. And while we can bag on Shiekh Mo for retiring horses and having bizzare campaigns with them there are a lot of owners that need to sell their horses at their peak because they arent billionaires. If they wind up in the breeding shed so be it.

it's a niche sport, everyone may as well get used to that idea. i don't buy the thought that it's 'dying', it's been on life support for years according to some. it's hanging in there just fine, but will never see the likes of it's biggest days again-it's a different world. no way it'll be mainstream like football and baseball.
we would enjoy seeing the top horses run more, and sometimes we all decry lack of top horses in some of the supposed top races. but we still watch, still bet, and oftentimes still get to see some good racing to the wire.
as for bagging on sheikh mo, i doubt he cares-and he's easy to bag on, because if anyone could afford to keep their horses in training longer, it's him. and yeah, a lot of folks might be able to afford to keep a horse going a bit longer, but they can also go buy a few more horses if they don't. if you can get your hobby in the black a couple years, who can blame them really?

[pba1817]

Originally Posted by Danzig

there is no way you can institute minimum breeding ages. you can't force owners to keep their horses on the track.
we've had this discussion before, how to persuade owners to keep their horses in training. it's a difficult proposition. one way you'll see it happen right now is that the economy is down, and the breeding market is down. there will be a lot less horses rushing to the shed this year than in years' past. it happened with the years of silver charm, real quiet, etc. if there is more money to be made on the track, they'll stay there.
also, chuck is right. the best horses back in the day didn't race on as often as some think, or run in as many races in total. man o war retired at 3 to avoid carrying weights horses hadn't seen before. he ran 21 times, and decades later, native dancer ran that same amount. count fleet retired at 3. yeah, he suffered an injury-but not one typically career-ending.
i do think it's a bit laughable at the announcements of stud deal for a few of these older horses, such as student council-he hasn't won since the pimlico special. i have a hard time thinking he'll be a good sire, but he does have a farm to back him up. tiago got a deal-ok. i don't see it for some of them, but some do. and the expenses can get huge for owners, and when they get an offer, they have to consider their bottom line. for many it's perennially in the red, so how can you really judge them harshly when they leap at the chance for some money to finance future racing endeavors?
you just have to hope that enough horses stay on to make things interesting, and wait for some others to come out from the woodwork.

If there was a minimum age for breeding(meaning horses would run through their 5yo season), do you not agree that there would be more opportunities for horses to earn their graded victories through a career? Thus enhancing their stud fees in their retirements?

You guys can sit on your pimple filled, fat asses all day long and knock ideas that people come up with, but you had best start thinking about what else you are going to throw your money away on soon because unless the thoroughbred industry makes some positive changes, they wont be around too much longer.

How about coming up with some ideas of your own to fix the problems the industry faces??

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pba1817

If there was a minimum age for breeding(meaning horses would run through their 5yo season), do you not agree that there would be more opportunities for horses to earn their graded victories through a career? Thus enhancing their stud fees in their retirements?

You guys can sit on your pimple filled, fat asses all day long and knock ideas that people come up with, but you had best start thinking about what else you are going to throw your money away on soon because unless the thoroughbred industry makes some positive changes, they wont be around too much longer.
How about coming up with some ideas of your own to fix the problems the industry faces??

i wish i had a dollar for how many times i've seen, heard that over the years. i wouldn't be up right now getting ready for work.

but hey, good luck with that bunch of b.s. you're touting-no doubt owners everywhere would be thrilled with you making arbitrary rules on what they can/can't do with their horses.
and i'd imagine any owner with a decent horse that they felt could win black type would make an honest attempt to do so-and if said horse couldn't do it in a reasonable time frame, he has no business being in the shed-nor would anyone make an effort to get him there.

[pba1817]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i wish i had a dollar for how many times i've seen, heard that over the years. i wouldn't be up right now getting ready for work.

but hey, good luck with that bunch of b.s. you're touting-no doubt owners everywhere would be thrilled with you making arbitrary rules on what they can/can't do with their horses.
and i'd imagine any owner with a decent horse that they felt could win black type would make an honest attempt to do so-and if said horse couldn't do it in a reasonable time frame, he has no business being in the shed-nor would anyone make an effort to get him there.

I stopped reading your post at I wish... I deal in realities not wishes.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by pba1817

I stopped reading your post at I wish... I deal in realities not wishes.

Reality...What would you do here?

You paid $25,000 for 50% of a decent Silver Charm filly. Should eventually clear Allow conditions but probably not until she's 4 and Black Type is a very iffy proposition. Suddenly she get's hurt in Nov of her 3yr old campaign and doesn't look like she can run anymore, or at least without risking serious injury. You might be able to recoup your investment by selling her as a broodmare, but by adding another 14 months of care without return potential, your investment may almost double before you can even try to sell her. Assuming said owner doesn't own half of a winery, that is a difficult position to be in.

I don't disagree that the market is way oversaturated with inferior yearlings and colts that shouldn't be breeding, but creating a minimum breeding age isn't the answer, IMO. In theory, it has merit, but in reality it could create a lot of unwanted 4 yr olds and discourage owner/breeder investments

[pba1817]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Reality...What would you do here?

You paid $25,000 for 50% of a decent Silver Charm filly. Should eventually clear Allow conditions but probably not until she's 4 and Black Type is a very iffy proposition. Suddenly she get's hurt in Nov of her 3yr old campaign and doesn't look like she can run anymore, or at least without risking serious injury. You might be able to recoup your investment by selling her as a broodmare, but by adding another 14 months of care without return potential, your investment may almost double before you can even try to sell her. Assuming said owner doesn't own half of a winery, that is a difficult position to be in.

I don't disagree that the market is way oversaturated with inferior yearlings and colts that shouldn't be breeding, but creating a minimum breeding age isn't the answer, IMO. In theory, it has merit, but in reality it could create a lot of unwanted 4 yr olds and discourage owner/breeder investments

As I said in my previous post, there will be circumstances in which the owner will have to assume some responsibility for injured horses without an immediate sell off when the racing career ends.

Also, why is everyone in such a hurry to breed unsound horses as soon as their racing careers are over due to injury? Do you all recognize the insanity of this proposition and just how it has ruined the breed's stability and soundness?

Is it not impossible to think that by imposing a minimum breeding age would make owners/breeders focus on breeding sound horses instead of brittle and weak speedsters?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pba1817

If there was a minimum age for breeding(meaning horses would run through their 5yo season), do you not agree that there would be more opportunities for horses to earn their graded victories through a career? Thus enhancing their stud fees in their retirements?

You guys can sit on your pimple filled, fat asses all day long and knock ideas that people come up with, but you had best start thinking about what else you are going to throw your money away on soon because unless the thoroughbred industry makes some positive changes, they wont be around too much longer.

How about coming up with some ideas of your own to fix the problems the industry faces??

Perhaps if you came up with a feasible or original idea we wouldn't have to knock your 'ideas'.

[TheSpyder]

I think I have a solution...

http://www.jewelbasket.com/purity-rings.html

[pba1817]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Perhaps if you came up with a feasible or original idea we wouldn't have to knock your 'ideas'.

Lets hear yours??

I am all ears and enjoy the banter of this board, I do get tired of hearing about the poly/synthetic gripes though, that is old hat and here to stay.

[odbaxter]

[quote=pba1817]If there was a minimum age for breeding(meaning horses would run through their 5yo season), do you not agree that there would be more opportunities for horses to earn their graded victories through a career? Thus enhancing their stud fees in their retirements?

You guys can sit on your pimple filled, fat asses all day long and knock ideas that people come up with, but you had best start thinking about what else you are going to throw your money away on soon because unless the thoroughbred industry makes some positive changes, they wont be around too much longer.

How about coming up with some ideas of your own to fix the problems the industry faces??[/QUOTE]

I'll give you a few ideas. You've heard them before and they are not going to happen but it would fix the problems. Guaranteed!!! (this is just part of the list, but a good start)

1) We have to reduce the number of races on any given card. Field size average needs to increase dramatically.

2) We have to reduce the number of tracks running per day. Forcing gambling dollars into a few larger pools.

3) There needs to be a major overhaul of the wagering menu. Standard wagers across all markets.

4) Reduced takeout!!!

5) I agree with you PBA1817, No Cheating. Harsh Penalties for any infraction.

[pba1817]

[quote=odbaxter]

Originally Posted by pba1817

If there was a minimum age for breeding(meaning horses would run through their 5yo season), do you not agree that there would be more opportunities for horses to earn their graded victories through a career? Thus enhancing their stud fees in their retirements?

You guys can sit on your pimple filled, fat asses all day long and knock ideas that people come up with, but you had best start thinking about what else you are going to throw your money away on soon because unless the thoroughbred industry makes some positive changes, they wont be around too much longer.

How about coming up with some ideas of your own to fix the problems the industry faces??[/QUOTE]

I'll give you a few ideas. You've heard them before and they are not going to happen but it would fix the problems. Guaranteed!!! (this is just part of the list, but a good start)

1) We have to reduce the number of races on any given card. Field size average needs to increase dramatically.

2) We have to reduce the number of tracks running per day. Forcing gambling dollars into a few larger pools.

3) There needs to be a major overhaul of the wagering menu. Standard wagers across all markets.

4) Reduced takeout!!!

5) I agree with you PBA1817, No Cheating. Harsh Penalties for any infraction.

Very refreshing to see someone who actually has a brain in their head and can think ON THEIR OWN.

[Linny]

Originally Posted by pba1817

If there was a minimum age for breeding(meaning horses would run through their 5yo season), do you not agree that there would be more opportunities for horses to earn their graded victories through a career? Thus enhancing their stud fees in their retirements?


How about coming up with some ideas of your own to fix the problems the industry faces??

Sure running til 5 would give some horses a shot and graded earnings. Some ar late bloomers or suffered early injuries etc. The problem is that most horses will never be that good. The males should be gelded and raced where they fit. The issue is what to do with a nice filly that gets hurt while training for her 3yo debut. You can't breed her til she's 5 or 6 and meanwhile she needs vet care, board and farriery. She's a very expensive pasture puff and most owners simply cannot carry the costs of unproductive horses. The owner may have paid $100k or $1m for her and now she has no value (in fact she's a liability) for 3 years! This is not the way to encourage new owners to get involved.
Mares are the factories of the game. If you shut down production dramatically you will create havoc. You need to give breeders a chance to get products (horses) out there to the racing owners.

[pba1817]

Originally Posted by Linny

Sure running til 5 would give some horses a shot and graded earnings. Some ar late bloomers or suffered early injuries etc. The problem is that most horses will never be that good. The males should be gelded and raced where they fit. The issue is what to do with a nice filly that gets hurt while training for her 3yo debut. You can't breed her til she's 5 or 6 and meanwhile she needs vet care, board and farriery. She's a very expensive pasture puff and most owners simply cannot carry the costs of unproductive horses. The owner may have paid $100k or $1m for her and now she has no value (in fact she's a liability) for 3 years! This is not the way to encourage new owners to get involved.
Mares are the factories of the game. If you shut down production dramatically you will create havoc. You need to give breeders a chance to get products (horses) out there to the racing owners.

The positives will far outweigh the negatives IMO, with any change there has to be some sacrifice and some burden met. The few injured horses will have to be cared for until the breeding age is reached.

[Linny]

Having spent alot of time involved with "outplacing" slow, unwanted and retiring race horses I tend to think that the costs outweight the benefits. I hate to say it but unless they were of spectacular breeding and ownerd by the cream of the owners most would be cared for at the feedlots and at places like New Holland and others.
Look at it this way. Lets say they ban racing for 2 and 3yo's. The game will STOP. No one would buy yearlings and 2yo's would still be risky. Three year old sales would be the norm except that as a breeder, I don't want to have a 4 year investment cycle from breeding to sale. I can't afford to support all those animals that are non productive for that long and I don't care to take the risks that they will stay sound. No breeder, not Phipps or Jackson or Magnier and Tabor could do so. The game would cease.
This is an extreme example but it shows what happens when an outside force tells owners that they cannot use their animals to be productive, whether on the track or in the shed.

[pba1817]

Originally Posted by Linny

Having spent alot of time involved with "outplacing" slow, unwanted and retiring race horses I tend to think that the costs outweight the benefits.

Look at it this way. Lets say they ban racing for 2 and 3yo's. The game will STOP. No one would buy yearlings and 2yo's would still be risky. Three year old sales would be the norm except that as a breeder, I don't want to have a 4 year investment cycle from breeding to sale. I can't afford to support all those animals that are non productive for that long and I don't care to take the risks that they will stay sound. No breeder, not Phipps or Jackson or Magnier and Tabor could do so. The game would cease.
This is an extreme example but it shows what happens when an outside force tells owners that they cannot use their animals to be productive, whether on the track or in the shed.

Your example is way off the chart and not relevant to the issue being discussed.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Linny

Having spent alot of time involved with "outplacing" slow, unwanted and retiring race horses I tend to think that the costs outweight the benefits. I hate to say it but unless they were of spectacular breeding and ownerd by the cream of the owners most would be cared for at the feedlots and at places like New Holland and others.
Look at it this way. Lets say they ban racing for 2 and 3yo's. The game will STOP. No one would buy yearlings and 2yo's would still be risky. Three year old sales would be the norm except that as a breeder, I don't want to have a 4 year investment cycle from breeding to sale. I can't afford to support all those animals that are non productive for that long and I don't care to take the risks that they will stay sound. No breeder, not Phipps or Jackson or Magnier and Tabor could do so. The game would cease.
This is an extreme example but it shows what happens when an outside force tells owners that they cannot use their animals to be productive, whether on the track or in the shed.

There are no real benefits linny. The Funny Cide thing is a perfect example. Who was a bigger name with a catchy story than him. He failed to do much to keep the sport in the mainstream because he simply wasnt a great horse merely a good one who was very good at the most important time. No one comes out to see a "famous" horse who is not winning. Curlin is another great example of how a campaign by the previous years horse of the year hardly creates a blip on the mainstream radar. His races were far from well attended and pretty much he is going to fade away like many others. This guy is just another jerk who thinks he has all the answers when he has zero undrstanding of the sport and how it works.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pba1817

The positives will far outweigh the negatives IMO, with any change there has to be some sacrifice and some burden met. The few injured horses will have to be cared for until the breeding age is reached.

Spoken by a mutt who probably doesnt have 2 cents to rub together. If you want sacrifice lets see you put up your money and support the sport. Show the way by keeping your horses till they are 5 and then your opinion will count. Until then us people who deal in the reality of actually owning and paying for horses will do what we want with our property. And schmucks like you who think that the 'sport' of the game actually supports the game can keep whining or better yet just stop paying attention.