|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
10-22-2007, 05:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln 
|
|
#2
10-27-2007, 11:32 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
--Dunbar
__________________
Curlin and Hard Spun finish 1,2 in the 2007 BC Classic, demonstrating how competing in all three Triple Crown races ruins a horse for the rest of the year...see avatar photo from REUTERS/Lucas Jackson
|
|
#3
10-28-2007, 08:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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!).
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#4
10-28-2007, 08:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
your so sexy when you talk like that... 
|
|
#5
10-31-2007, 02:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#6
10-31-2007, 03:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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).
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#7
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
|
|
#8
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
|
|
#9
10-31-2007, 06:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#10
10-31-2007, 08:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Three Chimneys announced it will contractually limit the book on all it's stallions to 110 mares in 2008.
For the northern hemisphere 
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#11
10-31-2007, 06:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#12
10-31-2007, 06:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#13
10-31-2007, 09:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Want to know? Check back with them in a year, two, three. The statistics would make your hair fall out (or mine considering I have not much more than you, LOL). Eric
|
|
#14
11-01-2007, 11:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
The Main Course...the chosen or frozen entree?!
|
|
#15
11-02-2007, 08:33 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
There's no other rational conclusion that could be drawn. If the average value of a stallion prospect would drop markedly after a 4-yr-old campaign, then people are paying too much for 3-yr-old stallions. (yes, there should naturally be a small drop attributed to the loss of one breeding season, but we're not talking about that kind of price difference.) The initial market price for breeding is based on a combination of the stallion's lineage and what it accomplished on the track. If the average market price would suffer from another year of racing, then clearly people have been over-paying for what a horse accomplishes on the track up to the point of its 3-yr-old year. Maybe it already seemed obvious to some that breeding prices are inflated. But the argument could always be made that the market establishes a fair price. However, that argument would be negated by the fact, if it's true, that on average, a horse's value would go down decidedly by simply racing another year. --Dunbar
__________________
Curlin and Hard Spun finish 1,2 in the 2007 BC Classic, demonstrating how competing in all three Triple Crown races ruins a horse for the rest of the year...see avatar photo from REUTERS/Lucas Jackson
|
|
#16
10-28-2007, 08:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#17
10-28-2007, 09:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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
__________________
Curlin and Hard Spun finish 1,2 in the 2007 BC Classic, demonstrating how competing in all three Triple Crown races ruins a horse for the rest of the year...see avatar photo from REUTERS/Lucas Jackson
|
|
#18
10-28-2007, 09:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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
|
|
#19
10-28-2007, 09:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#20
10-28-2007, 09:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The problem is that I like watching horses run, not waiting for their offspring.
Each horse is an individual, not a descendant of some horse who won a Grade I race. Therefore I hope Street Sense, as well as Smarty Jones, Bernardini, etc... are absolute duds in the shed. I hope all their offspring make great riding ponies and are happy doing so. I like watching athletes perform. I really liked watching Street Sense ride the rail with Borel aboard. He made races interesting. He was fun to watch. I would look forward to races he was in. But racing is not about people who like watching athletes compete. Which is the purest form of sports pleasure, apologies to the serious handicappers, breeders, pinhookers, hookers, etc...
|
Hybrid Mode
