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

[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).

[GenuineRisk]

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...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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...

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.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

But see, that's just it! Everyone talks around what happened with TGM and his $16 million tag, but never in any sort of way I can actually understand. What? What happened? Pleeeasssee someone tell meeeee....

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...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

But see, that's just it! Everyone talks around what happened with TGM and his $16 million tag, but never in any sort of way I can actually understand. What? What happened? Pleeeasssee someone tell meeeee....

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...

buzz chace recently bought a horse that was sold before it went thru the auction. so the seller listed, wasn't really the seller. in those situations, the horse is supposed to be pulled from the sale.
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.

[Danzig]

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??

[GenuineRisk]

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.)

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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.

It would not cause prices to drop but would limit the dollar amount a stallion would be able to produce which is where the value of a stallion exists. Currently there are horses that are breeding close to 200 mares. Cut that in half and you signifigntly lower the value of the stallion. Sure the top stallions prices may rise a bit but you still give incentive for the lesser horses like Lawyer Ron as a 3 year old to return and become stars. I still believe that the best horses may still retire and sit out a year with high values and not risk lowering them. The benchmark is three years worth of fees to cover the cost of the horse. Many stallions are capturing the cost by breeding to an excessive number of mares.

[Riot]

Three Chimneys announced it will contractually limit the book on all it's stallions to 110 mares in 2008.

For the northern hemisphere

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Three Chimneys announced it will contractually limit the book on all it's stallions to 110 mares in 2008.

For the northern hemisphere

yippee.


i like hamdans view of things much more.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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.

Insurance companies dont put the value on the horse. The market does that. They may chose not to insure a horse past a certain level but that is just business.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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.

GR, Funny Cide had a lot of fans for sure but he was also the poster child of why people retire horses while they are on top. Dual classic winner to 3rd tier NY bred stakes loser. Lots of demand for one, not so much for the other. If you owned a dual classic winner that you could get $25 million for would you risk almost all of it to run him another year fearing a Funny Cide scenario?

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

GR, Funny Cide had a lot of fans for sure but he was also the poster child of why people retire horses while they are on top. Dual classic winner to 3rd tier NY bred stakes loser. Lots of demand for one, not so much for the other. If you owned a dual classic winner that you could get $25 million for would you risk almost all of it to run him another year fearing a Funny Cide scenario?

Chuck, it's like asking someone what they would do if they won the lottery, and asking them what they are going to do after they won the lottery.

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

[letswastemoney]

If I owned Street Sense, I'd be happy with the money he makes me from just racing on the track.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

If I owned Street Sense, I'd be happy with the money he makes me from just racing on the track.

Which is not that much lately...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ELA

Chuck, it's like asking someone what they would do if they won the lottery, and asking them what they are going to do after they won the lottery.

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

I know what I'm gonna do....

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

GR, Funny Cide had a lot of fans for sure but he was also the poster child of why people retire horses while they are on top. Dual classic winner to 3rd tier NY bred stakes loser. Lots of demand for one, not so much for the other. If you owned a dual classic winner that you could get $25 million for would you risk almost all of it to run him another year fearing a Funny Cide scenario?

You are correct. I am of the opinion Funny Cide never races past 3 if he wasn't a gelding. He was still legit at age 4 usually on the board in grade 1s with an occasional win thrown in...but after that...not so much. So in all actuality, I think he would have maintained most of his value if retired after his 4 year old year...it was age 5-6-7 where his decline was obviously apparent. But yeah, you look at results...speed figures through the Belmont Stakes of their career there is virtually nothing separating, Funny Cide, Smarty Jones, Afleet Alex, Curlin, Street Sense, Hard Spun etc. So yeah, why run any of them...when as you said we have our poster boy of what happens...and through spring of their 3 yr old years...FC was as good as any of those mentioned above and if not as good...certainly in their ball park. They are all individuals so there are a few here or there that may continue to get better and become megastars, but I think the majority would track like FC and become nothing extraordinary and with the money out there...why chance it at all when the guarantee is right in front of you not running??

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

You are correct. I am of the opinion Funny Cide never races past 3 if he wasn't a gelding. He was still legit at age 4 usually on the board in grade 1s with an occasional win thrown in...but after that...not so much. So in all actuality, I think he would have maintained most of his value if retired after his 4 year old year...it was age 5-6-7 where his decline was obviously apparent. But yeah, you look at results...speed figures through the Belmont Stakes of their career there is virtually nothing separating, Funny Cide, Smarty Jones, Afleet Alex, Curlin, Street Sense, Hard Spun etc. So yeah, why run any of them...when as you said we have our poster boy of what happens...and through spring of their 3 yr old years...FC was as good as any of those mentioned above and if not as good...certainly in their ball park. They are all individuals so there are a few here or there that may continue to get better and become megastars, but I think the majority would track like FC and become nothing extraordinary and with the money out there...why chance it at all when the guarantee is right in front of you not running??

Though it is easy for us to throw numbers around the amounts of money being paid for stallion prospects is staggering. 25 to 50 million dollars is real money even to rich people. Dont forget that alot of these rich owners believe that the sport is who makes the most money like in their other businesses. I am not saying it is wrong or right but it is how they think.