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

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I'm saying that the spector of a breakdown is not a reason to rush a healthy horse off to the breeding shed. And I'm saying that Barbaro's breakdown brought the sport more positive press than any other event of the last 20 years.

In general, I don't think the occasional loss of a top horse to a breakdown will hurt the sport enough to offset the benefit of keeping the stars in training.



I agree with some of this. But I don't know how you distinguish the fans that end up being bettors from the fans that are simply fans. I was a fan from the time I was a kid, but didn't start seriously betting the horses until maybe 15 years ago. I'm one of the very few sports bettors I know who also bets horses.

In my mind, the industry should work on establishing a fan base. The betting fans will emerge from that fan base fairly naturally.

You are also ignoring the impact that a larger fan base would have on TV revenues. The current viewership of broadcast racing is a joke.



Okay, here's the math. I assume in most cases a deal would be cut at some point during the 3-yr-old year. Deals were cut with Street Sense and Hard Spun earlier this year before they finished racing. There's no reason that a deal couldn't be cut that includes another year of racing. Yes, the deal would be for less than what would be offered for immediate breeding. But I don't think it would be hugely less. And under the idea that Genuine Risk and I put forward, there would be no alternative but to wait anyway.

--Dunbar

Barbaro's story while unique in its effects will be the exception rather than the rule. If GW had been Street Sense the outcry in the US would be much more severe. We as an industry have no way to defend or spin breakdowns that will be acceptable to the general public. The more the public gets familar and attached to a horse the worse the kickback will be if there is a tragedy associated with him.

Almost every sports gambler that I know plays horses but maybe I am the exception to the rule because of where I live and where i grew up.


The farms will not allow their investments to contine to run and possibly decrease in value. Once a horse reaches a peak value there is no reason to risk them losing that value especially considering insurance premiums. If they sit out a year they sit out a year. Plus if other jurisdictions dont adopt the same rules what keeps them from shuttling them elsewhere until they are 5?

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Plus if other jurisdictions dont adopt the same rules what keeps them from shuttling them elsewhere until they are 5?

Seems to me if you didn't allow any horses to race in the country that were offspring of stallions under five and didn't allow any horses to stand here if they stood in another country before they turned five that it would decrease the stallion prospect enough in value to not make much sense for the majority of stallion prospects to stand elsewhere for that one year.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Seems to me if you didn't allow any horses to race in the country that were offspring of stallions under five and didn't allow any horses to stand here if they stood in another country before they turned five that it would decrease the stallion prospect enough in value to not make much sense for the majority of stallion prospects to stand elsewhere for that one year.

It would also lead to issues when dealing with Southern Hemisphere horses. It is an interesting idea but there are too many problems associated with it. Capping the number of foals per year does the same thing without all the complications. You need to find a way to decrease the value of the stallions a bit without to help the entire market. By capping the number of foals, you will increase the quality of books of mares to the top stallions by eliminateing the lesser mares. That in turn means many mares currently being overbred will need to find a lesser stallion which in turn will lead to lesser mares at the bottom of the chain finding racing a better option.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It would also lead to issues when dealing with Southern Hemisphere horses. It is an interesting idea but there are too many problems associated with it. Capping the number of foals per year does the same thing without all the complications. You need to find a way to decrease the value of the stallions a bit without to help the entire market. By capping the number of foals, you will increase the quality of books of mares to the top stallions by eliminateing the lesser mares. That in turn means many mares currently being overbred will need to find a lesser stallion which in turn will lead to lesser mares at the bottom of the chain finding racing a better option.

How about foals by stallion age? If you want to stand a 3yo he can only cover 20 mares. If you want to stand a 4yo he can only cover 50 mares. Then you have a set amount for 5yos and up. You could easily factor in Southern Hemisphere horses that way by setting a number for the SH horses by age. If you truly have a horse that can't race and want to stand him at stud as a 3yo or 4yo you could on a limited basis but if you have a horse capable of racing there is less incentive to send him to the shed while limited to a book of 50.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

How about foals by stallion age? If you want to stand a 3yo he can only cover 20 mares. If you want to stand a 4yo he can only cover 50 mares. Then you have a set amount for 5yos and up. You could easily factor in Southern Hemisphere horses that way by setting a number for the SH horses by age. If you truly have a horse that can't race and want to stand him at stud as a 3yo or 4yo you could on a limited basis but if you have a horse capable of racing there is less incentive to send him to the shed while limited to a book of 50.

That is still too complicated. Cap the number at 90 for any age and you will lower the value of the stallion but they will still be valuble. They may raise the prices a bit to compensate but the market will not bear a wholesale rise in stud fees, they are overvalued now. You cant destroy the breeding industry because thousands of horses are owned and raced by those same people. Racing horses will be the first thing they will cut out.The 2 industries need to be more aligned and by nudging the value of stallions down it will have a trickledown effect on the whole breeding industry which should help the racing side. But doing things radically wont help. The fact is that many of our biggest owners are involved because they are trying to hit a homerun with a stallion deal. You have to still have that carrot to dangle or they will go elsewhere which will not be a good thing for anyone. But if the top were lowered while still being lucrative the same effect of them leaving should not be felt.

[Danzig]

farms make a deal based on what they know a horse can draw at stud, x's the first couple years they can get that fee, x's # of mares bred. that # sets the initial price. most farms who set up these huge deals know they have to 'get out' after those first few seasons, while the name of that horse is still big, and before any of those first crops hit the track--hopefully to do well, but more often then not, horses stud fees decrease.
once they lock in a price, they can't take the chance of the horse going in a tailspin and lowering his value at stud. much as we like to think WE understand that horses are not robots, the truth is that losses will lower future value--take discreet cat for instance. he's really lowered his value. of course he's going to stand for his owner, so it's not as tho a big syndicate was put together, and there are part owners to keep happy. of course at times you also have horses such as lawyer ron, who improved his value at four, and will command a higher fee at retirement now than had he foregone racing this year.
also, once a syndicate is put together, and value set, insurance will have to meet that, pushing premiums thru the roof if you continue to race the horse--that's what forced smartys retirement.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by merasmag

why do you say that? i think stud fees are ridiculously cheap (cpt for maybe corinthian)...plus, don't most deals also include some sortof deal on the foal(s)...the owners on both sides would just have to get into bed with each other too...for the good of the game of course

Stud fees are only considered cheap in bizzaro world (see Jerry Seinfield)

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Stud fees are only considered cheap in bizzaro world (see Jerry Seinfield)

street sense at 75k
hard spun is 50k
discreet cat, 30k
rockport harbor (i just read) 20k--that's high imo.
hell, i think they're all high anymore. look at friends lake for instance!