Great Article by Moss

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

You can't require a horse to race until five though. There are legit circumstances that will not allow a horse to race. So what does the owner of that horse do? If the owner of Brass Hat had decided after the first injury that he didn't want to take the chance of having something worse happen and retired him, he shouldn't have the right to breed him? So what's he supposed to do? Sit on the horse, pay all the insurance on him, all the money it takes for the care of the horse, and have no way of making any income from the horse until he's five? I don't see how that's fair. By making people wait till their horses are five to breed them, I think we'd end up seeing more horses out there that probably shouldn't be running but are because having them sit around on a farm doing nothing for a year or two isn't going to work.

Yes. There's a strong argument that the sort of horse you are bringing up shouldn't go to the breeding shed in the first place.

[slotdirt]

Brass Hat probably isn't the best example.

I've been having this discussion with a couple of friends this morning. The notion that 100 percent of this year's Derby entrants have Native Dancer in their lineage (all through either Northern Dancer or Mr. Prospector) is unbelievable to me when you consider that Native Dancer was only foaled 50 years ago.

I often wonder why horses like Silver Charm, Holy Bull, and Go for Gin, and others were never really given a completely fair shake by American breeders. Is it because of the lack of Native Dancer? Just asking the question to some who I think might have the explanation.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Brass Hat probably isn't the best example.

I've been having this discussion with a couple of friends this morning. The notion that 100 percent of this year's Derby entrants have Native Dancer in their lineage (all through either Northern Dancer or Mr. Prospector) is unbelievable to me when you consider that Native Dancer was only foaled 50 years ago.

I often wonder why horses like Silver Charm, Holy Bull, and Go for Gin, and others were never really given a completely fair shake by American breeders. Is it because of the lack of Native Dancer? Just asking the question to some who I think might have the explanation.

Take a look at Coolmores Irish roster and you will find the same thing.

Holy Bull has been given a chance, he is a middle of the road sire. Go for Gin was a bad sire and Silver Charm was the only one who never got a real chance.

[Cannon Shell]

This crap tht Moss is pursuing can potentially be more harmfull to the game than any horse breaking down. Think clearly for a second and realize that many of changes that he proposes are a one way street that cant be repaired. The banning of whips for example. Maybe the casual fan doent care for them but the betting public sure will. Get beat in a couple photos when your horse hangs and see how thrilled you are then. But Trever Denman and Jerry Bailey say so? Let them start betting or owning horses instead of just collecting paychecks and their opinions will count.

His use of Barbaro, George Washington and Pine Island as examples of recent famous breakdowns and the thought that the breed is too speed favoring is interesting. Especially considering that they are by Dynaformer, Danehill and Arch, none of which would be considered speed or unsound sires. Throw in the fact that Alysheba and Kris S are broodmare sires on 2 of them makes you wonder about how exactly you will "breed the stamina" back into them?

The lack of "worldwide diversity" is especially interesting since there is more of a mixture of blood throughout the world than ever. Stallions have been shuttling to both hemispheres from the US and Europe down to S. America and Australia and New Zealand. Being that the TB originated from 3 sires it is hard to see where that diversity would come from. Supposedly only the US has a problem with this yet foreign buyers flood our sales to buy American pedigrees.

Calling for sires and dams to be 5 or 6 ignores the economic realities that the vast majority of breeders face and potentially puts at risk horses back into training simply because there are very few owners that can carry a horse and its bills for 4 years or more. If you had a nice, young, well bred mare that happened to get injured in some unusual manner (kicking the wall of a stall, fence, etc) and she was hurt at 3 lets say. Well she would not be able to be bred till she was 6, would not foal till 7 would not have a yearling for sale till 8. Adding in insurance, stud fee and 8 years of care, who could or would do this? Or what about the horse that makes 2 starts per year for 3 years? Are they proving their soundness? Or mares that get some kind of sickness that scars the lungs where it is impossible for them to race? Just throw them out?

The push for the end of Lasix and steroids seems to be contradictory considering he calls the breed much weaker. Since we have such weak horses how exactly are we supposed to get them to run without any help? I will personally benefit greatly if Lasix were to be banned. Yet I can not support the idea because it is just a bad idea. Eliminating the medication doesnt eliminate the problem. Horses will still bleed, likely more will, leading to more layoffs, more owners bills, smaller fields and more form reversals. Sounds great. Naturally he trotted out the old, tired "Lasix may mask other meds" crap for effect, even though that is simply not true in 2008.

The thought that the suggestion of using the Horse racing Act of 1978 as a tool to force states to comply to medication rules is scary. That piece of legislation is the current lifeline of the industry and if it is used a instrument of blackmail once, the politicians will do it again. What about when the jockeys decide they are entitled to 15% of the purse and their lackey in Congress (Whitfield)threatens to withold the signals unless states and tracks comply to that? Or if the federal govt decides to pay for the testing of horses with a 5% tax on all wagers. Or worse? Getting the govt involved is a horrible mistake in any manner. If you think PETA is an opportunist group of scum (which they are) then Congress would really impress you.

I wont even get into the synthetic track thing.

I think it is funny how Dan Wetzel's article which was correct in a lot of ways was labeled junk yet Moss' was revered. Basically Wetzel was saying that this whole thing will blow over because racing is a big business, the hardcore fans are going to keep coming anyway and most of the casual fans at the "big events" are more concerned with drinking anyways . HE is mostly right, Moss is mostly wrong.

[SniperSB23]

Lot of good points. I don't think mares should have to wait until 5 or 6 but I don't think it would be a terrible idea to force stallions to. I still think the best idea is to limit books by age. A 3yo can only cover 20 mares, 4yo can only cover 60, 5yos and up can cover 100. That way you aren't forcing injured horses to wait but at the same time there is less incentive to retire a sound 3yo.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Lot of good points. I don't think mares should have to wait until 5 or 6 but I don't think it would be a terrible idea to force stallions to. I still think the best idea is to limit books by age. A 3yo can only cover 20 mares, 4yo can only cover 60, 5yos and up can cover 100. That way you aren't forcing injured horses to wait but at the same time there is less incentive to retire a sound 3yo.

There are only about 5 or 6 horses (stallion prospects) a year that are retired early. At least those that matter. If you put restriction in the horses will still be retired early, however they will just wind up in Japan for a few years. The Japanese wont give a damn about any restrictions.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There are only about 5 or 6 horses (stallion prospects) a year that are retired early. At least those that matter. If you put restriction in the horses will still be retired early, however they will just wind up in Japan for a few years. The Japanese wont give a damn about any restrictions.

With some perhaps but you really think an Any Given Saturday or an AP Warrior would have been retired to stand in Japan for a year rather than come back and race at 4?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

With some perhaps but you really think an Any Given Saturday or an AP Warrior would have been retired to stand in Japan for a year rather than come back and race at 4?

Even the Japs wouldnt want AP Warrior. Would you take a 2 year guarantee for say $10 million or a year racing?

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Even the Japs wouldnt want AP Warrior. Would you take a 2 year guarantee for say $10 million or a year racing?

So make the progeny of the violaters that go overseas ineligible for the BC and Triple Crown.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Lot of good points. I don't think mares should have to wait until 5 or 6 but I don't think it would be a terrible idea to force stallions to. I still think the best idea is to limit books by age. A 3yo can only cover 20 mares, 4yo can only cover 60, 5yos and up can cover 100. That way you aren't forcing injured horses to wait but at the same time there is less incentive to retire a sound 3yo.

I can't help but think that the high insurance premiums will likely nip that in the bud though. I shudder to think what might happen to some horses in lieu of waiting out that retirement to stud, provided they don't get sold to the unregulated Japanese or Saudi markets. Possibly even hidden deals to the Aussies in exchange for them being sold back later. I'm sure they'll get creative and even more sure we'll lose perfectly good prospects that shouldn't be punished because counterparts are unsound. The people breeding and selling these animals should be more responsible, there's no way of getting around that. I wouldn't be opposed to getting rid of the grotesque 150-200 mare books. It's economically unsound, nevermind irresponsible to the horses.

[docicu3]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

This crap tht Moss is pursuing can potentially be more harmfull to the game than any horse breaking down. Think clearly for a second and realize that many of changes that he proposes are a one way street that cant be repaired. The banning of whips for example. Maybe the casual fan doent care for them but the betting public sure will. Get beat in a couple photos when your horse hangs and see how thrilled you are then. But Trever Denman and Jerry Bailey say so? Let them start betting or owning horses instead of just collecting paychecks and their opinions will count.

His use of Barbaro, George Washington and Pine Island as examples of recent famous breakdowns and the thought that the breed is too speed favoring is interesting. Especially considering that they are by Dynaformer, Danehill and Arch, none of which would be considered speed or unsound sires. Throw in the fact that Alysheba and Kris S are broodmare sires on 2 of them makes you wonder about how exactly you will "breed the stamina" back into them?

The lack of "worldwide diversity" is especially interesting since there is more of a mixture of blood throughout the world than ever. Stallions have been shuttling to both hemispheres from the US and Europe down to S. America and Australia and New Zealand. Being that the TB originated from 3 sires it is hard to see where that diversity would come from. Supposedly only the US has a problem with this yet foreign buyers flood our sales to buy American pedigrees.

Calling for sires and dams to be 5 or 6 ignores the economic realities that the vast majority of breeders face and potentially puts at risk horses back into training simply because there are very few owners that can carry a horse and its bills for 4 years or more. If you had a nice, young, well bred mare that happened to get injured in some unusual manner (kicking the wall of a stall, fence, etc) and she was hurt at 3 lets say. Well she would not be able to be bred till she was 6, would not foal till 7 would not have a yearling for sale till 8. Adding in insurance, stud fee and 8 years of care, who could or would do this? Or what about the horse that makes 2 starts per year for 3 years? Are they proving their soundness? Or mares that get some kind of sickness that scars the lungs where it is impossible for them to race? Just throw them out?

The push for the end of Lasix and steroids seems to be contradictory considering he calls the breed much weaker. Since we have such weak horses how exactly are we supposed to get them to run without any help? I will personally benefit greatly if Lasix were to be banned. Yet I can not support the idea because it is just a bad idea. Eliminating the medication doesnt eliminate the problem. Horses will still bleed, likely more will, leading to more layoffs, more owners bills, smaller fields and more form reversals. Sounds great. Naturally he trotted out the old, tired "Lasix may mask other meds" crap for effect, even though that is simply not true in 2008.

The thought that the suggestion of using the Horse racing Act of 1978 as a tool to force states to comply to medication rules is scary. That piece of legislation is the current lifeline of the industry and if it is used a instrument of blackmail once, the politicians will do it again. What about when the jockeys decide they are entitled to 15% of the purse and their lackey in Congress (Whitfield)threatens to withold the signals unless states and tracks comply to that? Or if the federal govt decides to pay for the testing of horses with a 5% tax on all wagers. Or worse? Getting the govt involved is a horrible mistake in any manner. If you think PETA is an opportunist group of scum (which they are) then Congress would really impress you.

I wont even get into the synthetic track thing.

I think it is funny how Dan Wetzel's article which was correct in a lot of ways was labeled junk yet Moss' was revered. Basically Wetzel was saying that this whole thing will blow over because racing is a big business, the hardcore fans are going to keep coming anyway and most of the casual fans at the "big events" are more concerned with drinking anyways . HE is mostly right, Moss is mostly wrong.

A very nice well thought out retort......have you thought of yourself as a media guy Chuck? Far too many with nice smiles and empty heads seem to be paying their bills handsomely as "talking horse heads" without any accountability for what they say. I can see it now "Simon Says" quality horse commentary for the good of the game!!

......then again Decaf may be the answer for me.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by docicu3

A very nice well thought out retort......have you thought of yourself as a media guy Chuck? Far too many with nice smiles and empty heads seem to be paying their bills handsomely as "talking horse heads" without any accountability for what they say. I can see it now "Simon Says" quality horse commentary for the good of the game!!

......then again Decaf may be the answer for me.

I dont think that too many of them are getting paid "handsomely". And I'm too apt to speak my mind to be a media type.

[Runningincircles]

Tradition can't be used to justify the problems that are all too evident today in racing. The gambling industry is regulated -- at least in theory -- and can thus be forced to change and reduce the incentives for misbehavior by the owners and trainers.

Moss is right about the need for change -- and I think more needs to be done.

I'd push the Breeders Cup races to the spring and switch TC to the fall (spaced out with three weeks between). And I wouldn't allow any 2 year olds in the BC. That way, the one "big" 3 year old race -- a "juvenile mile" -- in the BC would be more of a prep for the later fall, than an afterthought.

I'd also push sponsorship for a "mature" horse series of races -- perhaps three races spread out over the whole year for 4 year old's and up?