Steve Haskin's latest: 'Leave Crown Alone'

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I can't believe I actually agree with Dwayne about this. The breed has changed and its time for the sport to change with it especially on the biggest stage.

How relevant is a 12f dirt race for 3 year olds or for that matter any horse? There is no chance that they will ever run it again and a vast majority werent bred to do it anyway so what does it prove?

It's a fallacy that the breed has changed. It takes hundreds of years for significant evolutionary movement in a breed. What's changed are the training methods and nature of the financial aspect of breeding/sales/racing.

The training changed because of the value of the animals involved, trainers cautiousness with them due to their value, and ownerships' need for a return on the much greater investment(s) involved. You don't see Neil Howard, John Shirreffs, and Shug McGaughey having trouble developing horses as an example, because with the owners they are associated with, there is no urgency to earn back what's been invested within year one of the owner's horses on the racetrack.

The Belmont and similar classic distance events are relevant because identifying horses that can excel at those distances are harbingers of the traits the breeding side of the game is supposed to be seeking. The great mystery from the people saying the race distances should be shortened, is that if you do, you only serve to further enhance the sprint and middle distance sire types that are exactly the ones alledgedly 'weakening the breed'. A.P. Indy is the predominant sire of this generation. Which two wins of his confirmed his attributes as a future sire? The Belmont and BC Classic.

In the meantime, in the last two sophomore seasons, Smooth Air and Musket Man have demonstrated perfectly that endurance/stamina are completely obtainable from any sprint-pedigreed horse. If you train them old school, long and slow, supposedly fragile 6f horses bred to go short can magically go 8.5-10f. As a result of the methods of old style training by Bennie Stutts and Derek Ryan, those two have succeeded at distances no one thought they could possibly 'get'.

Screwing around with the Triple Crown distances, and spacing, would be a guaranteed road to ruin for the breed for racing.

[Smooth Operator]

Originally Posted by Kasept

It's a fallacy that the breed has changed. It takes hundreds of years for significant evolutionary movement in a breed. What's changed are the training methods and nature of the financial aspect of breeding/sales/racing.

The training changed because of the value of the animals involved, trainers cautiousness with them due to their value, and ownerships' need for a return on the much greater investment(s) involved. You don't see Neil Howard, John Shirreffs, and Shug McGaughey having trouble developing horses as an example, because with the owners they are associated with, there is no urgency to earn back what's been invested within year one of the owner's horses on the racetrack.

The Belmont and similar classic distance events are relevant because identifying horses that can excel at those distances are harbingers of the traits the breeding side of the game is supposed to be seeking. The great mystery from the people saying the race distances should be shortened, is that if you do, you only serve to further enhance the sprint and middle distance sire types that are exactly the ones alledgedly 'weakening the breed'. A.P. Indy is the predominant sire of this generation. Which two wins of his confirmed his attributes as a future sire? The Belmont and BC Classic.

In the meantime, in the last two sophomore seasons, Smooth Air and Musket Man have demonstrated perfectly that endurance/stamina are completely obtainable from any sprint-pedigreed horse. If you train them old school, long and slow, supposedly fragile 6f horses bred to go short can magically go 8.5-10f. As a result of the methods of old style training by Bennie Stutts and Derek Ryan, those two have succeeded at distances no one thought they could possibly 'get'.

Screwing around with the Triple Crown distances, and spacing, would be a guaranteed road to ruin for the breed for racing.

That's a good post right there, Steve.

Have always felt that stamina and durability go hand-in-hand.


Would love to the BCC contested at twelve panels.

[Riot]

I feel horses have changed. Look at them. Natural evolution isn't the selection process, breeders are. Select for it or lose it, that's genetics 101. A breed can be markedly changed in only 2-3 generations. It happened in Quarter Horses with Impressive. It happened in Arabians. I think it's definitely happened in TB horses. The TB horses today do not look, to me, like the TB horses of the 1980's, nor of the 1970's, nor of the 1940-50s.

Like Steve pointed out, horse genetics are selected for by the breeders for success at sales and commercial breeding, not for winning classic races at classic distances. Not for breeder-owners having classic- winning horses (that make their money on the track, not the shed) then bringing them home as stallions.

That said, I completely agree, leave the Triple Crown alone. Don't dumb it down to fit the animals and trainers and breeders of today. Let them figure out how to get it back.

[GenuineRisk]

I don't think D Wayne really cares about whether the TC races are changed; I think he cares about getting his name in the paper and is very good at giving quotes that will do just that. And he succeeded, because here's a whole thread based on an editorial based on something he said.

I think the best thing that could be done to raise the chances of a Triple Crown would be to limit the size Derby field. The more horses in a race, the more luck factors into the win. I think if the Derby field in '05 had been 14 we'd be arguing about whether Afleet Alex was a deserving Triple Crown winner and who did he really beat.

That said, I don't know that I'd change it. Even with the huge field permitted, we've had lots of near misses in the TC since Affirmed won. It'll happen again. The 11 TC winners were lucky as well as good (some luckier than others, I guess, seeing as how only six of them are in the first 20 of Bloodhorse's Top 100 of the 20th Century).

[Phalaris1913]

Some won it when it was four weeks after the Belmont. Perhaps if you had given Smarty Jones or Real Quiet an additional week of rest before the Belmont, they too could have won it.

Yeah, but the TC winners whose Belmont was four weeks after the second leg were not getting any additional rest, since they all ran in other races between the Preakness and Belmont.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

Some won it when it was four weeks after the Belmont. Perhaps if you had given Smarty Jones or Real Quiet an additional week of rest before the Belmont, they too could have won it.

Yeah, but the TC winners whose Belmont was four weeks after the second leg were not getting any additional rest, since they all ran in other races between the Preakness and Belmont.

excellent point!

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

Some won it when it was four weeks after the Belmont. Perhaps if you had given Smarty Jones or Real Quiet an additional week of rest before the Belmont, they too could have won it.

Yeah, but the TC winners whose Belmont was four weeks after the second leg were not getting any additional rest, since they all ran in other races between the Preakness and Belmont.

Which further illustrates that these horses can't do what horse of the past were able to do. I think it's silly to change the competitors but ask them to do the same things.

[Thunder Gulch]

While I'm not in favor of any changes to the triple crown races, I do think the Belmont is raced at an obsolete distance and winning today is no indicator of class and talent.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Kasept

You don't see Neil Howard, John Shirreffs, and Shug McGaughey having trouble developing horses as an example, because with the owners they are associated with, there is no urgency to earn back what's been invested within year one of the owner's horses on the racetrack.

There was a time when John Shirreffs was bar none the best trainer in the game with first time starters .. he made someone like a Wesley Ward look like an ultra conservative trainer who's MO is bringing them along slowly.

Those 505 horses he had would run their eyes out on debut and never develop much. Once he lost 505, it was as if he became a much different kind of trainer.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

There was a time when John Shirreffs was bar none the best trainer in the game with first time starters .. he made someone like a Wesley Ward look like an ultra conservative trainer who's MO is bringing them along slowly.

Those 505 horses he had would run their eyes out on debut and never develop much. Once he lost 505, it was as if he became a much different kind of trainer.

Proving how good a horseman he is and that trainers operate in response to owners' interests, instructions, demands... Or in the case of Shirreffs, Howard and McGaughey, at the luxury of having owners who can afford to be patient with the horses they breed or buy.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Proving how good a horseman he is and that trainers operate in response to owners' interests, instructions, demands... Or in the case of Shirreffs, Howard and McGaughey, at the luxury of having owners who can afford to be patient with the horses they breed or buy.

And isn't that type of owner more of an anomaly in today's racing world? What is the likelihood racing is going to go back to where that owner is the norm? it appears to this non-insider that racing is going further and further away from that type and more toward the IEAH's of the world.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

And isn't that type of owner more of an anomaly in today's racing world? What is the likelihood racing is going to go back to where that owner is the norm? it appears to this non-insider that racing is going further and further away from that type and more toward the IEAH's of the world.

not going to happen. i think things began to change when the commercial breeders took over. instead of racing being about breeding a good horse to further the breed, it has become purely about the bottom line. that's why you have so much emphasis on precocity, so you can 'get out' on a horse early. that's also why you have so many early retirements-a desire to get a horse in the shed before a defeat can spell disaster for his stud fee. it's no longer about runners being a showcase for a stallion, but about finding a runner who can wow someone enough to demand five figures at stud-altho six would be better...that also explains the increasing shuttling of stallions, which is no better for a stud than having 170 mare books.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

And isn't that type of owner more of an anomaly in today's racing world? What is the likelihood racing is going to go back to where that owner is the norm? it appears to this non-insider that racing is going further and further away from that type and more toward the IEAH's of the world.

I'd say we actually are headed back in trhe right direction somewhat, though I would need Chuck and similar breeding business participants to support my impulse... There's a very wide array of ownership these days, and there seem to be more operations than in recent memory that are assembling broodmare bands and producing homebreds to race, and sell, with eyes on quality. There are operators/operations like Satish Sanan (Padua), Ro Parra (Millenium), Nathan Fox (Richland Hills), Ahmet Zayat, etc., who are breeding, racing, selling, etc., as well as Brereton Jones, Charlotte Weber, Ned Evans, Heilingbrodt, The Mosses, et al, off the top of my head. Stonerside was until selling out. I guess Jess Jackson is trying to as well... Do they equal Calumet, Claiborne, Darby Dan, the Phipps operation, etc.? Maybe...

As an aside, an IEAH isn't really a negative at all in the overall equation. They are buying ready-made horses as investments hoping to get on to 'syndicatable' sires that will have long, profitable shed careers. They did buy Stardom Bound of course, (hoping for glory but with obvious fall-back potential as marketable broodmare), and have geldings in their racing operation too.. But since they are looking for sire material for the most part, they aren't looking first and foremost at quick return type horses that for the last 15 years have ben defined as 'win early' types. And they are overpaying for horses which can only help re-circulate investment dollars back into the industry. Remember that the horses that they buy have likely been through the breeding/auction, system perhaps as pinhooks or whatever. So if they get bought another time, it's just plus revenue into the greater horse business money pool.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Kasept

As an aside, an IEAH isn't really a negative at all in the overall equation. They are buying ready-made horses as investments hoping to get on to 'syndicatable' sires that will have long, profitable shed careers. They did buy Stardom Bound of course, (hoping for glory but with obvious fall-back potential as marketable broodmare), and have geldings in their racing operation too.. But since they are looking for sire material for the most part, they aren't looking first and foremost at quick return type horses that for the last 15 years have ben defined as 'win early' types. And they are overpaying for horses which can only help re-circulate investment dollars back into the industry. Remember that the horses that they buy have likely been through the breeding/auction, system perhaps as pinhooks or whatever. So if they get bought another time, it's just plus revenue into the greater horse business money pool.

Actually, it seems as if IEAH is just buying "race horses," not investing in potential stallions. Perhaps with the exception of some of their European-bought horses (like Frost Giant and Plan), most of their purchases don't have stallion pedigrees, and for that reason, can be bought by a racing operation for more "reasonable" prices: Benny the Bull (by Lucky Lionel); Kip Deville (Kipling); Big Brown (Boundary); and even I Want Revenge (Stephen Got Even) to a large degree. The lack of commercial stallion appeal is probably why Kip Deville stayed in training, and Benny the Bull is being brought out of retirement. Things may change as a result of the downturn in the stallion end of the business, but the really well-bred horses are always likely to be snatched up by the Darleys and Coolmores more so than an outfit like IEAH.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Actually, it seems as if IEAH is just buying "race horses," not investing in potential stallions. Perhaps with the exception of some of their European-bought horses (like Frost Giant and Plan), most of their purchases don't have stallion pedigrees, and for that reason, can be bought by a racing operation for more "reasonable" prices: Benny the Bull (by Lucky Lionel); Kip Deville (Kipling); Big Brown (Boundary); and even I Want Revenge (Stephen Got Even) to a large degree. The lack of commercial stallion appeal is probably why Kip Deville stayed in training, and Benny the Bull is being brought out of retirement. Things may change as a result of the downturn in the stallion end of the business, but the really well-bred horses are always likely to be snatched up by the Darleys and Coolmores more so than an outfit like IEAH.

P6..

Here's the thing.. If they aren't fishing for a stallion success, how can they justify the expenses of their purchases? They can't make back on track what they're spending, on average.. No?

(And as a PS, aren't they welcome to all the Kip Devilles and Benny the Bulls they can find from original owners?)

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Kasept

I'd say we actually are headed back in trhe right direction somewhat, though I would need Chuck and similar breeding business participants to support my impulse... There's a very wide array of ownership these days, and there seem to be more operations than in recent memory that are assembling broodmare bands and producing homebreds to race, and sell, with eyes on quality. There are operators/operations like Satish Sanan (Padua), Ro Parra (Millenium), Nathan Fox (Richland Hills), Ahmet Zayat, etc., who are breeding, racing, selling, etc., as well as Brereton Jones, Charlotte Weber, Ned Evans, Heilingbrodt, The Mosses, et al, off the top of my head. Stonerside was until selling out. I guess Jess Jackson is trying to as well... Do they equal Calumet, Claiborne, Darby Dan, the Phipps operation, etc.? Maybe...

As an aside, an IEAH isn't really a negative at all in the overall equation. They are buying ready-made horses as investments hoping to get on to 'syndicatable' sires that will have long, profitable shed careers. They did buy Stardom Bound of course, (hoping for glory but with obvious fall-back potential as marketable broodmare), and have geldings in their racing operation too.. But since they are looking for sire material for the most part, they aren't looking first and foremost at quick return type horses that for the last 15 years have ben defined as 'win early' types. And they are overpaying for horses which can only help re-circulate investment dollars back into the industry. Remember that the horses that they buy have likely been through the breeding/auction, system perhaps as pinhooks or whatever. So if they get bought another time, it's just plus revenue into the greater horse business money pool.

The vast majority of theories about breeding, its course, its flaws, etc are ridiculous including many found in this thread. There are people within the breeding industry that are espousing ridiculous theories to further their own agenda.