Dubai Esc. Out

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I think we all agree that it makes good short-term business sense for an owner to retire a top-notch horse as soon as possible. pgardn is not disputing that. He said:



We are saying a few things, but we are not saying it is a bad business decision. However, some owners would be willing to risk 5% of their investiment (insurance) for the pleasure and excitement of seeing their horse run another year. These owners probably think their horse is good enough that it won't disgrace itself enough to lose any breeding value by continuing to run.

Some owners seem to value running their horses as much as the money they are putting at risk. Paulson kept Azeri running even when half the fans thought she should be retired, and she did not disgrace herself. He let Cigar campaign for a 2nd BC Classic, even after he had "nothing else to prove". Lord Darby has kept Ouija Board in training far longer than expected for a mare of her accomplishment.

You might answer that none of these horses had/has the value of Bernardini. But the owners of these other horses also do not have the money of the sheiks, so relatively speaking, the risk/reward/bankroll relationship was probably on a par with the Bernardini decision.

--Dunbar

If a horse is sound and the owner wants to run the horse as a 4 or even a 5 year old, that is fine. It's up to the owner. It's his money. If he's willing to take the risk of running his horse another year, then more power to him. But if he decides to retire the horse after its 3 year old year, there is nothing wrong with that either.