Bernardini probably done...

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Balletto

I dont know how you can wish "bad" upon the connections for making a safe business decision. Until you're in the position and you're shelling out money and watching each race with breath held hoping your horse returns safely, I wouldnt be so quick to JUDGE.

Yeah, maybe they do have more money than God, but he loves his horses and wants the best for them. And maybe, just maybe, the best for this horse is retiring now. You dont know the quirks and possibly physical ailments or weaknesses... stop assuming its your place or right to make such an ignorant comment.

You disagree with the retirement... GREAT... voice your opinion... we all will... thats what the forum is for and the right of all fans... but dont sink so low to ignorantly voice personal attacks and ill-wishes upon someone you dont know, especially a person who helps keeps this sport alive, more so than any other owner.

Balletto, do you think they are retiring him due to injury or ailment?

Yes, it's a safe business decision. Though the safest business decision would have been not to ever run him at all; why, he could have broken down this past year! Come on...

I'm well aware this is a breeding business, first and foremost, and the sport aspect is basically to take money away from suckers, but not having any stake in breeding, I'm here because I like watching horses run. So I can be disappointed, and I can hope that retiring him turns out to not produce the superhorse that they're expecting and guess what, that doesn't make me an evil person. Because I'd like to see breeding take a backseat to racing. Not going to happen, but I can't help but be chagrined when a talented, young and as best I can tell, sound horse is rushed off to the breeding shed. It's a bummer for the fans.

Worst case scenario, what would happen to the Sheik if he ran Bernardini at four and God forbid, Bernardini broke down? Is the Sheik any poorer? No, because he's got all of us throwing oil back as fast as we can- he'll always be richer than any of us can ever fathom. Of any owners in the world, they are the ones who can afford to lose a valuable animal and not have it affect their financial stability. I'm of the opinion SJ was retired because the owners couldn't keep up with the insurance payments-- how much would he have had to win each year just to pay for that? I'm sure he was injured and worn out, but I think the insurance was a huge factor-- and I don't blame them. I understand the small-time owner retiring a horse and taking the money. These guys DON'T NEED IT. Decades past you had people breeding to race; these guys are breeding to breed. Boy, that's exciting. Woo hoo. Can't wait.

So no, I don't feel bad about hoping their hot prospect doesn't pan out in the breeding shed, because I don't get any thrill out of imaging Bernardini rutting away. I get it watching horses run. And again, he's a fracking horse. He doesn't care what I think of him; he's going to have a lovely life in retirement (a year too soon, as far as I'm concerned) so my ire is purely directed at a what I think is a poor sporting decision. And quite frankly, the Sheik doesn't give a rats' ass what I think of his decision, either.

So again, I say, pbbbbbbtttt.

I have absolutely no problem with your disappointment and attitude... I share it with you... but I would never wish a horse DIDNT pan out at stud because I was disappointed in his retirement. Hell, wish for a lot of talented babies that will keep your interest for many more years than their sire ever could!

I do apologize for jumping all over you... but I just hear SO many remarks against owners when they make a business decision about their horse. Trust me, when you own one, its a COMPLETELY different perspective.

[blackthroatedwind]

These doing " what's best for the horse " arguments are completely hypocritical. " What is best for horses " is to not race them period, as pretending this is a game that is about " what's best for horses " is pretty much to flat out lie. Frankly, these horses shouldn't even be born if one cares about " what's best for horses ".

Sorry, animal welfare arguments and racing simply do not mix. If they care so much about the safety of horses they should be spending their money to try to stop thoroughbred racing. Since, apparently they aren't doing that, at least in some ways, spare me that excuse. They are simply making a selfish economic decision. Stop trying to sugar coat it.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

These doing " what's best for the horse " arguments are completely hypocritical. " What is best for horses " is to not race them period, as pretending this is a game that is about " what's best for horses " is pretty much to flat out lie. Frankly, these horses shouldn't even be born if one cares about " what's best for horses ".

Sorry, animal welfare arguments and racing simply do not mix. If they care so much about the safety of horses they should be spending their money to try to stop thoroughbred racing. Since, apparently they aren't doing that, at least in some ways, spare me that excuse. They are simply making a selfish economic decision. Stop trying to sugar coat it.

My sentiments exactly.

What they normally do is what is in the best interest of the pocketbook.
I do not fault them for that one bit, I'd do the same.

But the point remains don't try to pretend its to do with the welfare of the horse. Its simply the best way to maximize the return from their investment in the horse.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Balletto

I have absolutely no problem with your disappointment and attitude... I share it with you... but I would never wish a horse DIDNT pan out at stud because I was disappointed in his retirement. Hell, wish for a lot of talented babies that will keep your interest for many more years than their sire ever could!

I do apologize for jumping all over you... but I just hear SO many remarks against owners when they make a business decision about their horse. Trust me, when you own one, its a COMPLETELY different perspective.

Balletto, I don't doubt it's a completely different perspective for the owners (like yourself at some point, I'm guessing?) who don't have the kind of money the sheiks have. They are in a completely different game than virtually everyone else. There is no situation under which they will ever have to take financial considerations for anything. Ever. If their stables were a business, and not an extravagant hobby, they wouldn't be throwing the money they do at the sales every year. And hey, I'm thrilled for little guys who get some of that largess, hooray! But this is a hobby with no bottom line for them, and I can't help but feel retiring Bernardini (if he is sound, fair enough point) is about fueling their egos to get a Derby horse, not a business decision. It's a hobby decision, if you will. And as a fan, it makes me sad and so I can't help but NOT hope them the best of luck at it. Again, Bernardini will never know how his kids do, and so my affection for him is completely separate from my ire at his owner.

For those who love pedigrees and look forward to seeing Bern's babies run, great. I don't get any particular thrill out of following a horse's progeny, because I don't see a pedigree running; I see a horse running. Plus, I love little guy success stories, and I'm more interested in a horse who outruns his pedigree than one who barely meets it. There's no drama for me in a big horse throwing expensive foals who run well. More of a, "Well, duh? What do you expect?"

Of course, no hard feelings-- as I said, I imagine it is a completely different world for the average horse owner, and I can't fault SJ's owners, or AA's, or any of the little guys who hit it lucky, any more than I would fault someone like you if you got a big horse and then retired him. Injuries aside, keeping a big horse running is expensive if you don't have your family wealth, or oil wealth, or self-made vast wealth to fund the hobby. And maybe that's a problem with how horses are valued and insured; I don't know. But the sheiks? Money truly is no object for them. But of course, no hard feelings. I like lively discussions and as long as no one is calling names, s'all good with me.

And I admit to sneaking some peeks at pictures of SJ's babies... and I'll do the same with AA's next year...

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Balletto

I have absolutely no problem with your disappointment and attitude... I share it with you... but I would never wish a horse DIDNT pan out at stud because I was disappointed in his retirement. Hell, wish for a lot of talented babies that will keep your interest for many more years than their sire ever could!

I do apologize for jumping all over you... but I just hear SO many remarks against owners when they make a business decision about their horse. Trust me, when you own one, its a COMPLETELY different perspective.

The main reason I want to see him fail at stud is because I don't want more horses like him to be retired sound at the end of their 3yo season because they are considered "can't miss sires". Maybe a horse like Bernardini being a miserable failure in the shed would encourage more owners in the future to hold off on the shed and let their horse realize its' potential on the track since he's no sure thing in the shed.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

These doing " what's best for the horse " arguments are completely hypocritical. " What is best for horses " is to not race them period, as pretending this is a game that is about " what's best for horses " is pretty much to flat out lie. Frankly, these horses shouldn't even be born if one cares about " what's best for horses ".

Sorry, animal welfare arguments and racing simply do not mix. If they care so much about the safety of horses they should be spending their money to try to stop thoroughbred racing. Since, apparently they aren't doing that, at least in some ways, spare me that excuse. They are simply making a selfish economic decision. Stop trying to sugar coat it.

I flat out stated in the other Bernardini post that at no point in the future will he be as valuable as he is right now. They would, more than likely, diminish his value to them by racing them next year. Absolutely.

But on the same hand, you nor me, know whats going on with the animal. It more than likely is an economic decision... and im fine with that. I'd do what they're doing and run all the way to the bank... but there may be more than whats being said. Having had parents who owned a racing stable, I know there's almost always little things nagging runners... some worse than others... some just a matter of time before they get serious.

This may be one of those situations, it may not. But im not going to assume anything and fault owners for behaving exactly how I would. 406 million were spent at public auction by the sheiks... im sure they'd like to get some of that back... and im sure, above all else, nothing will be as thrilling for them as racing homebreds by him.

[Travis Stone]

It's only a matter of time people lose interest in big days because the horse retiring is a foregone conclusion.

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

The main reason I want to see him fail at stud is because I don't want more horses like him to be retired sound at the end of their 3yo season because they are considered "can't miss sires". Maybe a horse like Bernardini being a miserable failure in the shed would encourage more owners in the future to hold off on the shed and let their horse realize its' potential on the track since he's no sure thing in the shed.

Thats a naive way of thinking. There's been many blueblood "cant miss" stallions that were horrible disasters at stud. One more failure isnt going to change the breeding industry... in fact, its expected.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Balletto

Thats a naive way of thinking. There's been many blueblood "cant miss" stallions that were horrible disasters at stud. One more failure isnt going to change the breeding industry... in fact, its expected.

Well if it isn't going to curb behavior then I'll just have to settle for hoping he fails at stud out of spite. They could race him next year and still have plenty of homebreds by him after that. I'm a fan of the sport of horse racing, not a fan of the business of horse breeding. Unfortunately the business is killing the sport.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Balletto

I flat out stated in the other Bernardini post that at no point in the future will he be as valuable as he is right now. They would, more than likely, diminish his value to them by racing them next year. Absolutely.

But on the same hand, you nor me, know whats going on with the animal. It more than likely is an economic decision... and im fine with that. I'd do what they're doing and run all the way to the bank... but there may be more than whats being said. Having had parents who owned a racing stable, I know there's almost always little things nagging runners... some worse than others... some just a matter of time before they get serious.

This may be one of those situations, it may not. But im not going to assume anything and fault owners for behaving exactly how I would. 406 million were spent at public auction by the sheiks... im sure they'd like to get some of that back... and im sure, above all else, nothing will be as thrilling for them as racing homebreds by him.

Supposedly they were the ones that didn't have to make selfish financially based decisions. They were the ones with so much money that they could do what was best for the game and not themselves. Apparently, when push comes to shove, they are as selfish as anyone. I understand why people who need the money do it. They don't need the money....that's for sure. If they cared at all about what was good for the game they would be racing Bernardini next year. At least this issue has been settled once and for all. Sportsmen they are not.

Please, spare me the " problems nagging horses " lesson. I think we all know that horses have nagging problems. I think we also knew that this particular decision was made a while ago and it is a financial one. Once again, let's stop pretending to care about the welfare of horses to the detriment of the game...unless you're just ready to go completely pro-Peta.

[GenuineRisk]

Does someone know the rule for calculating the insurance on a racing colt/stallion? I thought I was told once it was seven percent of the estimated value of the horse. So if a superstar horse was appraised at $30 million (which, I assume, they calculate based on future stud fees?), then the insurane would be what, around $2 million? That's a lot for a small owner to come up with. Is that true?

And here's another question-- could an owner insure for less that the horse was valued at? If it's a $30 million dollar appraisal, could one opt to insure for $5 million, for example?

I just can't figure out how a small owner who might hit it lucky could afford to keep a big horse running, no matter how much he or she might love the game... can anyone who knows this stuff tell me?

[Sightseek]

In case if someone didn't point it out, the article is up in the Blood-HOrse that he and Henny have been retired. Bernie will stand for $100K

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

In case if someone didn't point it out, the article is up in the Blood-HOrse that he and Henny have been retired. Bernie will stand for $100K

Henny Hughes has been retired??????????? That's insane. What has he proven?

They're the worst!

[Bystander]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Please, spare me the " problems nagging horses " lesson. I think we all know that horses have nagging problems. I think we also knew that this particular decision was made a while ago and it is a financial one. Once again, let's stop pretending to care about the welfare of horses to the detriment of the game...unless you're just ready to go completely pro-Peta.

Not to metion the fact that they made the choice to retire Bernardini before the BC, stating that they'd be running Discreet Cat next year. If Bernardini has untold nagging problems, Discreet Cat must then be the picture of soundness.
Right?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Bystander

Not to metion the fact that they made the choice to retire Bernardini before the BC, stating that they'd be running Discreet Cat next year. If Bernardini has untold nagging problems, Discreet Cat must then be the picture of soundness.
Right?

Yes, they are disingenuous to boot.

[Sightseek]

Henny for $40,000, we should all line up though, because Andromeda's Hero will also be standing at a Stud farm near you.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Supposedly they were the ones that didn't have to make selfish financially based decisions. They were the ones with so much money that they could do what was best for the game and not themselves. Apparently, when push comes to shove, they are as selfish as anyone. I understand why people who need the money do it. They don't need the money....that's for sure. If they cared at all about what was good for the game they would be racing Bernardini next year. At least this issue has been settled once and for all. Sportsmen they are not.

Please, spare me the " problems nagging horses " lesson. I think we all know that horses have nagging problems. I think we also knew that this particular decision was made a while ago and it is a financial one. Once again, let's stop pretending to care about the welfare of horses to the detriment of the game...unless you're just ready to go completely pro-Peta.

So, I guess anyone with seemingly unlimited financial means should not look at anything from a business perspective. They should just spend and not worry about attempting to possibly break even or succeed if something is a business. Then again, im sure its easier said than done when its not your money.

And your whole "horse racing is cruel" cry at countering what I originally stated is rather old. Granted, you were playing Devil's Advocate, but give me a break. If you wanted to sensationalize the sport, why stop there? Lets all hunt our food because lord knows, we shouldnt breed our food.

Here's an interesting tidbit for you... In a genetics class we learned that horses would be extinct right now if it wasnt for human prevention/interaction. There is not one truly wild herd of horses left on the planet. Anything that is wild has come from domesticated stock at one time or another. The horse, as we know it, is not an animal that evolution has been kind to... its why these animals, especially thoroughbreds, seem to find ways to kill themselves.

Regardless, throw your fits, bash the sport, claim you're a fan of the racing and not the breeding, but its a symbiotic relationship that is always seeking a balance. Right now, the balance is in a good financial state... even though most claim its not kind to fans. In that case, find a gelding and bat your eyes away... or better yet, enter the sport so we can all comment on your decisions as an owner, I mean, the sport is built around us, right???

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Henny Hughes has been retired??????????? That's insane. What has he proven?

They're the worst!

Grade 1 winner... but I thought they'd keep him in training as well. Little puzzled with this one.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Balletto

So, I guess anyone with seemingly unlimited financial means should not look at anything from a business perspective. They should just spend and not worry about attempting to possibly break even or succeed if something is a business. Then again, im sure its easier said than done when its not your money.

And your whole "horse racing is cruel" cry at countering what I originally stated is rather old. Granted, you were playing Devil's Advocate, but give me a break. If you wanted to sensationalize the sport, why stop there? Lets all hunt our food because lord knows, we shouldnt breed our food.

Here's an interesting tidbit for you... In a genetics class we learned that horses would be extinct right now if it wasnt for human prevention/interaction. There is not one truly wild herd of horses left on the planet. Anything that is wild has come from domesticated stock at one time or another. The horse, as we know it, is not an animal that evolution has been kind to... its why these animals, especially thoroughbreds, seem to find ways to kill themselves.

Regardless, throw your fits, bash the sport, claim you're a fan of the racing and not the breeding, but its a symbiotic relationship that is always seeking a balance. Right now, the balance is in a good financial state... even though most claim its not kind to fans. In that case, find a gelding and bat your eyes away... or better yet, enter the sport so we can all comment on your decisions as an owner, I mean, the sport is built around us, right???

First of all, they could still do quite well with Bernardini financially and still race him next season. Certainly you realize the two are not mutually exclusive.

Second of all, it is you that is pulling the " what's best for the horse " argument. I am simply the one showing it as hypocritical.

And, of course, as the supposed daughter of owners you are certainly are in no position to make your snide little digs in the final paragraph. Frankly, I have " entered the sport ". I'm sure, in fact, I have given quite a bit more to it than you have. But, hey, thanks for the advice. Next time you choose to discuss racing you might want to stick to the issues and leave the personal advice out.