Dubai Esc. Out

[Rupert Pupkin]

I was actually responding to the post about Bernardini. The poster was saying that after he wins the BC Classic, they will make up a story about him being injured and retire him.

I disagree with that. They don't want to defame their own horse. Owners don't need an excuse to retire a horse.

As I've said, most owners are going to do what is in the best interest of themselves and their horse. And they're not going to feel a need to justify their decision.

If Bernardini was my horse, I would definitely retire him if he won the BC Classic. My reasoning would be that he has done everything asked of him and it is time to retire him. It would be the right business decision and it would be the best thing for the horse. I wouldn't feel guilty about retiring him. Quite to the contrary, I would feel guilty if I continued running him and something happened to him.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

he did not work well..and thats the reason..i think..the horse wont show up...its a no brainer for most people..

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I was actually responding to the post about Bernardini. The poster was saying that after he wins the BC Classic, they will make up a story about him being injured and retire him.

I disagree with that. They don't want to defame their own horse. Owners don't need an excuse to retire a horse.

As I've said, most owners are going to do what is in the best interest of themselves and their horse. And they're not going to feel a need to justify their decision.

If Bernardini was my horse, I would definitely retire him if he won the BC Classic. My reasoning would be that he has done everything asked of him and it is time to retire him. It would be the right business decision and it would be the best thing for the horse. I wouldn't feel guilty about retiring him. Quite to the contrary, I would feel guilty if I continued running him and something happened to him.

then you're in the wrong business. horse ran one year, if retiring is the best for the horse, than this sport should end now, since running them is so bad. if you think it should continue, than you are a hypocrite....or is it just SOME horses who deserve to be done 'right'.

i wish there were more people like those who owned slew, affirmed and spectacular bid. they were good for the sport.

and the sheik ought to know damn well that retirement isn't so rosy, look at his all time fave, dubai millenium, and what happened to him.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

then you're in the wrong business. horse ran one year, if retiring is the best for the horse, than this sport should end now, since running them is so bad. if you think it should continue, than you are a hypocrite....or is it just SOME horses who deserve to be done 'right'.

i wish there were more people like those who owned slew, affirmed and spectacular bid. they were good for the sport.

and the sheik ought to know damn well that retirement isn't so rosy, look at his all time fave, dubai millenium, and what happened to him.

As I said, it is a combination of a business decision and what is best for the horse.

Why should Bernardini run next year? What do they have to prove? If he wins the BC Classic, that would be the perfect time to retire him. He could go out on top and he'd probably be worth about $100 million. It would make no sense to run him next year.

I'm not in the wrong business. It doesn't sound like you have much business sense when it comes to horses if you think that Bernardini should run next year. The insurance alone would cost $5 million a year.

[Danzig]

oh, yeah...cause the shiek couldn't afford it, right?? the meyerhoffs did it, they raced the bid at four, to the enjoyment of all, and it cost them money to do so. yeah, i know all about business--and it's that mindset that is ruining this sport. it's no longer the involvement of those who love horses, want to enhance the breed, and show what they've accomplished by racing the best that they've bred.

yeah, things change, doesn't mean i have to like it. it's a shame that one race is suddenly the barometer of what a horse has accomplished, that one year is 'doing enough'. i think it's bs.

he'll be the greatest since GZ. but won't belong anywhere in the same league as those who have achieved legendary status.
again, like finley said a few years ago, great isn't so great anymore.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

oh, yeah...cause the shiek couldn't afford it, right?? the meyerhoffs did it, they raced the bid at four, to the enjoyment of all, and it cost them money to do so. yeah, i know all about business--and it's that mindset that is ruining this sport. it's no longer the involvement of those who love horses, want to enhance the breed, and show what they've accomplished by racing the best that they've bred.

yeah, things change, doesn't mean i have to like it. it's a shame that one race is suddenly the barometer of what a horse has accomplished, that one year is 'doing enough'. i think it's bs.

he'll be the greatest since GZ. but won't belong anywhere in the same league as those who have achieved legendary status.
again, like finley said a few years ago, great isn't so great anymore.

Well, it is a business.

I don't think that retiring horses like Bernardini ruins the sport. In fact, to me it is the oppsoite. I have no interest in watching or betting on one-horse races. If the Jockey Club Gold Cup and the Travers were your idea of excitement, I have to disagree with you.

I really don't understand a lot of the comments that come from fans. On the one hand, fans get mad when owners over-spend. It seems to turn fans off when owners throw their money around like it's "monopoly money". On the other hand, when an owner acts prudently and makes a good business decision, the fans get angry about that too. When an owner shows that he does care about the money and the money played a role in his decision, fans get mad at that too. I don't get it. Why don't you guys make up your minds? Should owners make prudent business decisons where they consider financial implications or should they just treat the money like it's "monopoly money"?

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Well, it is a business.

I don't think that retiring horses like Bernardini ruins the sport. In fact, to me it is the oppsoite. I have no interest in watching or betting on one-horse races. If the Jockey Club Gold Cup and the Travers were your idea of excitement, I have to disagree with you.

I really don't understand a lot of the comments that come from fans. On the one hand, fans get mad when owners over-spend. It seems to turn fans off when owners throw their money around like it's "monopoly money". On the other hand, when an owner acts prudently and makes a good business decision, the fans get angry about that too. When an owner shows that he does care about the money and the money played a role in his decision, fans get mad at that too. I don't get it. Why don't you guys make up your minds? Should owners make prudent business decisons where they consider financial implications or should they just treat the money like it's "monopoly money"?

Dont get it? The sport is about horses RUNNING. Watching horses RUN. Watching ATHLETES. What is not to GET about that? But then again I am older and get a thrill watching athletes PERFORM. Dont get it...????

Where did all the people go that like to watch horses run? Even more than wagering. We have apparently lost a whole generation of people who appreciate running. How old are you Rupert? Another reason Somer probably is not that interested anymore. I know he appreciated athletes performing.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Dont get it? The sport is about horses RUNNING. Watching horses RUN. Watching ATHLETES. What is not to GET about that? But then again I am older and get a thrill watching athletes PERFORM. Dont get it...????

Where did all the people go that like to watch horses run? Even more than wagering. We have apparently lost a whole generation of people who appreciate running. How old are you Rupert? Another reason Somer probably is not that interested anymore. I know he appreciated athletes performing.

I've seen Bernardini perform. I will see him perform again in the BC Classic. If he wins the Classic, he will have nothing more to prove to me. I would see no purpose in bringing him back next year. Maybe some of you think that he has to win 10 more races because some horse did that 30 years ago. I disagree but you are entitled to your opinion.

If you guys ever become horse owners and happen to get a graded stakes winner who is very valuable, you can run him until he is 8 years old if you want to. I promise not to criticize you if that's what you do. If you fork out the money to buy the horse and you think he needs to run for several years to prove himself, then that is your business.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Well, it is a business.

I don't think that retiring horses like Bernardini ruins the sport. In fact, to me it is the oppsoite. I have no interest in watching or betting on one-horse races. If the Jockey Club Gold Cup and the Travers were your idea of excitement, I have to disagree with you.

I really don't understand a lot of the comments that come from fans. On the one hand, fans get mad when owners over-spend. It seems to turn fans off when owners throw their money around like it's "monopoly money". On the other hand, when an owner acts prudently and makes a good business decision, the fans get angry about that too. When an owner shows that he does care about the money and the money played a role in his decision, fans get mad at that too. I don't get it. Why don't you guys make up your minds? Should owners make prudent business decisons where they consider financial implications or should they just treat the money like it's "monopoly money"?

i don't understand a lot of it either...but i guess it's the same as people begging for winter in the heat of the summer, and then when winter comes....

azeri is a good example to me...when she was winning everything, everything was just peachy. than she slipped a bit, and then faced males...suddenly it was 'cruel' to run her, she'd 'done enough'. same as when funny cide runs....yet, many who post like that are the first to complain when a horse retires at the end of his three year old season. it's too soon, they should run them more, they haven't done enough. you can't have it both ways. well, apparently some think you can.
personally i don't care who spends what, they're all filthy rich and tossing around money like it grows on trees...whoopie for them. but i don't think money is behind the sheiks thoughts on retiring bernardini...he said he is looking at different ways of getting a derby winner-what he's done so far hasn't worked, so why not try to breed one--at his showcase farm he re-built from the ground up? i think he figures why wait another year to get started....

also, the meyerhoffs gambled big time and won with spectacular bid, his four year old season was a loss money-wise, but probably contributed to the syndication fee he ended up getting, far higher than had he quit at three.

Originally Posted by Danzig188

i don't understand a lot of it either...but i guess it's the same as people begging for winter in the heat of the summer, and then when winter comes....

azeri is a good example to me...when she was winning everything, everything was just peachy. than she slipped a bit, and then faced males...suddenly it was 'cruel' to run her, she'd 'done enough'. same as when funny cide runs....yet, many who post like that are the first to complain when a horse retires at the end of his three year old season. it's too soon, they should run them more, they haven't done enough. you can't have it both ways. well, apparently some think you can.
personally i don't care who spends what, they're all filthy rich and tossing around money like it grows on trees...whoopie for them. but i don't think money is behind the sheiks thoughts on retiring bernardini...he said he is looking at different ways of getting a derby winner-what he's done so far hasn't worked, so why not try to breed one--at his showcase farm he re-built from the ground up? i think he figures why wait another year to get started....

also, the meyerhoffs gambled big time and won with spectacular bid, his four year old season was a loss money-wise, but probably contributed to the syndication fee he ended up getting, far higher than had he quit at three.

Azeri was spoiled in her prime. She was not allowed to show her talent as a 4 year old. Her last race was not that bad, but compared to what she was. Sad. There is a point when a great horse is no longer. Bernardini retired at 3 after 8 or 9 races...

If Funny Cide is not injured, and still has the desire to get out on the track; Let him run. He was a great story, a very good 3 year old, but never a great horse. We apparently need more geldings. We will never know what Bernardini is unless this last race allows him to show how special he might be. It would be nice for him to find big trouble, gut it out, and romp. That would be the only satisfactory outcome to what looks to be a very short display of talent. We got no history anymore. No watching a horse adapt with age to grow into a legend. Thats gone.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Well, it is a business.

I don't think that retiring horses like Bernardini ruins the sport. In fact, to me it is the oppsoite. I have no interest in watching or betting on one-horse races. If the Jockey Club Gold Cup and the Travers were your idea of excitement, I have to disagree with you.

I really don't understand a lot of the comments that come from fans. On the one hand, fans get mad when owners over-spend. It seems to turn fans off when owners throw their money around like it's "monopoly money". On the other hand, when an owner acts prudently and makes a good business decision, the fans get angry about that too. When an owner shows that he does care about the money and the money played a role in his decision, fans get mad at that too. I don't get it. Why don't you guys make up your minds? Should owners make prudent business decisons where they consider financial implications or should they just treat the money like it's "monopoly money"?

They spend it like monoploy money so why all the "business decisions" when it comes time to retire? It is not about business with Sheik M, it is about having a stallion to one up Coolmore. Period. That is his drive here. He has been getting his ass kicked in the stallion dept. by Coolmore for years and now he has the stud that he thinks can even the score. And he may finally be right.

D. Escapade would have been crushed. She would have run like a madwoman and in that Churchill stretch swallowed up. As far as Bernardini is concerned, I watch horses that run, not breed. He will not be allowed to display his athleticism in his prime. That is sad. And it says a whole lot about the business...

Man it would be such a hoot if this horse shoots blanks like Cigar. That would be an absolutely wonderful turn of events.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

As I said, it is a combination of a business decision and what is best for the horse.

Why should Bernardini run next year? What do they have to prove? If he wins the BC Classic, that would be the perfect time to retire him. He could go out on top and he'd probably be worth about $100 million. It would make no sense to run him next year.

I'm not in the wrong business. It doesn't sound like you have much business sense when it comes to horses if you think that Bernardini should run next year. The insurance alone would cost $5 million a year.

I'm confident that if the Maktoums insured their horses the total bill would be larger than the GNP of most small countries.