I have and idea , how about we adopt the policy here in America that you cant but an American bred horse in this country unless you are going to race it in the USA and past its 3 yr old year , soundness allowing unless you are from America then its ok .

Why not just not recognize any foals by stallions or mares under 5 years of age?

Ya, I wiggled out of the white jacket with the pretty straps on the back just long enough to come here and drive ya'll nuts...

I wish I could say the doctor didn't order me to be home because that would mean a totally different thing entirely, health-wise, but I can't.

The bad news for you people? It looks like I'm gonna live... ;)

Even better all the horses in this country that dont make it to the races should be supported by the people who dont want horses retiring at young ages. That way the owners wouldnt have to worry about feeding them and could spend their money on improving the breed.

Why should the fans of racing be the ones to foot the bills for poor breeding practices? Forcing the owners to pay for the horses that don't make it to the races is the best deterrent to breeding unsound horses.

Exactly my point , your only vested intrest is the money you bet , and I agree that the betters support the industry but so do the billionare breeders and buyers. You can call it poor breeding practices but you have little idea of what is involved , still the point of the thread was bashing the sheiks for retiring THEIR horse because it doesnt suit the racing fan consensus ( and that is what Andy is as I dont see him spending millions of dollars in the industry).

I have a problem with the entire breeding industry. The Sheikhs just make an easy target because they have the money to make things better for the actual sport of racing. It is your assessment that we as horse racing fans would be worse off without the Sheikhs that I disagree with. The owners and breeders would take a hit when the bubble burst but the sport of racing would go on without missing a beat.

How people can criticize someone for being a good business person is crazy. They have Invasor and Discreet Cat for next year.


The same people that criticize them for retiring Bernardini would be criticizing them if Invasor, Discreet Cat and Bernardini won every big race out there next year. They would be saying these guys are ruining the sport by making it unfair for everyone else.

Do you just make up what other people would say to argue with yourself about them?

It would be fantastic if we had the three of them back next year winning every big race. If it came down to the end of the year though and they only entered one of the three in the Breeders' Cup then yes, I'd absolutely be criticizing them.

I am not sure you should be talking about just making things up. You are the one throwing insane things like the bloodhorse censoring out there. The bloodhorse would never censor anything. A writer might be influenced to write something, but the magazine would never censor. Why don't you tell us how JFK was killed while you are throwing conspiracy theories out there. :eek:

Haskin may come off too strong as a cheerleader sometimes but given the choice between that a few poison pens we have out there "covering the sport" I'll take Haskin every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Hes passionate and he loves the sport. He doesn't claim to be a handicapping guru and he doesn't claim to have all the answers, but he does indeed go to the track and talk to the people he writes about, unlike many.

He doesn't take cheap shots at folks, and he doesn't blame every pick-6 he loses on a trainer "who is cheating".
The very worst guys we have covering this sport are the "handicapping geniuses" who don't know a bowed tendon from a quartercrack and have never even been around a barn other than to pass by and ask a trainer if he can bet his first time starter later that day.

i agree. on top of that, he's humble enough to write back to emails -- and i know not just mine. he's written me a few emails and has been so passionate about the sport -- it's great to see. i've been impressed by his lack of ego in the correspondances we've had.

That link now just has a picture of Bernardini and no article when you click on it. Augh! Is it still up anywhere?

Maybe the writer had second thoughts. You know the bloodhorse had no problem running it, so the writer might have thought twice about what he said.

He sure did write some stupid things.

Did YOU actually just accuse someone of writing stupid things?
Thats gotta be the most incredibly ironic thing I have ever seen.

Well his article is down. And just to let you know I am not a writer at the bloodhorse and this is a chatsite.

What he wrote actually could get him sued. The fact that he didn't see that is funny. My boss from this summer said they probably took it down because one of his comments could expose him to a multimillion dollar lawsuit.

Your boss that was gonna sue all of us earlier this year? Great, thanks for the update.

My boss has never posted here. You are the idiot who believed that. I know you are not very bright, but do you think an attorney is going to waste his time with you.

The guy wrote "The chance of Bernardini reproducing himself at stud is slim to none" and that isn't exactly something a person marketing his horse wants to see in print, especially when Haskin has no expertise for making that decision.

So let me get this straight, in order to accurately write about racing it is necessary to understand physical ailments thoroughly and not bet?

That is baloney.

Not sure what writers that was referring to, and frankly there aren't an abundance of terrific writers covering racing, but the smattering of good ones are more " handicapping oriented " so to speak...thus perhaps the opposite would be true. Maybe the less known about horses the better.

Well, he is an expert in the field.