horse owners
 

it sort of rubs me the wrong way when owners retire their horses early and take the stud money, and scoff at the public in a kind of "let them eat cake" stance, by saying it's their horse they can do what they want...

well, nobody is putting a gun to our heads and telling us we have to follow the sport and bet the sport, which a lot of us do not in these G1 "walkovers"

so owners should consider not biting the hand that feeds, and giving something back to the public and not sending their horses off to the shed after winning a graded stake.

there are some owners who do run, and they are respected, while others... not so much

How is the public hurt by this?
And when does the public ever pay part of the owners purchase price or day rate or vet bills or shoe bills?

Mike.. Come on.. You can't be serious... Every time the public places a bet they are paying into the system that the owners are working toward capitalizing on... From every standpoint..

Yes they (owners) all lose money... But that's not the public's problem..

Bellamy,
I'm no where near being in the same league with the "big guys".
Heck, I'm just trying to recover some of the money and work that I've put into mine.
High hopes are part of what keeps me in this.
One of mine, a son of Mesopotamia (two recent winners...I'm a Mess, Mixed Numbers) will be running at Finger Lakes on Tues in the 2nd. Big Daddy Ray.
He's been scratched from his last three entries. Go figure.
Since he's gelded, I'm going to keep him running as long as I can.
A win for him would also be a win for me, as I own his full little sister, Shot o' Bourbon.
I've been breeding them for the past four years and just have to tell you, if you knew the expenses, you'd think I'm completely insane.
To me...it only takes one. That's the "high hope".
I'll keep them on the track as long as they're sound. It's the only way I stand any chance of getting back some of what I've already put in.
DTS

I certainly can understand the frustration that fans have, myself included, at favorite horses being whisked off to stud at an early age. But I really don't think a successful person in the game gets successful by turning down outrageous sums of money for a horse to go to stud.

No Steve its not the publics problem, I agree. But it IS the owner's problem, and if he feels he has to do what he has to do to be successful then so be it.
I'm not talking about the Sheikhs retiring Bern, they obviously could do without the money. But why should a guy whose pumped a lotta money into the business who has lost(like most do) resist his or her chance to get even? Or less behind?

but that's what I'm saying, the betting public fuels the purse money
I'd imagine most horse owners are independently weathly
so they have to have other goals than just adding to their wealth
we need more incentives to keep the good horses running

I totally agree, sometimes the risk is too great to continue racing. Bernardini had everything to lose if they kept racing and nothing to gain.

Absolutely.. No argument there at all. For small-medium sized operations especially (Someday Farm.. Cash is King.. etc..), it is perfectly logical and justifiable in fact...

This all gets back to the earlier economic issues which you've talked about before when the tax incentives evaporated in the '80's and the entire structure of the ownership system remorphed into what we have now...

The end of the 'gentleman farmer'.. 'historical family breeder', et al...

Kasept said, "Yes they (owners) all lose money... But that's not the public's problem.."[/quote]

By the same token, if the public wants to see the horse run more, that's not the owner's problem.

By the same token, if the public wants to see the horse run more, that's not the owner's problem.[/quote]


Not if the public decided to fight back and stop betting.

Your argument is easy to make but also patently not true.

lovely thing about the free market system. you can choose to put your pennies elsewhere.
but hopefully everyone will still get a kick out of watching the horses run, as i enjoy the sport and hope to see it continue for many years to come.
but like any business, there will be ebbs and flows, and you must evolve to suit the climate. right now the climate for horse owners seems good, so i don't see any adjustments being made any time soon.
where they need to make more of an effort is with t.v., as the more advertising $ you can command, the higher the purses can go--that's the only way to really compete with stud fees.

Not if the public decided to fight back and stop betting.

Your argument is easy to make but also patently not true.[/quote]

Not if the owners got out of the business. Then there would be no racing. It works both ways. If there were no owners, there would be no racing. By the same token, if there were no fans(bettors), there would be no racing.

Not if the public decided to fight back and stop betting.

Your argument is easy to make but also patently not true.[/quote]

This whole argument reminds me of something that happened to me about 20 years ago. I was in Las Vegas and I decided to take a taxi to a hotel that was about a mile away from my hotel. When the cab driver realized that I was going a short distance, he said, "You better give me a big tip because I had to wait in a long line and I'm not going to make much on your fare." I said something to the effect that I didn't have that much money on me and I was having a bad run at the tables. He answered, "That's not my problem that you're losing at the tables."

I felt like saying to him, "Well it's not my problem that you waited in a long line."

it's an excellent analogy
the owners, most of who are millionaires and billionaires
complain of losing money
but the fact is the majority of bettors lose money (and probably more than they should)
and most of those are 9 to 5ers
so...kinda hard to feel too bad for the owners
when they can afford to take the risk for big reward
without it coming back on them with an eviction notice
if it things go south...

Some owners are very wealthy and some are not , Karen and Mickey Taylor were not wealthy people when they bought Slew but became wealthy by getting lucky and getting a good horse.
There are also factors that the public has no concept of, such as the cost for insuring a very good horse, it is mind boggling how much they pay each month to insure good horses and everytime they send them to the track either in the morning or the afternoon they hold their breath that something doesnt happen. There are so many risks involved in owning a good horse that retiring them before something tragic happens is often on peoples minds because they have invested the money ( not just with said good horse but all the crappy one's in between) and the time that it is hard not to want to make something back by retiring them to stud or broodmare duty.
I know that fans fuel the sport but really how many hard core gamblers really care if good horse doesnt race anymore really, I mean if the horse is that good they most likely wont get any odds on them anyway when they run .

ok, you want to talk Taylor's
well they raced Slew 7 times at age 4
after his triple crown season
and, like you said, they weren't wealthy...

I've been in the horse business as a owner, breeder, buyer/seller, for most of my adult life. I have been a fan and a gambler for even longer than that. So, first I would like to clarify a few things -- most owners are not millionaires or billionaires. Most? What are you saying here -- 51%? 75%? If you truly believe this than you are either completely and totally misinformed, very naive and judgemental, or just looking to lay blame.

Second, yes -- most owners do in fact lose money, and for the most part it is their own fault. I have made a profit every year I have been in this game. However, unlike many, I treat it, approach it, and run it like a business -- period. If I wasn't making money, I love this sport and business so much and have such a passion for them, then I would own a horse or two. However, I see opportunity. I race and place my horses very aggressively. There are others, many smaller and many bigger than me who do the same. I see plenty of owners lose money -- bad trainer, bad situation, bad advice, incompetence, and so many other reasons.

If 90% of the owners are losing money then the market and economics dictate that you must exist in the other 10%. If 90% are losing money, then there is a tremendous opportunity for the other 10%. When I draw into an 8 horse field -- I usually have half the field beat before the draw; because half the field is improperly placed. It's because most people don't play the game correctly that they lose money -- and a small % do make money.

Now, about owners doing what they want, retiring horses early, etc. -- here is the fact . . . you don't like it, tough luck. Pack up your marbles and go home. Now listen, sure, I am dissappointed that Bernardini is being retired. Henny Hughes as well. But that is life. I never hold anything against an owner for doing what they want to do. I am a huge fan. I am just not wired that way. It's their horse and that's it. Now to talk about how the gamblers fuel this business -- yes, we all know it's true. However, it is foolish to believe that gamblers across the world are going to unite and boycott racing. It's a circular arguement that goes nowhere. The other side of the coin is that if there were less, or no owners, there would be less horses, less tracks, and so on, and then there would be nothing to wager on. This arguement is right next to "my dad can beat up your dad".

It's easy to be on the sidelines or in the stands and critisize what the players do. Just remember, all you have to do is just pack up and go home.

Eric

Yes and they did just what they wanted to do didnt they .

Ok question I hear about "insurance premiums" in general but really how much can we guestimate that a horse like Bernardini or Henny Hughes costs in payments? What's a monthly look like?

Let's figure that Bernardini is worth about $60 million. The insurance premium is usually about 5% of the horse's value. So if Bernardini is worth $60 million and they want to insure him for $60 million that means it would cost about $3 million a year to insure Bernardini.

The insurance premium is one aspect -- the other is capacity. I am not saying that you couldn't get $60m of coverage, but there has been drastic changes in the insurance and more importantly reinsurance marketplace.

I don't count other people's money, literally speaking, and there is an irony there considering I am in the financial business and exclusively work with wealthy people, high-net-worth/income, etc. However, if you have a horse that you would like to insure for $60m and the cost to insure him is $3m -- that might be a true "out of pocket" as the horse may not have earned $3m. I am not defending those who own the horses or critisizing them for that matter. You want to play you have to pay. That's the price of admission.

There is an economic side to this. People make financial decisions for two reasons -- economics and emotions.

Eric

But really how many gamblers have you seen boycott the races since they announced Bernardinis retirement ? We arent talking about small fries we are talking about big horses , and I was just putting one aspect out there, of course we know the sheiks have plenty of money and the insurance rates are nothing to them. But they are to some people, so owners are supposed to just forego the risk and keep forking out the dough and hope when its all over they have something left.
I would purpose that no good buisnessman would bock at a turn around in their investment, one that could actually provide future money to keep buying breeding and racing horses for a very long time.

As a fellow "small timer", I have to thank you for pointing out that the public does not want to see any of my horses run.

Guess I should go ahead and retire them now.

Ill buy them bigsmc, what do you have :D Dont retire them

Got it. Even so, I am not sure what % of high-profile horses are owned by royalty, the super-wealthy, etc. nor in my mind is there a direct correlation. Like I said, I am not counting other people's money, nor am I judging. However, if the next super-horse comes along and is owned by a working class class guy who got lucky, common sense or a knee jerk reaction would be that they take the money and run. Whether it's common sense, diversification, risk, who knows.


However, if that same horse is owned by a sheik, a prince, or a king, or someone of incredible wealth -- wouldn't the same thinking dictate that "they didn't need the money" or something along those lines. Maybe there is a "quit while you are on top" mentality. I don't know.

If Empire Maker was sound, would he have raced as a four year old? Who knows. I think many can make a very convincible case either way.

Eric

Thank you Andy.

Personally, I think there is a much bigger issue going on here. This is not an accusation or stereotype so just bear with me here. Often, the bettors feel that their dollars "drive the boat" so to speak. The owners feel they are responsible for making the game happen and putting on the show. I've heard trainers say that the jocks shouldn't get the same % as the trainer as the trainer is the one who does the real day to day with the horse. The jockeys want health insurance and rightfully so. The big owner wants higher purses for the big stakes, bonus money, syndications with real cash, and so on. The small owner wants to be able to pay the jock fee when his horse finishes up the track and wants higher purses for $5k claimers (by the way, I have one of these racing today so don't think I am preaching to a choir that I am unfamiliar with, LOL). The tracks want more simulcasting revenue, VLT's, better tax deals and legislation, and more of the ever shrinking pie.

Anyway, do all of us see a theme here? Does everyone see what's going on in the background. Think about it. Everybody wants something, most often for themselves. It's the "what's in it for me" mentality. I've seen it go on for many years. Now I am not critisizing any one of these factions -- but they are factionalized.

I have said it before -- there needs to be a massive paradigm shift in the mindset of all of these parties. They need to be brought together, to work together on the sport and on the business.

Anyway, that's enough transformation talk for now, LOL. Thanks again Andy.

Eric

He has the the 2008 Tampa Bay Derby winna......

:)

Yep, very true, the exact reason why this sport goes nowhere in the public. It could easily be a top 5 sport, never as big as Football/Baseball/Soccer/College Basketball but could easily get right under that as far as public following........

I understand that profitability can easily revolve around a 5% expense. But still...I can't help thinking that it just might be okay to end up with $57 million for Bernardini rather than $60 million, and have the pleasure of watching him run as a 4-yr-old. (and that assumes that he would only break even on costs/income while running).

I understand there are other risks, too. Mainly, that a horse like Bernardini may not live up to expectations as a 4-yr-old, thus reducing that $60 million estimate of worth.

Perhaps that is the main reason horses are rushed to stud--fear that they are not as good as the market currently values them.

--Dunbar

You know... I think that's probably the main reason in most cases, but I don't think that's the case with Bernardini. I think that his chances for improvement as a 4 year old were probably very good, but I think that they retired him early due to the risks associated with him running a 4 year old campaign. They've got a better chance of getting a classic winner out of Bernie than they do Discreet Cat or Invasor, so why would they risk it by running him another year? I dunno... I wish we could have seen him run another season. It's typical that I finally gain respect for the colt after his BCC loss and now he won't be running anymore. DOH! :D

I agree with some of what you said but there is another issue involved. Lets take a look at Flower Alley, a horse whose BCC figure wise and visually was every bit as good or better than Bern's BCC.
The owner of FA is a billionaire, and although he could easily have gone to stud at 50 g's a pop at the end of last year(grade one 1 1/4 mile winning son of superhot Distorted Humor who also placed against HOY in the biggest race we have) but he chose to race on with him.
FA didn't go on at age 4(to say the very least) and who can say why? In any case now he goes to stud at 25 g's and was the subject of ridicule.
When you send a horse to stud "leaving them wanting more" his image forever remains intact. Bringing them back is risky not only in terms of cash, but in how it hurts to see your horse being the subject of jokes and ridicule.
Had Funny Cide had nuts, he would have gone to stud at the end of his 3YO year and be remembered as a duel classic winner. Now hes the subject of endless jokes and ridicule.
People who own these horses take tremendous pride in them, huge pride. It extends even further than that, breeders, trainers, agents, the people who raised helped raise a horse on the farm(I believe we have a Henny Hughes raiser on the board) all take tremendous pride in watching a horse that they had a part in accomplish something at the highest level. It hurts tremendously to see people taking pot shots at the horse even more than it ever hurts financially. Its a tough call for an owner to bring a horse back for another year, especially if hes had any problems that may or may not be 100% fixable. The loss of cash hurts, but hearing people talk about your horse in a negative way hurts far more. I've listened to owners in the situation of having a horse regress after being top notch at one time, and they are more hurt with stung pride than they are anything else.

Very well said, Mike.

I understand your point, and in this case while it might be true in the abstract -- it doesn't make it so. What I mean is that obviously the owner(s) of Bernardini can afford do to whatever he/they choose. The ironic part is that he/they did! Do you think the horse was retired so that they could see an ROI? Remember, nobody is writing them a check for $60m. Anyway, they probably spent 10 times that amount over the last 10 to 15 years worldwide on their operation. It is not an ROI issue, at least I don't think so. Does anyone know how many shares in Empire Maker were sold? Will they be selling shares in Bernardini?

As much as it is human nature to do so, I do not think the public, fans, bettors, other owners, etc. can have an expectation that (other) owners will do as they would or the so called "do the right thing".

If we do, then we will consistantly be disappointed. Period. Who is to say what "the right thing" is? It sounds far to judgemental and self-imposing to me. Did I want to see Bernardini run as a four year old? Of course I did. I am a fan first, and an owner second. But they retired him -- so be it. We have every right to be disappointed; but to go further and critisize, personally, I don't see it.

Eric

I agree with what you've said here...and the chance of a horse 'falling on his face' when they return the next year is a real possibility...but equally frustrating is watching a horse that you feel could be truly great throw in a clunker of a race and then retire the next day...talkin bout Henny of course.
And it's true that any person who had any hand in raising or training a horse then feels a measure of personal satisfaction and pride when they run well...but not just at the highest level---I was more excited yesterday when a filly that I bottle fed ran 2nd in a MSW for 3YO. It extends to every level of the sport.

Racing is not as big as soccer in this country? And to think I missed the MLS cup or whatever its called.

Steve, please suspend me for a day so I can get some work done.:(

be careful what you wish for dear...I can do it too...;)

I think oracle80 brings up several points -- first, the "wanting for more" aspect is very true. The "intrinsic" aspect of a stallion, or the aura of the horse, plays out here. The image, along with maximizing value is key, but I would say that many people feel it is more key for someone who "needs" the money. Again, who knows.

Having a stallion peak in value can make one become very vulnerable. Often the stallion has way more downside then up, and often has only downside. Professionally, I work with athletes, entertainers, and high net worth families and individuals. I hate to stereotype but often the more zeros on your balance sheet, the more "ego" can potentially come into play, the more "image" can come into play, etc. I mean how many homes can you own? How big can they be? It is more than relative as you move up the wealth scale. Look at a generic person worth $50m and then the generic someone worth $1b. Sure, there are exceptions and perhaps no rules as well.

I was in the paddock recently when one of our horses was racing. I knew the horse would run but just wasn't sure how well (layoff). Anyway, we are second/third choice and there's a 2/5 or 3/5 shot in the stall next to us. The jock riding the heavy favorite comes out and says to the trainer "so, what do we look like here, is there anyone here I need to worry about" or something along those lines. The trainer responds "just point him in the right direction, enjoy the ride, and I'll see you in couple of minutes and get ready to get your picture taken"

Anyway, of course there is pride and ego. I immediately wanted to finish ahead of that horse, even if it was second to last. It's human nature. Now I would never change strategy or make it a personal vendetta and with me that thinking lasts a few seconds. But we need to think about things sometimes with a different perspective.

Eric

Anyone with even half of a pea brain will not judge Henny based on the BC Sprint. Its quite obvious that something was awry, and that race was a tossout.