Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Linny
Having spent alot of time involved with "outplacing" slow, unwanted and retiring race horses I tend to think that the costs outweight the benefits. I hate to say it but unless they were of spectacular breeding and ownerd by the cream of the owners most would be cared for at the feedlots and at places like New Holland and others.
Look at it this way. Lets say they ban racing for 2 and 3yo's. The game will STOP. No one would buy yearlings and 2yo's would still be risky. Three year old sales would be the norm except that as a breeder, I don't want to have a 4 year investment cycle from breeding to sale. I can't afford to support all those animals that are non productive for that long and I don't care to take the risks that they will stay sound. No breeder, not Phipps or Jackson or Magnier and Tabor could do so. The game would cease.
This is an extreme example but it shows what happens when an outside force tells owners that they cannot use their animals to be productive, whether on the track or in the shed.
|
There are no real benefits linny. The Funny Cide thing is a perfect example. Who was a bigger name with a catchy story than him. He failed to do much to keep the sport in the mainstream because he simply wasnt a great horse merely a good one who was very good at the most important time. No one comes out to see a "famous" horse who is not winning. Curlin is another great example of how a campaign by the previous years horse of the year hardly creates a blip on the mainstream radar. His races were far from well attended and pretty much he is going to fade away like many others. This guy is just another jerk who thinks he has all the answers when he has zero undrstanding of the sport and how it works.