What would you change?

[Danzig]

i disagree with dunbar. when the breeding business is down, horses stay on track longer. but no way you can force someone to race a horse, especially when insurance costs can become prohibitive. it's a business first and foremost. i'd love to see horses stay around to run at four, but you can't force that imo. all you can do is try to offer incentives to get owners to feel they have a chance at a reward large enough to merit the risk. a t.c. for older would be one way to do that.

my one change would be to have one regulatory body overseeing racing nationwide.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

i disagree with dunbar. when the breeding business is down, horses stay on track longer. but no way you can force someone to race a horse, especially when insurance costs can become prohibitive. it's a business first and foremost. i'd love to see horses stay around to run at four, but you can't force that imo. all you can do is try to offer incentives to get owners to feel they have a chance at a reward large enough to merit the risk. a t.c. for older would be one way to do that.

my one change would be to have one regulatory body overseeing racing nationwide.

Danzig, you can't force owners to race them at 4, but if they can't breed 'em...

--Dunbar

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Danzig, you can't force owners to race them at 4, but if they can't breed 'em...

--Dunbar

i see no legit reason why a horse can't breed at four. the simple reason of forcing another year of racing isn't a legitimate reason to tell an owner a horse either is raced or benched. it's his horse. he foots all the bills, and takes all the risks.

[Danzig]

also, live cover, rather than artificial insemination, protects the breed, and protects the integrity of breeding. banning a four year old from covering mares does neither.
i would have no problem in regulating the breeding of unsound horses, or bleeders, etc. that does have an impact on the breed.