Steve Haskin's latest: 'Leave Crown Alone'

[Phalaris1913]

Some won it when it was four weeks after the Belmont. Perhaps if you had given Smarty Jones or Real Quiet an additional week of rest before the Belmont, they too could have won it.

Yeah, but the TC winners whose Belmont was four weeks after the second leg were not getting any additional rest, since they all ran in other races between the Preakness and Belmont.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by cakes44

If I was in the cold streak he's in, I'd want some changes too.

I thought it, didn't say it. I do think there's some distress of having not won it speaking a bit here. I also think he should know better than to say what he did just given his own experiences. I enjoy him, but sometimes I get frustrated.

KG, when I almost divided a couple rather large posts into parts to better organize my thoughts and explain where you were wrong, I stopped, realizing I needed to talk myself down from the ledge of verbosity. Clearly nobody else was gonna do it, after many years of waiting for them to succeed. Believe me, I've spared the both of us and countless others. I agree with the Steves-- "that is all Ye know on earth and all ye need to know."

ETA: If I found something wise to say, I will, I just think what I was about to write/post would've really taken on way too much. It needs to simmer and if others answer you before I can process it, more power to'em. When in doubt, wait to post.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

Some won it when it was four weeks after the Belmont. Perhaps if you had given Smarty Jones or Real Quiet an additional week of rest before the Belmont, they too could have won it.

Yeah, but the TC winners whose Belmont was four weeks after the second leg were not getting any additional rest, since they all ran in other races between the Preakness and Belmont.

excellent point!

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Kasept

You don't see Neil Howard, John Shirreffs, and Shug McGaughey having trouble developing horses as an example, because with the owners they are associated with, there is no urgency to earn back what's been invested within year one of the owner's horses on the racetrack.

There was a time when John Shirreffs was bar none the best trainer in the game with first time starters .. he made someone like a Wesley Ward look like an ultra conservative trainer who's MO is bringing them along slowly.

Those 505 horses he had would run their eyes out on debut and never develop much. Once he lost 505, it was as if he became a much different kind of trainer.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

There was a time when John Shirreffs was bar none the best trainer in the game with first time starters .. he made someone like a Wesley Ward look like an ultra conservative trainer who's MO is bringing them along slowly.

Those 505 horses he had would run their eyes out on debut and never develop much. Once he lost 505, it was as if he became a much different kind of trainer.

Proving how good a horseman he is and that trainers operate in response to owners' interests, instructions, demands... Or in the case of Shirreffs, Howard and McGaughey, at the luxury of having owners who can afford to be patient with the horses they breed or buy.

[Thunder Gulch]

While I'm not in favor of any changes to the triple crown races, I do think the Belmont is raced at an obsolete distance and winning today is no indicator of class and talent.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Proving how good a horseman he is and that trainers operate in response to owners' interests, instructions, demands... Or in the case of Shirreffs, Howard and McGaughey, at the luxury of having owners who can afford to be patient with the horses they breed or buy.

And isn't that type of owner more of an anomaly in today's racing world? What is the likelihood racing is going to go back to where that owner is the norm? it appears to this non-insider that racing is going further and further away from that type and more toward the IEAH's of the world.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

And isn't that type of owner more of an anomaly in today's racing world? What is the likelihood racing is going to go back to where that owner is the norm? it appears to this non-insider that racing is going further and further away from that type and more toward the IEAH's of the world.

not going to happen. i think things began to change when the commercial breeders took over. instead of racing being about breeding a good horse to further the breed, it has become purely about the bottom line. that's why you have so much emphasis on precocity, so you can 'get out' on a horse early. that's also why you have so many early retirements-a desire to get a horse in the shed before a defeat can spell disaster for his stud fee. it's no longer about runners being a showcase for a stallion, but about finding a runner who can wow someone enough to demand five figures at stud-altho six would be better...that also explains the increasing shuttling of stallions, which is no better for a stud than having 170 mare books.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

And isn't that type of owner more of an anomaly in today's racing world? What is the likelihood racing is going to go back to where that owner is the norm? it appears to this non-insider that racing is going further and further away from that type and more toward the IEAH's of the world.

I'd say we actually are headed back in trhe right direction somewhat, though I would need Chuck and similar breeding business participants to support my impulse... There's a very wide array of ownership these days, and there seem to be more operations than in recent memory that are assembling broodmare bands and producing homebreds to race, and sell, with eyes on quality. There are operators/operations like Satish Sanan (Padua), Ro Parra (Millenium), Nathan Fox (Richland Hills), Ahmet Zayat, etc., who are breeding, racing, selling, etc., as well as Brereton Jones, Charlotte Weber, Ned Evans, Heilingbrodt, The Mosses, et al, off the top of my head. Stonerside was until selling out. I guess Jess Jackson is trying to as well... Do they equal Calumet, Claiborne, Darby Dan, the Phipps operation, etc.? Maybe...

As an aside, an IEAH isn't really a negative at all in the overall equation. They are buying ready-made horses as investments hoping to get on to 'syndicatable' sires that will have long, profitable shed careers. They did buy Stardom Bound of course, (hoping for glory but with obvious fall-back potential as marketable broodmare), and have geldings in their racing operation too.. But since they are looking for sire material for the most part, they aren't looking first and foremost at quick return type horses that for the last 15 years have ben defined as 'win early' types. And they are overpaying for horses which can only help re-circulate investment dollars back into the industry. Remember that the horses that they buy have likely been through the breeding/auction, system perhaps as pinhooks or whatever. So if they get bought another time, it's just plus revenue into the greater horse business money pool.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Kasept

As an aside, an IEAH isn't really a negative at all in the overall equation. They are buying ready-made horses as investments hoping to get on to 'syndicatable' sires that will have long, profitable shed careers. They did buy Stardom Bound of course, (hoping for glory but with obvious fall-back potential as marketable broodmare), and have geldings in their racing operation too.. But since they are looking for sire material for the most part, they aren't looking first and foremost at quick return type horses that for the last 15 years have ben defined as 'win early' types. And they are overpaying for horses which can only help re-circulate investment dollars back into the industry. Remember that the horses that they buy have likely been through the breeding/auction, system perhaps as pinhooks or whatever. So if they get bought another time, it's just plus revenue into the greater horse business money pool.

Actually, it seems as if IEAH is just buying "race horses," not investing in potential stallions. Perhaps with the exception of some of their European-bought horses (like Frost Giant and Plan), most of their purchases don't have stallion pedigrees, and for that reason, can be bought by a racing operation for more "reasonable" prices: Benny the Bull (by Lucky Lionel); Kip Deville (Kipling); Big Brown (Boundary); and even I Want Revenge (Stephen Got Even) to a large degree. The lack of commercial stallion appeal is probably why Kip Deville stayed in training, and Benny the Bull is being brought out of retirement. Things may change as a result of the downturn in the stallion end of the business, but the really well-bred horses are always likely to be snatched up by the Darleys and Coolmores more so than an outfit like IEAH.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Endured since the last time they tweaked it. As KG has shown, the triple crown has been tweaked more than once. Why is it such a crime to tweak it now to go with the realities of horse racing today?

As far as popularity, handle and attendence why are you convinced that tweaking the triple crown would adversely affect it in those areas?

Dont break what dont need fixin'.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Do you think that changing the Derby to 9f would make many of the new people that watch racing for the first time on Derby Day say "Well, I'm not watching that now?" How about the Preakness dropping over 30k in attendance because they don't allow the infield partying and drinking this year? The party is what brought many of the people, not the fact that the race was 9.5f. Do you think that if the Preakness was one week later, people wouldn't watch it anymore? The Belmont draws over 100k when a TC is on the line. It draws barely 70k when there's not. People are coming for the event, not because of the distance and conditions of the race. I guarantee you that the vast majority of people do not know the conditions of the races and wouldn't even notice if they were changed.

Dont break what dont need fixin'. The TC has allure because it is hard to win.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Kasept

I'd say we actually are headed back in trhe right direction somewhat, though I would need Chuck and similar breeding business participants to support my impulse... There's a very wide array of ownership these days, and there seem to be more operations than in recent memory that are assembling broodmare bands and producing homebreds to race, and sell, with eyes on quality. There are operators/operations like Satish Sanan (Padua), Ro Parra (Millenium), Nathan Fox (Richland Hills), Ahmet Zayat, etc., who are breeding, racing, selling, etc., as well as Brereton Jones, Charlotte Weber, Ned Evans, Heilingbrodt, The Mosses, et al, off the top of my head. Stonerside was until selling out. I guess Jess Jackson is trying to as well... Do they equal Calumet, Claiborne, Darby Dan, the Phipps operation, etc.? Maybe...

As an aside, an IEAH isn't really a negative at all in the overall equation. They are buying ready-made horses as investments hoping to get on to 'syndicatable' sires that will have long, profitable shed careers. They did buy Stardom Bound of course, (hoping for glory but with obvious fall-back potential as marketable broodmare), and have geldings in their racing operation too.. But since they are looking for sire material for the most part, they aren't looking first and foremost at quick return type horses that for the last 15 years have ben defined as 'win early' types. And they are overpaying for horses which can only help re-circulate investment dollars back into the industry. Remember that the horses that they buy have likely been through the breeding/auction, system perhaps as pinhooks or whatever. So if they get bought another time, it's just plus revenue into the greater horse business money pool.

The vast majority of theories about breeding, its course, its flaws, etc are ridiculous including many found in this thread. There are people within the breeding industry that are espousing ridiculous theories to further their own agenda.

[cloud_break]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Dont break what dont need fixin'. The TC has allure because it is hard to win.

Anyone else remember the the talk in '78 that maybe the Triple Crown had gotten too easy with three winners in five years. I seem to remember it surfacing again prior to Bid's Belmont...

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Actually, it seems as if IEAH is just buying "race horses," not investing in potential stallions. Perhaps with the exception of some of their European-bought horses (like Frost Giant and Plan), most of their purchases don't have stallion pedigrees, and for that reason, can be bought by a racing operation for more "reasonable" prices: Benny the Bull (by Lucky Lionel); Kip Deville (Kipling); Big Brown (Boundary); and even I Want Revenge (Stephen Got Even) to a large degree. The lack of commercial stallion appeal is probably why Kip Deville stayed in training, and Benny the Bull is being brought out of retirement. Things may change as a result of the downturn in the stallion end of the business, but the really well-bred horses are always likely to be snatched up by the Darleys and Coolmores more so than an outfit like IEAH.

P6..

Here's the thing.. If they aren't fishing for a stallion success, how can they justify the expenses of their purchases? They can't make back on track what they're spending, on average.. No?

(And as a PS, aren't they welcome to all the Kip Devilles and Benny the Bulls they can find from original owners?)

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Kasept

P6..

Here's the thing.. If they aren't fishing for a stallion success, how can they justify the expenses of their purchases? They can't make back on track what they're spending, on average.. No?

(And as a PS, aren't they welcome to all the Kip Devilles and Benny the Bulls they can find from original owners?)

My sense with IEAH is that it's now about being on the stage. (I'm assuming that Iavarone is living large, essentially on other people's money.) How else could you justify the purchase price for a filly like Stardom Bound, especially if they recirculate the money like most "racing" partnerships by selling the fillies/mares at the conclusion of their racing careers, or the reported price for I Want Revenge? With I Want Revenge's pedigree, at the numbers being bandied about for their 50% interest, the only way that they could get out financially was by winning the Derby, and we know how that went.

When IEAH was talking about the idea of a "thoroughbred hedge fund," I suppose that they may have been hoping to find potential stallions, but most of the horses that they bought did not "check the boxes" for future stallion success. That's why they couldn't buy horses like Majestic Warrior, Street Sense or Hard Spun. If they thought that they were going to make stallions out of horses like Kip Deville and Benny the Bull, then they were sadly mistaken, IMO, and subsequently learned that lesson (although I'm sure that those were very successful purchases, both financially and from a publicity standpoint, for them.)

As for Kip Deville, I'm sure the guy who bought him for $7,000 at Timonium as a 2YO and was racing him in Texas as a 3YO has few regrets about his sale of that horse.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cloud_break

Anyone else remember the the talk in '78 that maybe the Triple Crown had gotten too easy with three winners in five years. I seem to remember it surfacing again prior to Bid's Belmont...

i remember that. there was a drought for years before sec...people wanted it changed, figured it would never again-and then, bam! three winners, and several others who won two thirds...so yeah, there was talk it had become too easy, especially after the back to back wins. oops.
so now we're back to 'change the tc'...and even tho some might argue that the changes they want may not make it easier-i doubt anyone would want said changes had we recently had a horse make the sweep.

we've had some horses come really close to winning-that in itself ought to show it's doable. it's not as tho these horses are winning one of the races and then failing dismally at the other two. hell, real quiet came within a nostril and an inquiry of winning.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

My sense with IEAH is that it's now about being on the stage. (I'm assuming that Iavarone is living large, essentially on other people's money.) How else could you justify the purchase price for a filly like Stardom Bound, especially if they recirculate the money like most "racing" partnerships by selling the fillies/mares at the conclusion of their racing careers, or the reported price for I Want Revenge? With I Want Revenge's pedigree, at the numbers being bandied about for their 50% interest, the only way that they could get out financially was by winning the Derby, and we know how that went.

When IEAH was talking about the idea of a "thoroughbred hedge fund," I suppose that they may have been hoping to find potential stallions, but most of the horses that they bought did not "check the boxes" for future stallion success. That's why they couldn't buy horses like Majestic Warrior, Street Sense or Hard Spun. If they thought that they were going to make stallions out of horses like Kip Deville and Benny the Bull, then they were sadly mistaken, IMO, and subsequently learned that lesson (although I'm sure that those were very successful purchases, both financially and from a publicity standpoint, for them.)

As for Kip Deville, I'm sure the guy who bought him for $7,000 at Timonium as a 2YO and was racing him in Texas as a 3YO has few regrets about his sale of that horse.

they're a big time partnership aren't they? they can afford to risk big purchases because they have several people sharing the expense. big brown is footing the bill for them right now on horses like stardom bound. they better hope he turns out to be a good sire, or they may have to cut back on their spending a bit.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

Some won it when it was four weeks after the Belmont. Perhaps if you had given Smarty Jones or Real Quiet an additional week of rest before the Belmont, they too could have won it.

Yeah, but the TC winners whose Belmont was four weeks after the second leg were not getting any additional rest, since they all ran in other races between the Preakness and Belmont.

Which further illustrates that these horses can't do what horse of the past were able to do. I think it's silly to change the competitors but ask them to do the same things.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Dont break what dont need fixin'. The TC has allure because it is hard to win.

I happen to think it's broke when year after year, we are seeing our the majority of our top 3yos not even able to finish the year. Just in the last decade, we've seen the following classic race winners not even finish the year:

Charismatic
Red Bullet
Monarchos
Point Given
Empire Maker
Smarty Jones
Giacomo
Afleet Alex
Barbaro
Jazil
Rags to Riches
Big Brown

That's 12 out of 23 horses that didn't finish out their 3yo season. To be fair, Jazil and Giacomo did come back the next season. And I already know that some will mention that it wasn't really injury that took Point Given and Empire Maker out. Even taking those four out, it's still 8 of 23 or 35%. Four of them didn't even make it past the Belmont and a couple more only had one more race. Go back a couple more seasons and you could add Real Quiet and Silver Charm. This doesn't even count all of the horses that are knocked out that don't win a TC race like Bluegrass Cat and Lion Heart and Bellamy Road and all of the ones that are knocked out on the TC trail like Second of June and Old Fashioned and I Want Revenge and Event of the Year. For me, the attrition rate is much to high and I think that the whole thing needs to be revamped, not just the TC races but the preps and everything.