http://www.horsesport.org/sites/default ... 202011.pdf
http://www.horseracingintfed.com/racing ... tion=10#a6
As long as the americans refuse to signs this kind of rules and each and any racingstate uses their own rules nothing will change.
I want revenge's vet bill
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
BenB wrote:http://www.horsesport.org/sites/default/files/FEI%20Prohibited%20Substances%20List%202011.pdf
http://www.horseracingintfed.com/racing ... tion=10#a6
As long as the americans refuse to signs this kind of rules and each and any racingstate uses their own rules nothing will change.
Hi Ben,
It's really tough to go without medication here in the States. We don't have the luxury of European racing/training. The Euro meets are much shorter than those in the states and there is usually a 4 month period of no racing in many areas. When racing wasn't year round in NY things were better....there was no lasix allowed then, the tracks closed down and the horses had a chance to mend, regroup and come back to themselves during the winter. It was a better time no doubt, but today with year round racing the horses never get a break and many resort to help rather than time which would be the best remedy. They run harder and faster in the states as well....it's just not the same kind of racing. I think that's the reason for there reluctance to conform to drug free racing. I was wondering if there is a withdrawal timetable located in the site you put up for us? If not would you know where I could find the WD time periods for the various medications administered....Thanks Ben, TJ
I think the vet bill clearly indicates the horse was being treated to mask joint degeneration/soft tissue damage and stress. Ultimately he was taken out of training when "time off" became the only choice of treatment..
Regarding the horse and ulcers I believe treating horses via injection etc. in an attempt to mask underlying joint degeneration or soft tissue damage promote undo stress leading to physiological outcomes that promote ulcers.
Stressing a racehorse physically and mentally is an art form. Drugs that mask joint and soft tissue damage if taken beyond reasonable repair and recovery timelines will ultimately do far more damage than benefit.
Based on this Vet Bill and other information I have read, IWR and Jeff Mullins training and treatment protocol went far beyond what was appropriate for any horse IMO.
Regarding the horse and ulcers I believe treating horses via injection etc. in an attempt to mask underlying joint degeneration or soft tissue damage promote undo stress leading to physiological outcomes that promote ulcers.
Stressing a racehorse physically and mentally is an art form. Drugs that mask joint and soft tissue damage if taken beyond reasonable repair and recovery timelines will ultimately do far more damage than benefit.
Based on this Vet Bill and other information I have read, IWR and Jeff Mullins training and treatment protocol went far beyond what was appropriate for any horse IMO.
"Politicians should be limited to two terms, one in office and another in jail." Anonymous
Sysonby-
Neither your nor Madelyn are potential clients.
I don't mean to insult, but you have your ways and I have mine.
I could possibly convince you otherwise, but that is not worth either of our time or effort.
Good luck to both of us.
TJ, has got it right - I take this stuff way to personally, I am just realizing that people actually read what I blog and that, alone, is a shock as it is really only targeted towards clients.
I quantify athletic performance with numbers, for instance: V200 is how fast your horse travels when his heart rate is 85% of maximum. When you know this number, training at that pace increases several physiological factors that improve stamina. Without knowing that number, you are guessing - sometimes you guess right, sometimes you guess wrong.
Most horses are trained with the same breezes and gallops, speed/distance/frequency are relatively the same. Some horses with V200's of 25mph will thrive under such a regimen, others will find this too much, or too little.
I simply define what, today, gives them the best chance to get better with the least chance of getting injured. I have watched trainers continually hammer a horse with 4F works that didn't belong working 2F. It's a waste of time and money.
Some have not the physiological systems to ever hit the board - but too often trainers rely on psychological and behavioral training when the physical is just not there and its not productive.
Some trainers I help use this data to explain to their owners why their $200,000 purchase is running in a $20k claimer.
Again, there are only a handful of people that do what I do in the world, and I think I am the only one in the US.
The owner/trainer/vet/exercise rider have to all be on board and on the same page - and that doesn't happen often.
Traditional horsemen and women I have found are not likely to change 20+ years of what they do. And that is OK.
Some big operations use me to help them decide if they want to spend $50k sending a 2 year old to a big name trainer for 6 months.
If this V200 number is not good, and/or not improving with age/training, those culls go to the auctions instead and end up at Beulah.
If I told you how accurate this has been over time - you would simply not believe it. Horsemanship is vital to all of this, but recent advances in technology have made other factors applicable and practical.
Accidents happen and horses get injured, not all are preventable - but I find 25% are in most cases.
Eventing, endurance, jumping, racing - I work with them all. Most don't need another horseman, they need some objective intelligence to act on.
Neither your nor Madelyn are potential clients.
I don't mean to insult, but you have your ways and I have mine.
I could possibly convince you otherwise, but that is not worth either of our time or effort.
Good luck to both of us.
TJ, has got it right - I take this stuff way to personally, I am just realizing that people actually read what I blog and that, alone, is a shock as it is really only targeted towards clients.
I quantify athletic performance with numbers, for instance: V200 is how fast your horse travels when his heart rate is 85% of maximum. When you know this number, training at that pace increases several physiological factors that improve stamina. Without knowing that number, you are guessing - sometimes you guess right, sometimes you guess wrong.
Most horses are trained with the same breezes and gallops, speed/distance/frequency are relatively the same. Some horses with V200's of 25mph will thrive under such a regimen, others will find this too much, or too little.
I simply define what, today, gives them the best chance to get better with the least chance of getting injured. I have watched trainers continually hammer a horse with 4F works that didn't belong working 2F. It's a waste of time and money.
Some have not the physiological systems to ever hit the board - but too often trainers rely on psychological and behavioral training when the physical is just not there and its not productive.
Some trainers I help use this data to explain to their owners why their $200,000 purchase is running in a $20k claimer.
Again, there are only a handful of people that do what I do in the world, and I think I am the only one in the US.
The owner/trainer/vet/exercise rider have to all be on board and on the same page - and that doesn't happen often.
Traditional horsemen and women I have found are not likely to change 20+ years of what they do. And that is OK.
Some big operations use me to help them decide if they want to spend $50k sending a 2 year old to a big name trainer for 6 months.
If this V200 number is not good, and/or not improving with age/training, those culls go to the auctions instead and end up at Beulah.
If I told you how accurate this has been over time - you would simply not believe it. Horsemanship is vital to all of this, but recent advances in technology have made other factors applicable and practical.
Accidents happen and horses get injured, not all are preventable - but I find 25% are in most cases.
Eventing, endurance, jumping, racing - I work with them all. Most don't need another horseman, they need some objective intelligence to act on.
More mumbo jumbo...
But you are absolutely right. Without specifics, you've done nothing to convince me that your system (whatever that may actually be) has value for my stable. But here's a heads up: for every person like me who posts, there are 7 or 8 who lurk and you never know who those people are. You'd be surprised. So this is a real chance to sell yourself and its been my experience that goes over better if do something other than suggest that you are so much smarter than your audience.
I wish you luck in your future endeavors.
But you are absolutely right. Without specifics, you've done nothing to convince me that your system (whatever that may actually be) has value for my stable. But here's a heads up: for every person like me who posts, there are 7 or 8 who lurk and you never know who those people are. You'd be surprised. So this is a real chance to sell yourself and its been my experience that goes over better if do something other than suggest that you are so much smarter than your audience.
I wish you luck in your future endeavors.
TJ again, very astute.
Things are different in the US vs the rest of the world. Some good, some bad. In Ireland you will never find a stopwatch when horses work fast - I cannot comprehend the logic behind that.
In Argentina, they gallop at 2 min lick pace with no saddle - just foam. I can stand on the track there with a horse breezing 10' in front of me, and another 20' behind me - unreal and completely safe.
We have European-style off track training centers here that still close the surface for training at noon.
But I take issue with the fact that US horses run faster.
They run the same times as they did 80 years ago over 10F. And regardless of what Ragozin says, Butch Lehr has not been systematically slowing down the CD strip in that time. You can compare winning times at the same track and the same week of the year when you average the times by decade as I have done, IMO.
Standardbreds are 12-15 seconds faster to the mile now vs 1930. They train like the old time thoroughbreds did, more often and longer and you find no race day drugs in the Hambo. Sulkies are faster yes, but the mfg themselves only tout a 2-3s advantage.
I am not anti-drug, I believe anabolic steroids make horses faster if you also train like Burch and Hirsch, but they also do no favors to soft tissues. As a human sprinter, I have used them and got faster over 200m at age 30.
US will always be better on dirt, and Europe will always be better on turf because that is what is in play. Specificity of training trumps all else. Winstar spends millions installing a polytrack training track less than 3 miles from where I now sit - and get their Derby winner from Super Saver who spend his 2-3yo season on various dirt strips.
Things are different in the US vs the rest of the world. Some good, some bad. In Ireland you will never find a stopwatch when horses work fast - I cannot comprehend the logic behind that.
In Argentina, they gallop at 2 min lick pace with no saddle - just foam. I can stand on the track there with a horse breezing 10' in front of me, and another 20' behind me - unreal and completely safe.
We have European-style off track training centers here that still close the surface for training at noon.
But I take issue with the fact that US horses run faster.
They run the same times as they did 80 years ago over 10F. And regardless of what Ragozin says, Butch Lehr has not been systematically slowing down the CD strip in that time. You can compare winning times at the same track and the same week of the year when you average the times by decade as I have done, IMO.
Standardbreds are 12-15 seconds faster to the mile now vs 1930. They train like the old time thoroughbreds did, more often and longer and you find no race day drugs in the Hambo. Sulkies are faster yes, but the mfg themselves only tout a 2-3s advantage.
I am not anti-drug, I believe anabolic steroids make horses faster if you also train like Burch and Hirsch, but they also do no favors to soft tissues. As a human sprinter, I have used them and got faster over 200m at age 30.
US will always be better on dirt, and Europe will always be better on turf because that is what is in play. Specificity of training trumps all else. Winstar spends millions installing a polytrack training track less than 3 miles from where I now sit - and get their Derby winner from Super Saver who spend his 2-3yo season on various dirt strips.
Sysnoby-
Those lurkers, who don't comment negatively, are precisely who become my clients. As I have written many times, I have no horsesense, and everything I do or say comes from others much smarter than myself. Furthermore, it is quite possible that I am 100% wrong about everything - if you call that arrogance I don't know how to reply to that charge.
Citing the work of hundreds of equine specialists worldwide for over 20+ years as 'mumbo jumbo' illustrates exactly why I knew you and Madelyn were not prospective clients, nor others of your ilk.
Those lurkers, who don't comment negatively, are precisely who become my clients. As I have written many times, I have no horsesense, and everything I do or say comes from others much smarter than myself. Furthermore, it is quite possible that I am 100% wrong about everything - if you call that arrogance I don't know how to reply to that charge.
Citing the work of hundreds of equine specialists worldwide for over 20+ years as 'mumbo jumbo' illustrates exactly why I knew you and Madelyn were not prospective clients, nor others of your ilk.
I gave 3-4 very specific examples above, here is a link to the best info you can have if you condition 2 year olds:
http://www.ivis.org/proceedings/aaep/20 ... 000076.PDF
I could have posted the link to my blog page, but that would've scored as mumbo jumbo, so I went to the source. Unfortunately, that doc is 20 pages long, full of xrays and graphs, and normally requires some explanation.
I will be happy to do so if anyone finds this info of value from Dr. Nunamaker and New Bolton. 1100 horses studies over a decade by him and trainer John Fisher DVM at Fair Hill Training Center is great info - but many horsemen need someone like me to be the link between this and putting it into actual practice.
http://www.ivis.org/proceedings/aaep/20 ... 000076.PDF
I could have posted the link to my blog page, but that would've scored as mumbo jumbo, so I went to the source. Unfortunately, that doc is 20 pages long, full of xrays and graphs, and normally requires some explanation.
I will be happy to do so if anyone finds this info of value from Dr. Nunamaker and New Bolton. 1100 horses studies over a decade by him and trainer John Fisher DVM at Fair Hill Training Center is great info - but many horsemen need someone like me to be the link between this and putting it into actual practice.
zinn21 wrote:I think the vet bill clearly indicates the horse was being treated to mask joint degeneration/soft tissue damage and stress. Ultimately he was taken out of training when "time off" became the only choice of treatment..
Regarding the horse and ulcers I believe treating horses via injection etc. in an attempt to mask underlying joint degeneration or soft tissue damage promote undo stress leading to physiological outcomes that promote ulcers.
Stressing a racehorse physically and mentally is an art form. Drugs that mask joint and soft tissue damage if taken beyond reasonable repair and recovery timelines will ultimately do far more damage than benefit.
Based on this Vet Bill and other information I have read, IWR and Jeff Mullins training and treatment protocol went far beyond what was appropriate for any horse IMO.
Hi Zinn,
I believe they went a bit overboard too, but they were pushing the envelope to possibly get this horse to the Derby. Is it right, probably not....but not being there to see what was actually going on and the connections not getting any clues from the x-rays and ultrasound they continued to move forward with him. If they truly felt there was an active problem in that leg and they were masking it to make the Derby they would never have worked him into the race.....possibly just a strong gallop and a two minute lick at the wire, they know a strong work would cause a flat tire. There is no doubt that work brought out the real problem which was a suspensory as diagnosed by their personal vet. Mullins had it in his head it could be a chip that couldn't be seen with x-rays. Many times a floating chip in the ankle will be fine one day and bothersome the next according to the position of the chip in the joint. That's most likely why he went with the acid in the ankle joint. That is a viscous fluid used to keep floating chips from entering the joint. When they realized all their efforts above and below board failed to make him sound and that the horse was in jeopardy they made the right decision.....should it have been made sooner, most likely it should have been....but this was an unusual situation and I'm sure they were caught up in the whole thing. The good news is the horse is still here. Hopefully he will stay healthy and make it to the Donn at Gulfstream as is the plan. TJ
For those of you who will skip the above link because it came from me, I implore you to check it out.
The AAEP in the URL is the American Association of Equine Practicioners and the IVIS is the International Veterinary Information Service. Even the immortal Dr. Bramlage has cited the efficacy of this info is the Eclipse winning piece from TDN by Bill Finley:
http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/re ... ehorse.pdf
But be careful, yours truly is quoted and pictured in that piece as well. IF anyone would like a copy of my article in Trainer Magazine I would also be happy to provide.
The AAEP in the URL is the American Association of Equine Practicioners and the IVIS is the International Veterinary Information Service. Even the immortal Dr. Bramlage has cited the efficacy of this info is the Eclipse winning piece from TDN by Bill Finley:
http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/re ... ehorse.pdf
But be careful, yours truly is quoted and pictured in that piece as well. IF anyone would like a copy of my article in Trainer Magazine I would also be happy to provide.
TJ wrote:
I believe they went a bit overboard too, but they were pushing the envelope to possibly get this horse to the Derby. Is it right, probably not....but not being there to see what was actually going on and the connections not getting any clues from the x-rays and ultrasound they continued to move forward with him. If they truly felt there was an active problem in that leg and they were masking it to make the Derby they would never have worked him into the race.....possibly just a strong gallop and a two minute lick at the wire, they know a strong work would cause a flat tire. There is no doubt that work brought out the real problem which was a suspensory as diagnosed by their personal vet. Mullins had it in his head it could be a chip that couldn't be seen with x-rays. Many times a floating chip in the ankle will be fine one day and bothersome the next according to the position of the chip in the joint. That's most likely why he went with the acid in the ankle joint. That is a viscous fluid used to keep floating chips from entering the joint. When they realized all their efforts above and below board failed to make him sound and that the horse was in jeopardy they made the right decision.....should it have been made sooner, most likely it should have been....but this was an unusual situation and I'm sure they were caught up in the whole thing. The good news is the horse is still here. Hopefully he will stay healthy and make it to the Donn at Gulfstream as is the plan. TJ
Great post TJ! That's probably exactly what happened and while I'm no great fan of Mullins or IEAH, that's a Derby horse we are talking about and not just one that was cluttering up the field. If you are not Winstar, Pletcher or Baffert, those roll around maybe once every twenty years or maybe never again.
That lawsuit is all over buyers remorse and I also agree with you that no one should buy a runner for that kind of money without a vet check. IEAH had as much Derby fever as everyone else.
If they had eased into the Derby with a soft 2min lick because they knew he was a ticking time bomb, then I don’t agree with that practice (see Eight Belles and his slower than 2min lick workouts for the week).
Don’t kid yourselves, neither Lanzman nor IEAH nor Mullins scratched that horse willingly, they are not that principled. That ankle was anything less than a balloon Derby a.m, he was in.
This is what a breeze/race schedule for a Triple Crown prospect should look like:
ASSAULT in 1946:
Assault breezed/raced 39 times for the year to May 1.
April 30: finished 4th in the Derby Trial Stakes
May 3: 4f in :48
4: Won Kentucky Derby
8: 3f in :40.
9: 8f in 1:45
11: Won Preakness
You can drug them all you want in my book if they are sound enough to win 2 Grade 1’s in a week, with a 8F work in the middle.
As soon as a vet finds an undetectable drug that can get us a Derby winner in 1:57 – I am out of business.
And hundreds of vets are looking for that drug now, the last one I saw work well in person was a bronchodilator.
Anabolic steroids were those drugs I believe, but they were abolished.
I wasn’t around back when Triple Crown winners came every 2-3 years – but I bet they were chock full of anabolics AND training very aggressively.
You get little from a Rick Dutrow cycle of Winstrol once a month, but load them up Barry Bonds style and train them like you mean it, and you will get a monster – along with many dead horses.
The point of my link to the Maryland Shin Study is that ideal conditioning practices always trump drugs when developing sound, sturdy racehorses with no side effects.
However, if you have a 3 year old that is already an equine pin cushion, you must stay that course.
Get them once they turn 2, follow the recommendations of Nunamaker/Fisher – and you have a chance to train/race drug free and remain sound.
That is what I do. Takes more time, takes more attention, takes more effort – but that is the course I specialize in.
Only started 2 years ago, so give me time to make some impact.
Some of you know of Tom Ivers, I am NO Tom Ivers.
He was on the right track in some respects, but lacked the technology to refine his work.
I had to post and comment on the IWR vet bill because there are trainers all over the world copying the regimens of these horses and thinking a 4F breeze every 10 days is all you need for a sound horse – but they need to know a 4F breeze is all some of these can take without their ankles shooting off into the infield.
Sysonby, the Flickr pics in your signature are exquisite.
Don’t kid yourselves, neither Lanzman nor IEAH nor Mullins scratched that horse willingly, they are not that principled. That ankle was anything less than a balloon Derby a.m, he was in.
This is what a breeze/race schedule for a Triple Crown prospect should look like:
ASSAULT in 1946:
Assault breezed/raced 39 times for the year to May 1.
April 30: finished 4th in the Derby Trial Stakes
May 3: 4f in :48
4: Won Kentucky Derby
8: 3f in :40.
9: 8f in 1:45
11: Won Preakness
You can drug them all you want in my book if they are sound enough to win 2 Grade 1’s in a week, with a 8F work in the middle.
As soon as a vet finds an undetectable drug that can get us a Derby winner in 1:57 – I am out of business.
And hundreds of vets are looking for that drug now, the last one I saw work well in person was a bronchodilator.
Anabolic steroids were those drugs I believe, but they were abolished.
I wasn’t around back when Triple Crown winners came every 2-3 years – but I bet they were chock full of anabolics AND training very aggressively.
You get little from a Rick Dutrow cycle of Winstrol once a month, but load them up Barry Bonds style and train them like you mean it, and you will get a monster – along with many dead horses.
The point of my link to the Maryland Shin Study is that ideal conditioning practices always trump drugs when developing sound, sturdy racehorses with no side effects.
However, if you have a 3 year old that is already an equine pin cushion, you must stay that course.
Get them once they turn 2, follow the recommendations of Nunamaker/Fisher – and you have a chance to train/race drug free and remain sound.
That is what I do. Takes more time, takes more attention, takes more effort – but that is the course I specialize in.
Only started 2 years ago, so give me time to make some impact.
Some of you know of Tom Ivers, I am NO Tom Ivers.
He was on the right track in some respects, but lacked the technology to refine his work.
I had to post and comment on the IWR vet bill because there are trainers all over the world copying the regimens of these horses and thinking a 4F breeze every 10 days is all you need for a sound horse – but they need to know a 4F breeze is all some of these can take without their ankles shooting off into the infield.
Sysonby, the Flickr pics in your signature are exquisite.
bpressey wrote:
Traditional horsemen and women I have found are not likely to change 20+ years of what they do. And that is OK.
I find it interesting that each year there are new quantatative services offered to TB buyers, owners, and trainers--for a price of course. Sales yearlings and 2yos are now subject to all sorts of measurements from size of heart, to length of stride, lung capacity, skeletal angles, etc. And the owners of these services offer surefire improvement in the picking and/or training of winnners and more importantly, Big Horses. Success is on the horizon! We have found the Holy Grail!
So I wonder...if it's really just that easy...hire this expert or that and I will soon have a barn full of stakes winners...why does the expert need me? Why doesn't he simply buy and produce the stakewinners himself--and make all the profit rather than just a paycheck?
Oh right. Because it turns out that all these new systems don't really work all of the time. Or even most of the time. In fact when you sit down and crunch the numbers they seem to work just about as well as old fashioned horsemanship does.
A friend worked for several years for one of the measurement services. And by god, he was good at selling it. "No one should even consider buying yearlings without having us do our job first! New technology! New ways of looking at things! We're going to revolutionize the industry...." Now he's a bloodstock agent and I asked him recently whether he uses his old employer's service when he buys for clients. There was a long pause before he finally said. "Umm, no."
"Why not?" I asked. "Well you know. It would be an extra expense for my clients and it doesn't really add anything to what I already know and can see in a prospect from my decades of working with horses."
Okay. Got it.
LB-
All of the heart score and biomechanical stuff you refer to is OK, not great not terrible, just OK.
Analysis has proven that these guys perform about the same as a Baffert or DWL, no better – no worse, as you stated correctly.
One guy told me: “I have a barn full of large hearted biomechanically correct stock that can’t run a lick.”
But, who are you to tell the EQBs, Equix Biomechanics, and Cecil Seamans of the world they have to right to earn a living?
I don’t do any of that stuff. That is geared towards making commissions off owners at sales – just like what you do if you are a bloodstock agent.
Buying at auction is a suckers game – even the greatest horseman offers a consistently negative ROI on that practice.
No one will EVER make purchases at an auction and recoup their investment long term.
I think that perhaps Kenny McPeek comes closest if you count Curlin, and his owners fire him if he won’t use Lasix in their development.
If you believe that a 20% success rate from horsemanship is the best result possible, and you are proud of it – good luck with that.
Keeping doing what you have been doing with horses the last 10 years over the next 10 years.
You will then find yourself in the exact same place as you are today. If you are happy with that, I am happy for you.
Or, open your mind, spend time and effort (not money) investigating other alternatives from around the world.
Sounds like you have already made that decision, as most in KY have.
If you are a breeder your way of supporting your family is convincing owners to spend their hard earned money on your stock.
Genetics is a roll of the dice, and I’m glad I don’t have to convince others to make that bet in order to earn my keep.
You breed the best to the best for 80 years and turn out overmedicated horses that still can’t run 10 consecutive 12s furlongs, even with injected joints and tendons.
Enlighten us and provide some data as to what your horses have been bought or sold for and what they have gone on to earn for your clients, counting stud/broodmare residuals too of course.
Don’t forget to factor in the $1500 monthly vet bills along the way – and the 40% of selections that your horsemanship couldn’t even get to the races.
I protect my clients from such situations, luckily for you there are enough guys willing to lose $5million a year on your gamble.
Others are not so willing.
What I do does not pay particularly well, and I often spend my own money to get things rolling.
I have plenty of my own money to buy and develop equine athletes, but I will not waste it giving it to a ‘horseman’ to go buy someone else’s culls at Keeneland, and charge me 5% for the privilege.
People like me are forced to prove ourselves, while horsemen and women with a track record of failure are allowed to toot their own horns, must be nice.
All of the heart score and biomechanical stuff you refer to is OK, not great not terrible, just OK.
Analysis has proven that these guys perform about the same as a Baffert or DWL, no better – no worse, as you stated correctly.
One guy told me: “I have a barn full of large hearted biomechanically correct stock that can’t run a lick.”
But, who are you to tell the EQBs, Equix Biomechanics, and Cecil Seamans of the world they have to right to earn a living?
I don’t do any of that stuff. That is geared towards making commissions off owners at sales – just like what you do if you are a bloodstock agent.
Buying at auction is a suckers game – even the greatest horseman offers a consistently negative ROI on that practice.
No one will EVER make purchases at an auction and recoup their investment long term.
I think that perhaps Kenny McPeek comes closest if you count Curlin, and his owners fire him if he won’t use Lasix in their development.
If you believe that a 20% success rate from horsemanship is the best result possible, and you are proud of it – good luck with that.
Keeping doing what you have been doing with horses the last 10 years over the next 10 years.
You will then find yourself in the exact same place as you are today. If you are happy with that, I am happy for you.
Or, open your mind, spend time and effort (not money) investigating other alternatives from around the world.
Sounds like you have already made that decision, as most in KY have.
If you are a breeder your way of supporting your family is convincing owners to spend their hard earned money on your stock.
Genetics is a roll of the dice, and I’m glad I don’t have to convince others to make that bet in order to earn my keep.
You breed the best to the best for 80 years and turn out overmedicated horses that still can’t run 10 consecutive 12s furlongs, even with injected joints and tendons.
Enlighten us and provide some data as to what your horses have been bought or sold for and what they have gone on to earn for your clients, counting stud/broodmare residuals too of course.
Don’t forget to factor in the $1500 monthly vet bills along the way – and the 40% of selections that your horsemanship couldn’t even get to the races.
I protect my clients from such situations, luckily for you there are enough guys willing to lose $5million a year on your gamble.
Others are not so willing.
What I do does not pay particularly well, and I often spend my own money to get things rolling.
I have plenty of my own money to buy and develop equine athletes, but I will not waste it giving it to a ‘horseman’ to go buy someone else’s culls at Keeneland, and charge me 5% for the privilege.
People like me are forced to prove ourselves, while horsemen and women with a track record of failure are allowed to toot their own horns, must be nice.