too many race horses in todays game?

[bdw0617]

I just got done reading a post louis made, and I will quote it for this thread

In 1974 28,127 tb were fold in North America a record number up to 1974.

Sir Barton and 1919 Triple Crown winner came from a 1916 crop of 2000 foals.

citation won the Triple Crown and 1948 was 1 of 5800 foals fold in 1945.

today there are 36000 + thoroughbreds foaled, 1 would think that there would be a surplus of superior runners that would win the Triple Crown more often than the time lapse between winners of the TC.

When a breeder doesn't cull is Broodmares and keeps breeding out of the same mares that haven't produced anything of note it adds to the mediocrity of the breed. Many stallions are called each year, but just a few make the grade.

That answer is quality over quantity, for those breeders who desire to improve their bloodstock program. The result of over breeding out of inferior bloodstock results in more breakdowns and injuries.

that doesn't make any sense. what's even non sense making, is that the glory years of the sport seemed to be the 70's. we are producing about 30% m ore horses now than then.

No one's best interest is in the game itself anymore.


This is all hypothetical, but what could you do to bring numbers back down to something more well..reasonable?


I believe EVERYTHING ties in directly with breeding. if you can control breeding, you can control the game.

I believe you need to make more strigent regulations on who and who can't bred. only a graded stakes winner can stand at stallion. that would be the first rule I have.. acutally the requirements for stallaion would be

^ must be age 5 or older
^ must have started a minimum of 15 races



however I am placing just as much blame on the mare owners, breeding and rebreeding bad mares, proudcing bad offspring who go on to produce more bad offspring.

^ No mare can have a TBred registered by the jockey club if the mare has not registered at least 1 win. I dont' care where, I don't care how many tries it took. But running these unsound, can't run a lick mares out there and blaming it ALL on the stallions has got to stop.

[valjoe]

Are you drunk?

[bdw0617]

one could only wish valjoe. I dont' drink. heavily at least.


I'm serious. what is so irrational about only having horses that can run add to the bred?

[winds]

Usually bdw I agree with your theroies, but this time, not so much. I usually don't want a mare that hasn't won a race, but a farm that I worked on, our best mare started 7 times and produced 2 stake horses.

She showed all the talent in the morning, but when it came to running, she didn't want to. She passed on her talent but not her lack of heart. She wanted to be a mom not a professional working woman.

Her name was Torelia. She died a few years ago..............

winds

[bdw0617]

sorry to hear about Torelia winds


here is the beauty of it all. first of all, there is a difference between CAN'T win a race, and COULD WIN IF WE REALLY HAD TO BUT THERE IS A BETTER OPPROTUNITY IN BREEDING SO WHY WASTE OUR TIME, BREEDING SEASON IS AROUND THE CORNER.

would you agree in saying iwnds, that if you guys had to, given antoher year, she would have broken her maiden?

find an easier spot, drop her in class, whatever. her maiden could be broken if you had to have it broke in due time.

and even with that said, yes, some producing fillies would not register. that is a small loss compared to the probably upper 4 digit fillies who go unraced because of defalts in confirmation, not being able to run a lick if their life depended on it. it is a small price ot pay, even if you loose a hypothetical stakes iwnning producer

[winds]

We never did get to run her on the turf, we'd entered her in a turf race but they took it off the turf. It was her last race, that was my decision. It was the end of the turf season and I figured she was better off being a mom.

That race she showed the speed she had in the morning, she broke on top and then just stopped running. The jock tried everything to get her to pick up the bit again and start running again. I was so pissed, I pulled her shoes myself the next morning and put her out with the mares.

She caught on her first cover in the spring.

Because of that we had a love/hate relationship, she made up for her lack of wanting to run by producing horses that did want to run.

I understand what you are saying though, as I said earlier, I want mares that have won in my broodmare band. Another mare I really liked that was cheap was Bella Bandita. She was a winner, and literally a backyard horse. She won at Mountaineer, but did it on her sheer ability and heart. We got her when she was ten for $5,300 carrying a Regal Embrace foal. She was an every other year breeder. Regal stood for 5k at the time.

It's because of her that I liked Wee Like U and my business partner and I bought her. She is a blue denim mare and that's what I like, mares that have the ability to produce racehorses.

So, I do like mares that were winners, but there are exceptions to the rule. I don't like mares that were never raced and retired to stud.

winds

[bdw0617]

We never did get to run her on the turf, we'd entered her in a turf race but they took it off the turf. It was her last race, that was my decision. It was the end of the turf season and I figured she was better off being a mom.

That race she showed the speed she had in the morning, she broke on top and then just stopped running. The jock tried everything to get her to pick up the bit again and start running again. I was so pissed, I pulled her shoes myself the next morning and put her out with the mares.

She caught on her first cover in the spring.

Because of that we had a love/hate relationship, she made up for her lack of wanting to run by producing horses that did want to run.

I understand what you are saying though, as I said earlier, I want mares that have won in my broodmare band. Another mare I really liked that was cheap was Bella Bandita. She was a winner, and literally a backyard horse. She won at Mountaineer, but did it on her sheer ability and heart. We got her when she was ten for $5,300 carrying a Regal Embrace foal. She was an every other year breeder. Regal stood for 5k at the time.

It's because of her that I liked Wee Like U and my business partner and I bought her. She is a blue denim mare and that's what I like, mares that have the ability to produce racehorses.

So, I do like mares that were winners, but there are exceptions to the rule. I don't like mares that were never raced and retired to stud.

winds

than you for that story winds.

See a filly like that I would actually see as valuable. first of all, in due time she would have won. but she had SPEED. REAL LIFE SPEED that was shown on the track..

So, I do like mares that were winners, but there are exceptions to the rule. I don't like mares that were never raced and retired to stud.

lol, the problem with that is that everyone thinks their unraced mare is the execption

[Rokeby Forever]

I don't think the problem is that too many horses are being bred - too many tracks now exist and many circuits have year-round racing, so we need this many horses to be foaled. The problem is that too many BAD horses are being bred.

Sires that are crooked, offset, bad hocked, bad footed, bad winded, and straightlegged with high pasterns are being bred to broodmares that are crooked, offset, bad hocked, bad footed, bad winded, and straightlegged with high pasterns. That doesn't even take into account how many bleeders are being bred to bleeders. And now that so many medications and drugs are around, who knows how many junkies are being bred to other junkies. Does anyone try to offset faults with pairings any more, or are they compounded?

There will always be cheap horses, but those horses used to be able to pay some bills by making 60, 70, or 80 starts in a career. There are now cheap horses that don't race any more than the underraced, overtrained stakeshorses. What chance does an owner have with a cheap horse that will make 12 career starts over three years before it falls apart?

[bdw0617]

The problem is that too many BAD horses are being bred.

it's a problem that in the end wit that solution would solve itself. we have the tracks but they are all loosing money anyway, at least that's what they claim. we could do with 25% less tracks in the country to be dead honest. you cut the 25% worst horsemen, 25% of the worst jockies, etc, and it makes for a better product.

but you are correct.. too many bad horses are being bred. too many unraced mares whoose leg's throw gang signs are bred to unraced sires with low AEI's because they have 25 crosses to Northern Dancer or something like that.

That doesn't even take into account how many bleeders are being bred to bleeders.

that brings up a very good question I wanted to ask. honeslty, how long have horses bled? is this a new "thing"? if not, how did they fix it in the old days?

There will always be cheap horses, but those horses used to be able to pay some bills by making 60, 70, or 80 starts in a career. There are now cheap horses that don't race any more than the underraced, overtrained stakeshorses.

great point. look at pacers. their cheap horses pay bills because they can run every week. even running for 4k purses they keep the lights on.

if you have a horse that can't run, and literarly CAN'T RUN... you are screwed.

[Tairaterces]

This might sound simplistic but we need more breeders that race their horses, not sell them. My theory is breedings would be more geared to racing, not to be fashionable hoping to nab the golden ring.

JMO

[Rokeby Forever]

There have always been bleeders (or so I'm told), but the problem with Lasix is that it treats a problem without correcting it. Darwin said that over time, a species will progress with faults unless there's a reason for nature to correct it. We're not giving nature any reason for bleeding to get better - we're giving nature a reason to make the problem worse, because horses are racing with bleeding conditions. And, in time, when horses become immune to the effects of Lasix, then what?

[bdw0617]

There have always been bleeders (or so I'm told), but the problem with Lasix is that it treats a problem without correcting it. Darwin said that over time, a species will progress with faults unless there's a reason for nature to correct it. We're not giving nature any reason for bleeding to get better - we're giving nature a reason to make the problem worse, because horses are racing with bleeding conditions. And, in time, when horses become immune to the effects of Lasix, then what?

so if you had a bleeder 100 eyars ago you were screwed basically is what you are saying.

[winds]

Unfortunately you are correct. If more mares were bred to produce race horses, horses that are to run long and often. Breed to produce horses that can run, breed to produce good racehorses. Now the brass ring they are looking for is the sales, not good.

winds

[Rokeby Forever]

It's nuts, Winds.

Think about Mr Sekiguchi. There's a horse that probably never had a sound day in his life and he ran four times. Hill N'Dale has priced him at $5,000, and will probably get 200 broodmares a year to him at that price because of how he's bred. But instead of siring a breed-to-race horse at his $5,000 level (which is what he should be doing), what is he likely to sire? One just like him, except on a much cheaper scale?

[Tairaterces]

There have always been bleeders (or so I'm told), but the problem with Lasix is that it treats a problem without correcting it. Darwin said that over time, a species will progress with faults unless there's a reason for nature to correct it. We're not giving nature any reason for bleeding to get better - we're giving nature a reason to make the problem worse, because horses are racing with bleeding conditions. And, in time, when horses become immune to the effects of Lasix, then what?

so if you had a bleeder 100 eyars ago you were screwed basically is what you are saying.

Why do you think we have more NZ and AU horses racing in NA. Because NZ and AU won't let bleeders race . . . . the ones racing here are culls.