Theory: Top trainers top horses make bad stallions

[madelyn]

....Tank's Prospect is a horse I love to see on the bottom side of a pedigree......

Me too. My 3 yo Skip Away is out of a Tank's Prospect mare.

[geowarrior]

Thirty Six Red died young, so had limited opportunity, and he is a pretty good broodmare sire (think Premium Tap).

[halo]

AP Indy has an AEI/CI of 3.22 to 4.00, so I guess that makes him a candidate for a Taylor Made infomercial too, huh.

[oliverstoned]

Ok so everyone is picking out their favorite flunky stallion, of course they sired a few good ones or do decent as a broodmare sire afterall they got pretty nice mares to start with and they are still by Mr P ,Seattle Slew, Storm Cat etc. The way to argue my point is this A) I believe these horses ran clean or B) The fact they ran with "help" doesn't effect their sire performance. Is anyone saying that?

[Maven]

I dont believe track enhancers effect stud performance. It may increase the quality of the initial book, but that's about it.

[habitat]

I believe the 85% failure rule of thumb has been around at least as long as Phalaris and sire-of-sires odds are even smaller.

[bcassidy]

Oliverstoned---I understand the point you are trying to make and in my opinion-----drug influenced performance may affect breeding decisions in the short term but in the long term breeders will eventually migrate to the stallions which are truely beneficial to the breed. I would estimate that the damage done to the breeding population is far worse than all the hype based breeding that occurs through first year stallions. Good question to put to the forum----way to go!

[oliverstoned]

It has to be a contributing factor to weakening the breed though don't you think. If the doped up horses are getting the best mares and the clean or cleaner run horses but naturally faster ones don't.

[Sam]

It has to be a contributing factor to weakening the breed though don't you think.

This presupposes the breed is, in fact, getting "weaker." The FACT is there is nothing to back up this moronic claim that the breed is more fragile now than it was 50 years ago.

Horses are raced less often for any number of contributing factors (most of them economic) that don't have a damn thing to do with the horse at all, so you can't use lifetime starts as an indicator. TOP horses are more likely to be retired off minor injuries now than they were 30 years ago because the incentive to get to the breeding farm is too great. If the breed were less than now than it was so many years ago, why is it only the top 10% of horses who retire with 10 starts when the bottom feeder claimers -- WHO COME FROM THE SAME STOCK -- go on to start 50+ times?

[Rokeby Forever]

And it's because these bottom feeders stay sound that we need Polyshit at Bay Meadows? Bay Meadows is a bottom feeder track...so why bother if the breed is so sound?

I forgot that it was an economic interest that Scat Daddy was retired in June and not later this fall. I guess all those Unbridled line critters that walk like they're on hot coals give off an optical illusion. I guess all those offset knees passed off by Storm Cat lines don't really exist.

The breed today is crap. It's bigger, heavier, and has more conformation faults than ever before. And...instead of horsemanship (hosing horses, therapy...), we tap the crap out of them, inject them, and train them with a medicine cabinet.

[Sam]

Capote 1.68AEI 2.32CI

Do not be so stupid as to base your opinion of a stallion soley on his AEI/CI ratio. Barely 30% of stallions improve their mares and a lot of the good stallions have numbers like that.

Well that was just an example, I could also used % of SWs or other things but for brevity I choose that one figure, I apologize. Granted I was a little harsh on ol Capote perhaps the term a little disappointing will go over better. Now as for my stupitidy well thats unquestionable!

My point was that every stallion has one stat that can make them look bad and that you should never base your opinion of any stallion on ONE stat but on his career as a whole and how it relates to your specific breeding goals.

[oliverstoned]

It has to be a contributing factor to weakening the breed though don't you think.

This presupposes the breed is, in fact, getting "weaker." The FACT is there is nothing to back up this moronic claim that the breed is more fragile now than it was 50 years ago.

Horses are raced less often for any number of contributing factors (most of them economic) that don't have a damn thing to do with the horse at all, so you can't use lifetime starts as an indicator. TOP horses are more likely to be retired off minor injuries now than they were 30 years ago because the incentive to get to the breeding farm is too great. If the breed were less than now than it was so many years ago, why is it only the top 10% of horses who retire with 10 starts when the bottom feeder claimers -- WHO COME FROM THE SAME STOCK -- go on to start 50+ times?

First of all why do your posts have to have such an angry tone and use words like stupid and moronic. Back on subject "economic contributors"
I disagree, most of these early retirements are not coveted stallions or broodmares so that argument holds no water in my opinion. Next by weakening I didn't nessasarily mean physicaly but in terms of NOT improving the breed because we are not truly breeding the best to the best. Oh and yes I am a stupid retard etc. etc. now argue my points.

[Sam]

First of all why do your posts have to have such an angry tone and use words like stupid and moronic.

Because if I think someone's opinion is moronic, especially when it has no basis in scientific fact, I will say so. Do not mistake "that is the stupidest thing you've said in the last 30 seconds" for "you are a walking event horizon and no IQ is safe when you draw near." As for "anger" -- not a chance. That's a simplistic term that pop-psych wannabes use because they think they can score points in an internet debate -- it very rarely is true.

most of these early retirements are not coveted stallions

Maybe not 'coveted', but they are horses someone thinks they can stud for a price that makes it worth their effort. They are horses where the choice between laying up for 8-12 months for a possible comeback is outweighed by the choice to stud in 6 months for a payout bigger than what can be made on the track in a mediocre return from injury.

You have a 3yo stake winner and former "Derby contender" (because we all know how dubious a title that can be) with an injury in late June that is going to require a minimum of 6 months off. He's not a top older handicap prospect, but he's a tryer, made you a little money and won a stake or two. You trainer tells you the horse has a 60% or even 75% chance of coming back off that injury and still being able to perform at stakes level. Then he tells you he knows a guy in Oklahoma who is looking to pick up a nice cheap stallion prospect and he thinks he can guarantee a book of 30 mares at $2,500/mare. He'll buy the horse outright for $250k, or cut you a deal on part ownership.

Do you stud the horse and take the $250k or do you try to bring the horse back as a 4yo and hope he earns twice that on the track?

Depends on your economic situation.

Next by weakening I didn't nessasarily mean physicaly but in terms of NOT improving the breed because we are not truly breeding the best to the best.

That's a morality based debate. The hardcore captialist answer is "Who gives a shit about the breed so long as I get my money?"

Is it really my responsiblity to "improve the breed" or am I only responsible to myself and what is best for me?

Oh and yes I am a stupid retard etc. etc.

If you say so. I didn't.

[oliverstoned]

Sam,
Very well then your opinion is moronic because you have no science or statistics backing your claim. I'm not talking about minor SWs or Derby contenders ala Scat Daddy I'm talking your garden variety horse, racing at Philly Park, Finger Lakes, Pen Nat, Pimlico or even Belmont. Are there claimers with 50+ starts nowadays sure, are there as many as in the past, NO. Also juicing horses is not only a "morality issue" its a legal issue fraud against the bettors, fraud against the breeders and illegal period.

[Sam]

Are there claimers with 50+ starts nowadays sure, are there as many as in the past, NO.

That's a matter of perception, however, that is also an economic decision. Losing horses are a waste of money. With more horses being bred, there's less incentive to run a losing horse. How long are you going to persevere with a horse who hasn't even come close to breaking its maiden in 15 races? Why even start a horse who hasn't shown a lick of talent? It costs as much money to keep a money burner in training as a money earner. I'd rather have the money earner.

Also juicing horses is not only a "morality issue" its a legal issue fraud against the bettors, fraud against the breeders and illegal period.

"legality" is a tricky issue when talking about things that are not specifically outlawed.

However, that has nothing to do with your previous comment of "breeding the best to the best to improve the breed" -- which is what I said was a morality issue.