Since writing my prior article on the early retirement of our best horses – “Where have all the good horses gone” – I have been ruminating over a solution.
It’s one thing to point out a problem with the current direction of the racing industry, it’s far more useful to propose a solution.
I’ve decided that the least obstructive and most effective solution is to not allow a horse to stand at stud until it turns six-years-old.
Firstly, this would compel the owners of any good horse to continue racing until they turn six as there is considerable prizemoney to be won.
It still allows a horse at least 10-15 years of stud duties and I think it’s hard to argue that that isn’t sufficient.
It also allows other attributes to be observed such as stamina and the ability to maintain form and fitness in the face of father time.
Meanwhile, the negative effects would only really be felt by a select few stud farms who would undoubtedly stay viable even after the initial shock to their bottom line.
Why?
The most important benefit and the main reason for implementing this change is to prolong horses’ careers.
As I mentioned in my previous article, we are losing far too many of our best horses too early. Ask any keen racing fan and they will tell you that there has been a distinct lack of depth in our main races for many years. Given in those same years our best juvenile horses are mostly retired before they reach open age and surely this is the direct reason.
If a horse isn’t allowed to service mares until they turn six then you are effectively demanding two extra racing seasons out of our best horses, as they are generally retired as late three-year-olds in anticipation of the spring breeding season. If an owner feels their horse is losing form and so wants to retire them early it would be at the risk of them being a forgotten entity, not to mention foregone prizemoney.
Owners of stallion prospects might argue that if their horse gets injured early then they are entitled to send them to stud, but that is just bad luck. Injury will happen from time to time and that is the risk all racehorse owners run.
This proposal also incentivises the rehabilitation of talented racers which again can only serve to strengthen the stocks of our premier race meets.
Given a horse that maintains good health can easily stand at stud until their 20s, it is not a huge sacrifice to make. The horse is missing out on only about 10 per cent of their potential services. The other factor is that there are always other stallions that can fulfill the requirements of the broodmares looking to breed each season.
At the moment the headlining stallions are booked out each year but many are not. In the last breeding season there were 587 active stallions. Seven of them serviced over 200 mares and 63 serviced over 100 mares. So 88 per cent of all stallions serviced under 100 mares. This gives a very strong indication that a large majority have more to offer if the demand is there. The conclusion being that we’re a long way off having a supply deficiency of thoroughbred stallions.
Another change that could only be of benefit is that the attributes of the stallion prospects become more exposed.
Surely we don’t only want to know the amount of speed that the stallion possessed. Stamina and the ability to maintain form and fitness throughout a career are surely favourable attributes in their own right.
When the inevitable volley of complaint comes from the stud farms who would be most affected, they must be ignored. The fact is they’re not holding any aces. They lack serious bargaining power as the end of line product that the industry has to offer is the racing, and the long term strength of the industry is reliant on the success of its racing.
I also don’t think it would have a great impact on any individual farm. The impact would be very widely spread and indeed the smaller stud farms would probably benefit in the main from a reduction in stallion supply.
Is there a good reason why this proposal wouldn’t work? There are always unintended consequences, but it seems a reasonable rule and is designed to protect racing’s greatest product, the competition of the big races.
If the administrators are indeed representing the interest of the majority of racing’s participants then they should show the courage to stand up to the big breeders and auction houses and redeem the former glory of this great sport.
Raimond
Roar Guru
The Group system becomes meaningless if it is endlessly tampered with. G1s are supposed to be the pinnacle of racing, but running one virtually every week devalues them.
Tristan Rayner
Editor
News: Astern's been retired to stud, joining a fairly deep roster at Darley. Sigh.
no one in particular
Roar Guru
The owner owns the horse. If he wants to race it, not race it, breed from it, play polo with it, try equestrian with it, it's his choice. Also, nearly every decision maker in the racing industry is a breeder in some way
Ian Brown
Roar Pro
So there I think 18 yearlings sold over the last 3 days made over $1M. They included fillies as well as colts. The "hottest" 2 sires at the moment namely Snitzel and I am Invincible were not outstanding race horses, Snitzel I think may have won the Oakleigh Plate but I am Invincible I think only won a G3 race. Most if not all of these colts will retire early if they win a G1 as their stud value is so much more than the prize money they could earn in races ie Snitzel will stand at $150000 this year and I assume cover 150 mares that's a gross of $22.5M. If you look at the current crop of sprinting 3yrs after this carnival I assume it will be only Astern who may keep racing, Flying Artie, Extreme Choice, Star Turn and Russian Revolution and from last spring Capitalist will be at stud. They are sprinters which is what these sales are all about. If you put money into staying races then we buy European horses to run in those races. One solution I think is not put prize money into races like the Slipper because what does it matter whether it is worth $1M or $3M the same field will run in it. Regarding the good horses it is just that instead of the field comprising of colts, geldings and mares it is now geldings and mares. I think we just have to get used to it. Lets see how many colts turn up in the Everest, remembering it doesn't have Group status and is very close to the Caulfield Guineas where many colts like to run.
TonyR
Guest
I totally agree with Mark, there are far to many "Group 1" races. It straight out does no make any sense at all! We have the same problem with group 1 races in NZ only ours goes further in that the quality of contestants leaves a lot to be desired. Mind you I can't blame owners wanting to take their horses across the ditch as the dollars are so very juicy.
TigerMan
Guest
The biggest stumbling block to any changes, improvements or inducements is as Haradasun and others have said in that far too many people with vested interests in breeding are in positions of power and they will never change having their wallets rule these vested interests. They manipulate the systems, prizemoney, classifications and running of the actual races with little thought of the average punter who is the lifeblood of racing. If you want an example of that, have a look at how much one breeder here in WA rules the local industry & is lauded by the WATC and media yet the punters have a completely different view. Of course, on the flipside, without this breeder or many others, would we have anything to go and watch even as 2 & 3 year olds. We need to have turf club committees that are made up of an equal number of persons from breeders, owners, etc but of course, that is nirvana and will never happen. I fear for horse racing as a whole with poor crowd numbers everywhere but Melbourne Carnival time that the younger generation consider it be an antiquated sport just for "rich white males" who are the biggest evil on this Earth.
Matthew
Guest
The solution is easy. Just make a $4m, 4yo race in May over a mile. See how keen they are to retire them early then.
Mark Haywood
Roar Pro
Not sure it’s practical or fair to restrict breeding. It’s the owners’ call as to what they want to do with their horse. I think an overlooked factor at play here is the old issue of too many Group 1 races. Clearly the planned path for these colts is to get a Group 1 win or two on their resume and then immediately be retired to become a Group 1 winning stallion. We have so many races labelled “Group 1” that perhaps it’s becoming easier to achieve that and hence more quality colts are retired early. It’s been discussed before and I’m not sure how you start to unpick it (particularly with breeders on the pattern committee which is a ridiculous conflict of interest) but perhaps less Group 1s = more colts needing to race on longer to win one. Hard to see it happening in reality as it’s in so many parties’ interests to have more “Group 1s”, but it might be the only practical thing racing can do to impact the breeding industry.
Diggerbill
Roar Rookie
Thoroughbred Breeders Australia - http://www.tbaus.com/page.aspx?docid=35
Haradasun
Guest
Where did you get your numbers from? I just searched for estimated numbers in breeding and uncovered a dated report on the horse industry. According to this, there are roughly 30,000 broodmares in Australia and give or take 2,000 stallions at stud. So really there is not unlimited demand for stallions at stud and as more get retired early to stud then surely there is a law of diminishing returns and supply and demand fundamentals will even things out over time? The problem though is that the breeders control the governance of horse racing in Australia (including being chairman of Racing NSW!!). You assert that breeders have no bargaining power, however as its stands they are the ones setting the rules, so at the moment the no 1 priority for the direction of horse racing in this country will be the protection of breeders. I would have thought having an independent chairman would be step one, but horseracing has always been full of colourful racing identities and this is just another chapter. I think the easiest solution would be to limit the number of services a year. Though does that have the potential to limit the possibility of unearthing future champions?
James Mathers
Guest
I suspect the suggestion of imposing age limits for breeding horses would be in contravention of the Trade Practices Act. The AI case has been run and sadly AI in thoroughbreds is not allowed. I thought that it was an unfortunate decision although I'm told by some that I don't know what I'm talking about. I remain unconvinced.
George
Guest
There'll never be artificial insemination in thoroughbreds! The breeders would self implode at the thought! The only thing I can think of is to bring very strict breeding stock standards. Any colt going to stud ( or mare for that matter) have to pass a confirmation and temperament standard and have no inherent problems ( breathing etc) if they want their progeny entered in the stud book. This is certainly the case in a lot of other breeds and I think The Germans have this criteria with their Thoroughbred stud book. It would mean that we would miss out on the wonderful So You Think standing at stud. He had a tie back operation as a young horse I believe. But it would mean he would have been gelded, wouldn't have been sold to Coolmore and would have stayed here to do his racing. He probably would have won 4 Cox Plates! We need more of these colts to be gelded early if we want them to stay racing IMO.
Nathan Absalom
Roar Guru
I don't think it's reasonable and over the medium term would lead to a slower rate of improvement compared to allowing horses to sire at a younger age. The better option, in my opinion, would be to allow for a limited number of artificial inseminations for colts that are still racing between the ages of 3 and 6. I don't see why you would want to stop young horses breeding, you just want them to keep racing.
Diggerbill
Roar Rookie
Good point George. I'll concede that
Diggerbill
Roar Rookie
I think you are probably right Tristan (assuming I haven't miss interpreted you) that these massive increases in prizemoney are ironically exacerbating the early retirement problem. Jeff suggests that our stallions would go overseas but I don't buy that. Mainly because I don't think overseas would buy that. They don't especially want 2yo prowess. Significantly lowering prizemoney is unfortunately something that would send our better horses overseas. If for some delightful reason the owners of every colt over the next couple of years decided they weren't retiring until 6 would it all fall apart? ... No way. So the real problem is the breeders stamping their feet and threatening sabotage. Unfortunately they are well represented in racing administration circles so with my real world hat on I'll concede this would be extremely unlikely to ever happen.
George
Guest
I've been around horses all my life and one thing I know is that in that 3 year old season quite often you are making a quite simple decision. Do you want a racehorse or do you want a stallion? With many colts, not all but a lot of them, you cant have both. The raging hormones will cause havoc as well as causing the colt to get too heavy. The vital equipment starts to get in the way as well! It's a bit of a myth that we " never get to see the best of " these colts. Quite often we have seen the best of them, unless they're gelded of course.
Tristan Rayner
Editor
I love the idea of having our horses race for longer but I think the unintended consequences do spiral out of control with this kind of thing. It's a very difficult problem - as Jeff points out, there's a risk of it all falling to bits although I don't think our breeding industry would capitulate quite so dramatically. Fees are high, and prizemoney enables fees to be high. That further enables breeders to point out their best stallions earn x% > ROI and away we go...
jeff dustby
Guest
no, this would be illegal. even if it wasnt the expensive colts would just sit in a paddock for a few years waiting to breed even if you did it in australia, the stallions would go overseas and our breeding industry would be dead