- This topic has 36 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
I’ve just seen on Racing News that Dark Angel, winner of this season’s Group 1 Middle Park, has been retired to stud…….. at the age of TWO.
No injury problems, nothing to suggest that he won’t train on, just purely and simply been retired to stud. Connections have suggested that the horse will only ever be a sprinter and therefore there won’t be enough chances to win a Group 1 as an older horse….
Some might agree, some might disagree, but let’s just hope this doesn’t start a trend.
What do you all think?
Mike
I’ve just seen on Racing News that Dark Angel, winner of this season’s Group 1 Middle Park, has been retired to stud…….. at the age of TWO.
No injury problems, nothing to suggest that he won’t train on, just purely and simply been retired to stud. Connections have suggested that the horse will only ever be a sprinter and therefore there won’t be enough chances to win a Group 1 as an older horse….
Some might agree, some might disagree, but let’s just hope this doesn’t start a trend.
What do you all think?
Mike
I think connections realise that Dark Angel won a substandard middle park, and won’t be up to Group 1 standard next year. A pure example of taking the money and run, while his reputation is still intact. Its bad enough when host of top class 3 yr olds are retired every year, as you say Mikky I hope it doesn’t start a trend.
I’ve just seen on Racing News that Dark Angel, winner of this season’s Group 1 Middle Park, has been retired to stud…….. at the age of TWO.
No injury problems, nothing to suggest that he won’t train on, just purely and simply been retired to stud. Connections have suggested that the horse will only ever be a sprinter and therefore there won’t be enough chances to win a Group 1 as an older horse….
Some might agree, some might disagree, but let’s just hope this doesn’t start a trend.
What do you all think?
Mike
DA would probably have struggled next year, but others have done so and come back as mature older horses and added to their stud credentials.
To be honest it was the Holy Roman Emperor decision that I found more objectionable.
It’s the owners’ decision to make of course but all the same, did the Bloodstock industry really need another Danehill stallion that badly for the year that it would have taken HRE to have his Classic season?To be honest it was the Holy Roman Emperor decision that I found more objectionable.
It’s the owners’ decision to make of course but all the same, did the Bloodstock industry really need another Danehill stallion that badly for the year that it would have taken HRE to have his Classic season?The Bloodstock industry probably didn’t, but Coolmore did. They had booked a large number of mares for George Washington but when he couldn’t fulfil his obligations they found they were short of capacity. It’s just the same as a factory recruiting staff to fill a big order, finding the new staff not up to scratch and hiring a replacement team. It may be frustrating for punters and disappointing from a racing point of view, but it makes perfect business sense and couldn’t not be seen as morally objectional.
Dark Angel’s retirement I just find a bit weird. I know it’s difficult for Gr.1 winning 3yo sprinters, but the sprint division isn’t exactly strong.
Not really a ‘retirement’ is it, more a sale – the owners got an offer and accepted it. If the buyer had been Godolphin, nobody would have commented. But it turns out to be a stud that did the buying.
The past record of the owners shows a long standing willingness to race their horses – the example of Calcutta was the one that immediately came to mind.
I can’t blame them for taking a rare chance to cash in – every chance the money will be re-invested anyway.
Perhaps we should be asking how long the Middle Park can maintain it’s position as a Group 1? There’s no doubt that being stuck with the Group 1 penalty severely restricts where Dark Angel could have run on level terms next season – Ascot, Newmarket and Haydock and not much else.
AP
To be honest it was the Holy Roman Emperor decision that I found more objectionable.
It’s the owners’ decision to make of course but all the same, did the Bloodstock industry really need another Danehill stallion that badly for the year that it would have taken HRE to have his Classic season?The Bloodstock industry probably didn’t, but Coolmore did. They had booked a large number of mares for George Washington but when he couldn’t fulfil his obligations they found they were short of capacity. It’s just the same as a factory recruiting staff to fill a big order, finding the new staff not up to scratch and hiring a replacement team. It may be frustrating for punters and disappointing from a racing point of view, but it makes perfect business sense and couldn’t not be seen as morally objectional.
I accept your point but I don’t fully agree.
Coolmore have on their stallion roster quite a few Danehill’s (ie. Danehill Dancer, Oratorio, Aussie Rules and more) and who is to say that his distaff line was not what the owners of some of GW’s book of mares were buying into? Not many similarities on the damside that I can see.A sound business decision? Maybe in the short-term but it could rebound on them if HRE gets off to a slow start. Facts state the HRE was the 2nd best 2YO of 2006 and is by one of the most desirable stallions of recent years from a fabulous female line and nothing more.
Obviously they own the horse and can do with him what they wish but they are hardly going to be out of business if some mare owners go elsewhere for one season,What a pathetic, gutless pair Dark Angel’s owners are, they should be up for bringing the sport into disrepute.
I could understand it if they sold the horse on to Godolphin or somebody to continue his racing career, but this almost defies belief. It’s even worse than HRE’s retirement earlier this year.
If I were fortunate enough to own a 2-y-o Group 1 winner, I’d want the horse to show what he cold do as a 3-y-o, even if he was expected to be "only" a sprinter.
I think it’s an effing joke. I’m so angry i can’t bring myself to write anything else.
All due respect to Dark Angel’s owners. They’ve campaigned him superbly to win weak pattern races, including at the highest level after winning a huge pot of cash at York, and now they choose to sell him when the market is going to be at it’s highest.
Dark Angel has next to no chance of winning G1’s or enhancing his stud value in the next 12 months. I can see the commercial sense in getting him at stud. He’ll be the only son of Acclamation who has made such a good start and will be on offer for less than a third of the price of his dad in all likelihood.
I think it is insulting to describe his owners as ‘pathetic’ and ‘gutless’. Have you wondered why Godolphin or somebody else are not buying him to race? And surely your problem should be with the purchasers and not the vendors.
It’s sad but it’s the trend to retire horses earlier and earlier.
I don’t think it’s good for horse racing, it’s only good for the breeding industry and it makes breeders and owners rich. But I don’t care about the breeding industry, I wanna see the horses run.
If this nonsense continues we will see 2yo races only one day…
Its just another story of owners protecting their investment.
A good example for me was when Cockney rebel got ‘injured’. Im not implying that the announcment of this wasn’t true, but do believe in economics concerning the truth (was showing flaws).
However, i will always reluctantly accept and understand the buisness side of racing when it comes to the smaller owners.
(long disappointed sigh!!)
It’s sad but it’s the trend to retire horses earlier and earlier.
Is it?
Was you busy?
Its just another story of owners protecting their investment.
A good example for me was when Cockney rebel got ‘injured’. Im not implying that the announcment of this wasn’t true, but do believe in economics concerning the truth (was showing flaws).
However, i will always reluctantly accept and understand the buisness side of racing when it comes to the smaller owners.
(long disappointed sigh!!)
At least Cockney Rebel won two Group1’s/Classic as a 3 year old – something Dark Angel, who was bred to be a racehorse, will never have the chance of doing.
Mike
Not really a ‘retirement’ is it, more a sale – the owners got an offer and accepted it. If the buyer had been Godolphin, nobody would have commented. But it turns out to be a stud that did the buying.
The past record of the owners shows a long standing willingness to race their horses – the example of Calcutta was the one that immediately came to mind.
I can’t blame them for taking a rare chance to cash in – every chance the money will be re-invested anyway.
Perhaps we should be asking how long the Middle Park can maintain it’s position as a Group 1? There’s no doubt that being stuck with the Group 1 penalty severely restricts where Dark Angel could have run on level terms next season – Ascot, Newmarket and Haydock and not much else.
AP
Of course it’s a retirement AP, the horse will never race again
.Did Greenwood have it’s last race at Kempton yesterday, and did you say it would be retired after the race?
Did Dark Angel have it’s last run in the Dewhurst and has it been retired?
I think the answer to all questions is YES.
Just because Dark Angel has been sold doesn’t make it more of a ‘sale’ than a ‘retirement’ as you put it. The horse was bred to be a racehorse, yet it has been sold to stud and will never race again. I’ve tried to find another word for it, but ‘retired’ fits the bill more than most mate.
Mike
I agree totally
.
However, the owners of Dark Angel were only being realistic. The horse was never going to win a classic and will hardly be missed.
I like to think horses of classic potential will always race at three as it makes obvious sense to connections. I feel this will only be a trend in similar circumstances’ and don’t see any similarities with the HRE scenario.This will not be a popular response but I say good luck to the owners.
At the end of the day the horse is their property and it is their decision what to do with it – if others do not like that decision, that is frankly tough luck, it is none of their business at the end of the day.
If someone feels so strongly about a horse staying in training then they should put the money where their mouth is and make an offer for the animal themself.
How many horses have continued for an extra season and subsequently been devalued? Strike whilst the iron is hot and if stud farms / breeders are prepared to pay over inflated prices for a horse then good luck to the connections for cashing in.
With the pathetic prize money on offer in this country, who can blame any owner for maximising any potential return on their horse?
.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.