- This topic has 36 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
As DJ points out, any gripe must be with the purchasers and not the vendors of the horse and in the end there’s nothing to stop them doing what they want with him.
Breeders who might be tempted to use Dark Angel’s services should bear in mind, however, that those standing him are effectively saying that this is a horse who would not have been capable of enhancing his reputation by winning at the top level after his two-year-old career.
It doesn’t mean he’ll be a flop at stud, of course.
It obviously has some similarity to the Holy Roman Emperor decision and if it were to become a trend it would be worrying but if anything there seems to have been a greater acceptance in recent years that it’s in racing’s interests for the top horses to stay in training and prove themselves rather than be packed off to stud at an early stage. It’s certainly healthier now than when Sangster was in his pomp and retiring lightly-raced top horses right, left and centre.
The only similarity between the DA and HRE situations are they were both 2yo’s and it ends there. It really does.
HRE was making up for GW’s inability to produce the goods and Coolemore had obligations to their customers. DA’s owners had no such problems to solve. A complete different scenario altogether.
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?
Yep, pretty much agree.
If the owner wants to take a profit now and get out while the going is good, then good luck to him/her I say. And losing Dark Angel to the breeding shed is hardly going to be a major loss to the sport in ‘ 08.
Good luck to him in his new career.
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.
Perhaps you could do us all a favour and let us know which kinds of topic are suitable for we lesser mortals to comment on? I, for one, wouldn’t want to intrude upon areas that are inappropriate for the likes of me.
I must apologise for my blundering comment earlier in the thread. I’d always believed, evidently erroneously, that much of the prize money won by horses like Dark Angel for their owners was provided indirectly by racegoers and off-course punters. Silly me, eh?
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.
Perhaps you could do us all a favour and let us know which kinds of topic are suitable for we lesser mortals to comment on? I, for one, wouldn’t want to intrude upon areas that are inappropriate for the likes of me.
I must apologise for my blundering comment earlier in the thread. I’d always believed, evidently erroneously, that much of the prize money won by horses like Dark Angel for their owners was provided indirectly by racegoers and off-course punters. Silly me, eh?
Venusian,
Would you care to point out exactly where in my post I said people have no right to comment on any issue?
If I am not mistaken the aim of the forum is to discuss racing topics. Nowhere have I said, nor would I ever say, no topic should be discussed. The point I was making, which I obviously did not make clearly enough, is that whatever people may think, the ultimate decision as to the future of any horse rests with the owner and the owner alone. Be that whether it is to run a horse, retire it or sell it as dog meat!!!
As for your comment about "lesser mortals" – where is that coming from? What is achieved by making cheap personal jibes? I have never, nor would I ever, suggest my views are more pertinent than anyone else, or that anyone else’s opinion is any less valid than mine.
Finally in your last paragraph. You mention the indirect contribution made by bettors to prize money. I can’t see what link that has with decisions made by owners about their horses. Am I missing something?
Regards
Yes, you are missing something.
If owners benefit from prize money enhanced by punters and racegoers, than they have some obligation outside their own self interest.
The use of the expression "none of their business" implies uncritical acceptance is the only appropriate response from racing fans who can’t afford to buy the horse off them in order to race it.
I’m not suggesting that Corbett and Wright are devils in human form, but surely it’s not unreasonable to expect them to have some regard for their responsibilities towards the sporting aspect of racing.
It’s sad but it’s the trend to retire horses earlier and earlier.
Is it?
Yes and it’s brutal to take a 2yo to stud.
Thoroughbreds are born to run, not to breed.Venusian,
I see where you are coming from, however this is one where will probably have to agree to differ as I think this is underpinned by some basic, irreconcilable, fundamentals.
For what it is worth – I do not believe my contribution to the prize money, via the levy, gives me any right to have any influence on how the recipient of the prize money should put it to use, or run their horses, or not in future. In the same manner I do not expect to have any say in how M&S or Waitrose conduct their business, just because I happen to contribute to their profts by purchasing food from them.
Indeed I have contributed directly to prize money by sponsoring races in the past and even investing those amounts, I still would not expect to have any influence as a result.
Certainly, if I was an owner, any decision I made regarding my horses would, in the main, be governed by what was in my best financial interests – not what was in the interests of punters, racecourses or anybody else. I am not saying I would 100% be influenced by the P&L line but it would be a factor.
I will concede that perhaps, "none of their business," was putting the position somewhat strongly – but the basic principle, in my view, still stands.
I go back to another point I made in my original post. I think it is very hard to blame owners for taking their horses off the track when the prize money is so poor.
Only a small minority of owners make any money from racing, so is it really fair to criticise them, when they do take action to minimise their losses and get some return for their investment?
It is my belief that racing in this country needs a fundamental root and branch shake up to change how it is funded and run to make it a viable business proposition for all who are involved professionally and if that means cutting out dead wood then it is a price that will have to be paid – but that is another discussion.
Cheers,
…It is my belief that racing in this country needs a fundamental root and branch shake up to change how it is funded and run to make it a viable business proposition for all who are involved professionally and if that means cutting out dead wood then it is a price that will have to be paid….
Agree with you there!
I was referring to whether it’s the trend, not whether it’s sad.
Imo it is the trend in England, Ireland and America. Of course not all connections follow this, but many. Godolphin is an example for a stable that doesn’t retire the horses too soon.
Horses also run longer in Germany, South Africa, Australia…these are the countries that cross my mind now, I’m sure there are more.i dont believe the owners do have an obligation to ‘other than themselves’ because they benefit from prizemoney, as the majority of owners/horses make a loss and the punter doesn’t clamour to help them out with their losses.
punters may love the sport but to be an owner you could argue you need to love the sport more and business is business and you cannot expect owners to ignore the bottom line for the love of the sport
someone mentioned cockney rebel and i was thinking along those lines, GW, barbaro, etc, it’s easy to race them on for another year but it’s also not unheard of for them to not make it through the third year and with the potential of 20 years of stud fees to add up, it becomes a business versus pleasure decision which the bill payer shouldn’t be criticised for deciding on, imo
i dont believe the owners do have an obligation to ‘other than themselves’ because they benefit from prizemoney, as the majority of owners/horses make a loss and the punter doesn’t clamour to help them out with their losses.
Agreed.
Benefit from prize money ? Almost every owner will laugh at that one.
Anyone who has owned will tell you that you are doing very well to find a horse capable of making it to the winner’s enclosure. And if you do find one decent enough to bring even a small return, the those funds usually get lost in the never ending cost of keeping a Thoroughbred.
So if an owner gets a rare chance to make a profit – and it will be a rare chance – then common sense tells him/her to do it. After all, the vast majority of owners don’t have bottomless pockets.
And you could argue that if the owner uses the money raised from selling Dark Angel to invest in two or three more horses that they are continuing to ‘supply the product’. No different on the owner’s front than if they had sold to Godolphin, really, but I still think the horse should have had a chance to run at 3.
The partners in Dark Angel (Chris Wright and Mrs Cath Corbett) have had 14 other horses in training over the last five years and Chris Wright has had 26 more in his own name.
There are probably more they’ve had via other partnerships as well.
That seems to me to indicate plenty of contribution and commitment.
AP
Mrs Corbett just owns grey horses if I recall, so that would limit her potential horses for the future a bit.
What I find shameful about the whole incident is that Dark Angel was allowed to win a Group 1. There must be at least half a dozen better 2yos and I can’t for the life of me work out why they weren’t entered. Raven’s Pass would have won it in a canter.
Cheveley Park, Middle Park, Marcel Boussac, Fillies Mile, Jean-Luc Lagadere, Dewhurst, RP Trophy, Criterium – just far, far too many 2yo Group 1s in a short space of time. Undeserving Group 2 horses such as Dark Angel win Group 1s and their valuation shoots up, while far better horses such as Raven’s Pass and Fast Company finish the season as Group 3 winners.
Races like the Morny and Phoenix Stakes are close to irrelevant because of this Group 1 free-for-all. Thank goodness the Coventry hasn’t been upgraded.
Better the horse the higher they aim. I think you should be congratulating the connections of Dark Angel for a well thought out campaign that has probably landed a good lump of cash.
If we took G1 status off the Middle Park there would be no 6f G1 in England (I think. Correct me if i’m wrong), which wouldn’t be good for our racing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.