Bloodstock News

Super - just what the future of the breed needs - more wonky sires to breed ever weaker runners. It makes me spit - all this shoite about culling the mares, putting only the best to the best, blah-blah-blah, and in a minute we'll get the rot-footed RIP VAN WINKLE to add to the complement of unsound sires.
 
Last edited:
Krizon how can you compare retiring bad stallions to retiring bad mares, for every bad stallion that gets retired theres probably one hundred bad mares being retired.You can talk all day about bad horses getting retired but that really isn't the problem it's the bad mares and fair enough these bad mares probably came from average Sires but there Dams probably werent that good either
 
I agree with Krizon.

Despite wanting to appear to be a breeding expert, Dylan Thomas, it has clearly escaped your notice that a bad mare can only produce one offspring a year; a bad sire up to 150+. Multiply that over a few seasons and see where that gets you.

Bad mares going to stud is bad enough, the amount of unsound (not to mention temperamentally dodgy) stallions standing now is utterly ridiculous.
 
Well Shadow i might not be an expert but i'm long enough at it to no what i'm on about.Yes fair enough about the 150 foals a year but that horse unless it's Galileo,Montjeu or one of the top sires is getting absolute 'Rejects' of mares.If all the bad mares werent around theses average stallions wouldn't have them to cover and your problem is solved and thats the facts.Because stallions like lets say Dandy Man you telling me heres going to get proper mares not at all he'll get some absolute nags and all those mares will breed are nags well the horse isn't much use either but the mare wouldn't be good if she is visiting him
 
Ah, so Rip Van Winkle is only going to get absolute 'Rejects' of mares? Ditto Footstepsinthesand? Don't talk daft. Plenty of people out there will see past the unsoundness wanting to send a mare to a horse with a bit of form, albeit only a handful of runs in some cases.

Too many bad stallions are standing at stud. Each one covers up to 150+ mares a year as opposed to the bad mares who produce a maximum of one per year, if they carry to term and birth a live one. You do the math, as they say in the States. Nevermind your argument that the rank bad 'Reject' mare owners are at fault; every stud has the right to refuse a mare if they so wish and if there weren't so many shite stallions out there, there wouldn't be enough stallions to go around to keep covering your desperate 'Reject' mares at the rate of 150+ a season. QED.
 
Ya they turn away alot of mares over here alright.If the bad mares werent there to be covered the average horses wouldnt be getting retired so quick.
 
You miss my point completely. You are wholly blaming the mare owners when I am pointing out that, as well as the owners who continue breeding from bad mares, the stallion owners who 1) retire a poor/unsound animal to stud and 2) are more than happy to accept your 'Reject' mares to be covered when they have the choice to turn them away (after all it's not going to help their stallion if all they cover is crap mares) are also at blame if not more so since they contribute more to the over-production in numeric terms every year.
 
No i dont miss the point i think that the blame should be on the mare owners who dont have the top mares.Are you telling me if you were John Magnier with a horse that has won two group 1s and doesn't think there is a future with him on the racecourse that he isn't going to retire him to make a nice profit he isn't targeting the big boys with the good mares he's targeting the smaller breeder with the average mare and he knows that this cycle will always work once they have these bad mares that wont be going to stallions in the top of the market.
 
Exxxxxactly, DT - you've just made the point that Shadz and I are making - provided anyone, someone, anywhere, will send a mare to an unsound stallion, the stallion's owner couldn't give a XXXX - they'll take the money, thank you, and never mind what influence the unsoundness has on foals and the bloodline. What do you mean John Magnier 'isn't targeting the big boys with the good mares'? He isn't targeting anyone at all - he'll set a fee and whoever can afford it, will send him a mare, good, modest, or total crap. Not one, single, solitary, stallion owner has shown the ethics towards the Thoroughbred to demand that only 'good' mares visit their stallions. Not one. Think about it! 150 mares a year - you think all of those which have gone to FITS and now in future RVW will all be at least Listed class? (Picks self off floor, having fallen off chair laughing.)

There are plenty of very good solitary mares and small studs with excellent progeny - you seem to think that by some miracle, all the 'good' mares are owned by 'big boys'. (Never mind, Kirsten Rausing, he knows not what he says.) I suggest reading Owner & Breeder a bit more.

Stallion owners will never turn away money - they have no interest in what's sent to their nags, how sound their stallions are, whether they know they throw 'the occasional' unsound bastid or mental case. Do you really believe that all the thousands of mares which SADLER'S WELLS bonked for decades were all top drawer? How many top races are there for fillies to win, ffs? Of course they weren't - and do you think SW's masters ever said "Whoahhh, there... we don't want that spavined old bucket coming to our boy!"

I was offered a totally rubbish mare a few years ago, free on lease, by a chap who's still breeding his other rubbish mares to decent middle-of-the-road stallions. The mare hadn't even placed in a single race, let alone gained Listed status or better. Naturally, I refused her, but did she and the other rubbish mares even once get rejected with "You're avinalarf - my boy's far too good for these no-hopers"?

You win a free nomination to RVW for the right answer...

If there is to be any sense at all to breeding the TB in future, it has to be down to the morality of stallion owners to refuse to let their stallions be bred to if they're unsound of mind or body. Not to offer them at prices which buy you a nice house in Derbyshire, raking in the coins as greedily as they can, when they've already raked them in with monster prize monies, anyway. They should say that their horse was a super racehorse, but he's inherently unsound in mind, wind, or foot, and that they won't seek nominations, and have him gelded.

The next step is that stallion owners should restrict their books to mares who have won races, or, if they're unraced, it's because of some sensible reason and they have the pedigree to indicate decent-enough possible progeny.

I had an unraced DANETIME mare (now over at Redpender Stud with Jim Murphy, plus her colt foal, with whom he's delighted) - no problem there, since she was very well-conformed, sound, and wasn't unraced because of any 'problem'. She had a good, strong colt by first-time sire MAJESTIC MISSILE and the hope is that she's produced a good wee sort for Irish racing. I've done nothing wrong in producing from an unraced mare, since she's sound, sensible, properly-made, and has the DANEHILL pedigree which is so prized these days, and she visited a good match. Now, had I a mare which had raced, say, 10 times and done nothing, or managed to win a Seller at Lingfield, I don't care if she was by PIVOTAL (flavour of the decade) - she shouldn't be bred from. But if I took her to any stallion, at any price, the stud would say 'thank you' and take my cheque. On neither count is that right.

There has to be responsibility on the part of stallion owners, and on the part of mare owners. The constant, tiresome bashing of mare owners only is illogical and irrational. Both sides of the breeding spectrum should be doing their darndest to produce from the best in all senses - not just based on the quality of races won, but on the quality of the physical and mental specimens.
 
Last edited:
Excellent post Krizon. As you (and SL) have stated, a stallions impact due to capability of covering large books of mares can be much more detrimental to the breed than mares only producing, at best, one foal a year. And responsibilty does lie with both stallion owners and mare owners.

Was there not a Hunter Improvement Society years ago? Might go under another name these days but perhaps we should start a TB improvement society?!
 
Does a mare necessarily have to have been successful on the track to produce good progeny? I'm only playing Devil's advocate here but if you have two mare's of similar conformation, similar pedigree etc, one races, does nothing, other doesn't, are you saying it's ok to breed from the unraced one but not from the raced one? Surely that's advocating blind faith? I'm not an expert on this so don't shout me down, i'm merely asking!
 
Personally, I think the current climate would now dictate it's not OK to breed from either of them. I know there can be good reasons why a mare is unraced but I still wouldn't be in a hurry to buy her, unless she had some very good siblings.

Basically, while it''s easy for Dylan T to blame mare owners, the reality is that the over production began in Ireland and the US because of the inflated price of syndicating stallions in the mid seventies and in reality, it is down to stallion owners to control the mares that they permit their horse to cover. If someone with a bad mare can't gt her covered, they are then forced to realise she should either be retrained if possible for an alternative career as a rising horse or put down - either way, the economics of being unable to breed her will force the issue.

Personally, I can rmeember how it was back in the day, when most stallions covered at the outside no more than soixty mares in a season and the veterinary profession did the breed no great service by making it easier for horses to cover these outsize books of mares and it's time to move back towards being selective.
 
Good posts Krizon and SS.

But, what does all this say about Magnier's pioneering (I think) decision to send 200+ mares to his stallions?
 
AAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! :lol:

(Sound of self-disembowelling... )
 
Aragorn said:
Does a mare necessarily have to have been successful on the track to produce good progeny? I'm only playing Devil's advocate here but if you have two mare's of similar conformation, similar pedigree etc, one races, does nothing, other doesn't, are you saying it's ok to breed from the unraced one but not from the raced one? Surely that's advocating blind faith? I'm not an expert on this so don't shout me down, i'm merely asking!
Click to expand...

There are many many good unraced broodmares. In some families as you look down through the generations on the page the mares have all been unraced but good producers of quality race horses.
 
So what, Sheikh? For every one family like that, there are probably thirty other useless families! If unraced and non-winning mares weren't bred from, in time the quality should improve. Yes, there will be mares who, if they had been bred, may have bred great horses but equally, we'll probably see new families emerging producing good racehorses, with breeders having to be selective and using a better nomination on that winning handicapper which otherwise may have been sent to a more ordinary stallion because the return would be better commercially.

However, it's all pie in the sky, we've had this discussion so many time before it's pointless, as those in control want the status quo to remain more or less as it is. And I've some hungry equine and bovines to see to!!
 
I'd rather have an early horse out of an unraced mare than a horse out of a raced mare who has produced half a dozen maidens!
 
If you had a mare who was slow but had good conformation, constitution and temperment , and when you looked on the page you saw unraced dam of (for example) 12 foals, 10 runners 8 winners 3 blacktype and that pattern was repeated down through 4 generations, would you have her covered ? I would.

The problem with over production occurs when/if that mare produces a crooked foal from a stallion who throws them straight (or sends them to a crooked stallion resulting in the same thing) and the owner decides to to 'give her another chance' or the progeny are well conformed ETC (sales show ponies) but can't run for shite but the owner still decides to 'give her another chance' .

In brief I have no problem with people making a judgement call on one they think has potential but it's the repeated breeding of bad mares I don't understand.
 
Last edited:
Completely agree with you re breeding crooked animals and non-winners, Sheikh. If a mare hasn't been able to get a winner after first three on the track, then maybe it would be sensible to stop breeding from her (although she would still have two or three in the pipeline, of course).

Of course, perfect conformation does not mean the animal has an engine - only that it can win a beauty contest!

I get your point, Sheikh but at some point basic economics has to kick in. That particular family needs to help from anyone - buyers will but from that family precisely because it's proven. But look at how many unproven mares get sent to stud - they haven't won or they were unraced and they maybe have one or two winning siblings but not black type. If stallion owners continue to accept mares like those, then over-production of low class animals will continue.
 
So should there be criteria to be followed after which a mare cannot be accepted by a stallion and would that rule book have a snowballs chance in hell of getting past the stallion people.Or, More likely they would embrace it with open arms before squeezing it to death and watering it down so much it would become irrelevant.
 
Mastercraftsman joins the Coolmore roster for Ireland at €20,000, with Yeats standing his first season at €10,000 and Powerscourt at €7,500. They appear to replace Catcher In The Rye, Antonius Pius and One Cool Cat who aren't listed for 2010.
 
Back
Top