Dark Angel Retired To Stud
- Thread starter Harbinger
- Start date
That's just...bizarre. I daresay the owners were made an offer they felt they couldn't refuse, but there has to be something seriously awry with a racing environment in which there's effectively "no point" in racing a top class, sound colt at three. 
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
I hope this isn't going to start a new trend - I don't see the point of retiring them to stud at 2. Whether the owners "think" they'll win a Classic or not at 3, whatever they do in their 3yo season cannot take away their status as a 2yo Group 1 winner.
Bar the Bull
At the Start
What is the difference between selling a horse to Godolphin at two and selling it to a stud at two?
I am sure the owners of Opera Cape were far from sure that their horse would win a Classic either. They were given a good offer, and they accepted it. Good luck to them.
Dark Angel's owners were clearly given a good price for their commodity. And you could argue that shagging a bevy of mares is preferable than getting trained by Saeed bin Suroor.
It would have bothered me if they had retained ownership and stood him, like Coolmore did with Holy Roman Emperor.
I am sure the owners of Opera Cape were far from sure that their horse would win a Classic either. They were given a good offer, and they accepted it. Good luck to them.
Dark Angel's owners were clearly given a good price for their commodity. And you could argue that shagging a bevy of mares is preferable than getting trained by Saeed bin Suroor.
It would have bothered me if they had retained ownership and stood him, like Coolmore did with Holy Roman Emperor.
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
It must've been!
It's a shame the horse wasn't given a chance though - mind you it's not as frustrating as retiring Holy Roman Emperor so early was, not least as it was done for entirely the wrong reasons.
It's a shame the horse wasn't given a chance though - mind you it's not as frustrating as retiring Holy Roman Emperor so early was, not least as it was done for entirely the wrong reasons.
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 retirment earlier this year.
If I was 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 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 retirment earlier this year.
If I was 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.
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
Agree with Ven. There are lots of opportunities for decent three year old sprinters if they are good enough. And what about the joy of watching one of your horses in Group races.
crazyhorse
At the Start
totally agree! they are called racehorse and not bredhorses
Bizzare is too soft a word.
Quite appalling, and events this year should lead those eminences which run the sport to refuse to register the offsping of stallions which are unraced at 3. Period. Otherwise we'll just see more of this - which might lead to even more unsound stallions, and young horses breaking down. No horse is mature at 3 let alone 2 - how can anyone know if a stallion is worth breeding from, or what weaknesses might be lurking?
Maybe they know there is one, and have opted to cash in before it becomes obvious? Who knows?
I do wish breeders would boycott this kind of cynicism - and the authorities woudl act to stop it.
Maybe they know there is one, and have opted to cash in before it becomes obvious? Who knows?
I do wish breeders would boycott this kind of cynicism - and the authorities woudl act to stop it.
Colin Phillips
At the Start
You are probably right, An.
It just seems silly that breeders would be tempted to use a stallion that has proved very little.
And if they don't see sense and Dark Angel doesn't prove popular, then perhaps it wouldn't be good business, at least for the the buyers.
The vendors are in a no-lose situation, it seems to me, except why did they get involved in racehorse ownership, when, at the first opportunity they sell a possible Group horse.
Strange world.
It just seems silly that breeders would be tempted to use a stallion that has proved very little.
And if they don't see sense and Dark Angel doesn't prove popular, then perhaps it wouldn't be good business, at least for the the buyers.
The vendors are in a no-lose situation, it seems to me, except why did they get involved in racehorse ownership, when, at the first opportunity they sell a possible Group horse.
Strange world.
Well it may or may not be good business for the owners, but surely the authorities should be trying to ensure that breeding *enhances* the quality of the thoroughbred, and its soundness - and if they can do that by ensuring people don't breed from stallions untried at 3, then why not?
OK you might miss out on the odd good stallion prospect which might have got injured at 2 - but you'd surely lose more which were of dubious quality.
Breedeers who stand their own stallions tend to put a load of their own mares to them - some even buy mares with this e3xpress plan. That's fine for a young stallion which has proved itself on the track over a couple of seasons or more....
OK you might miss out on the odd good stallion prospect which might have got injured at 2 - but you'd surely lose more which were of dubious quality.
Breedeers who stand their own stallions tend to put a load of their own mares to them - some even buy mares with this e3xpress plan. That's fine for a young stallion which has proved itself on the track over a couple of seasons or more....