Studs wouldn't suffer as much trust me on that one. The majority of studs which have stallions standing will use their own staff when a mare comes and most small 2 or 3 mare studs, would generally be run by one person with a helper.
Restricting racing doesn't restrict breeding, it infacts wastes many new horses coming into the sport that unless they are of a certain level won't be able to race.
First you need to finish the cause of the problem then iron out the existance.
By removing the races, you are not stopping poor horses breeding, but by stopping poor horses breeding you are reducing the chance of more mediocore horses being able to race, which then if say in 3 or 4 years there was no horses to be running in the races it wouldn't be such an issue.
Many sports are cutting back, but not removing say fixtures, but starting with the problem of too much money in the wrong areas and so on.
Football chairmans are calling for a cap on wages, Fifa have reduced the minimum squad setting from 24 to 21, teams are dropping out of Forumla one. The acadamy numbers of acceptance are falling and the level of entry made higher.
In order to wipe out a low grade, you need to attack the problem, which is too many are being bred, by removing the races won't stop people breeding, knowing they will get 4 or 5 tries at maidens before they can't race.
You may say a trainer training 20 horses has to restrict and in Galileo's words should have a look at themselves however I disagree, they charge say 1,000 a month as oppose of Channon or Hannon at 1600 a month, so smaller owners with lesser horses will take their horses there.
People keep bringing up Ireland, however in 46-60 hcp's in Ireland this year in every race horses rated 40 - 45 are getting in them, so its not so much an issue, also some of those horses are coming over to England to race and also alot of those horses were sent to some English trainers. The problem will occur next season.
It's a simple fact small trainers have to take low grade horses to survive, its not about having a choice, and a big trainer doesn't need them as they are backed by multi millionaires.
My issue is that the BHA haven't given an adequate chance to these low grade horses to prove they are better than the cut off point, many trainers have agreed with me on that.
Which is why they should have put on more of those races before the cut off, than less of the races.
There are horses who like only one track, or need a certain trip, or only like certain ground, or perhaps need cover or a low draw, many angles in which better horses have more choice. The problem is if your horse is rated under 52 you have no choice in what races you run in, and unless you finish in the first 4 the handicapper will drop you 1,2,3, or 4lb. Now if you have a horse that there isn't any suitable races for, for say 2 months you still need to have a couple of runs, now if you have to run a miler that is a miler twice over 6f, it gets outpaced finsihes well twice to be 5th or 6th, the horse shouldn't be getting dropped 5lb. the handicapping system at the bottom is a joke and I would be very surprised if the handicapper was even bothering to watch these races.
In order to allow people a chance to prove they are better than their grade, you need to give opportunity to prove themselves, if you don't give an opportunity to something, it doesn't stand a chance.
I agree over a period of time these races should be removed, but chances should still be given to those horses in this grade to prove they are better than that grade, 2 suitable races in 3 months for each trip, or course or so on, is not an acceptable way of doing it in my book.
