No, no, don't do that - a good discussion is always welcome, especially one that gets civilly to the heart of the matter. Personally, my feeling's been that with the incentives offered to studs in Ireland, there was no reason to cut back on breeding from any old rubbish - your acquaintance's 50-rated filly being a case in point. When people are breeding from mares which have raced and never won (as against unraced, where there may've been a good reason, but the pedigree and the animal is sound), and going to cheap stallions who may have lowly records, then it's no wonder there've been regular fields of 20+ horses in NH. Most NH races in Ireland are like cavalry charges, but out of them, it tends to end up being the same few decent ones in the first six time and again. You see the field streaming back for two or three furlongs once the winner's past the post, which surely points to a lack of competitiveness. Plenty of competition, but 3/4 of it easily turned aside.
The obvious first step is for the ITBA to disincentivise breeding from nonsense mares and stallions alike. While there've been calls for culls here in the UK of inferior female stock, it's my feeling that this doesn't go deep enough, and poorly-performing stallions - let's say those who aren't getting in a certain % of wins to runs every season - are 'retired'. There should be 'no breeding' clauses for all fillies/mares who compete and who fail to register a certain number of wins and/or places in their careers. It doesn't matter to me at what level - they don't have to be at the top end of the scale, but they should have shown the determination and the ability to win. These are just very broad brush-strokes about reforming the rampant overbreeding from useless animals that's taken place, but I think you need to start where all the problems begin - at the breeders' yard, not even as far as the sales ring. But it seems that neither the ITBA or the TBA in the UK has got the will to drive any such reforms through. There's the cry that people are entitled to try and make a living (good luck!) from breeding, and it'd be wrong to deny them a livelihood. I wouldn't argue that point, other than to say yes, let them make their livelihood, but only using higher-grade parents, and retiring older mares and less-productive stallions sooner.
As for your ideas about reducing prize monies, Cantoris, I can see where you're coming from, but you'd be right that it wouldn't be popular! In the UK, the ROA has bleated for ages about the parsimonious returns for wins and places, and the overall lack of generosity towards owners that most racecourses show. Take a Class 3 run on April 19 at Lingfield (a meeting transferred from Great Leighs): 1st prize, £5827; 2nd: £1948; 3rd: 973; 4th: £487; 5th: £244; 6th: £121. Pathetic! Second prize just about covers one month's training, race entry, and jockey fees.
Rather than lowering Irish prize monies, you'd find more support in the UK for raising British prize monies to come a little more in line with yours, and America's. And let's not even think of Dubai, Australia, and New Zealand's rewards for winners. There's no reason why NH and Flat monies should be widely different, either, since training fees are the same, with only a small discrepancy in jockeys' riding fees. Far better for the UK to make winning races more likely to help owners' recoup costs, than to bring Irish owners into the same difficult position of wondering whether they can afford to keep supporting the sport. Okay, you've been involved with syndicated horses, and they're a good way to go - to a point. Most syndicated horses have a finite lifespan, unlike many individually-owned nags, with members ebbing and flowing, and the horses usually sourced ready-made. Most syndicates don't speculate on foals and sometimes not even on yearlings. This is usually the risk taken by sole or small partnership owners. Syndicate horses are usually sent to the sales after two or three years, and new ones bought in for the members. They're essentially an entertainment commodity, a bit like having theatre tickets for a couple of seasons. But take a syndicate horse winning that Class 3 race, and you see the difference between the prize money being shared between a couple of dozen people, and just one to four? It's hard for people to sell syndications when the prize money's rubbish, and it's very difficult for breeders to sell foals or yearlings to them, and certainly to sole owners, who have to keep the animals until they're trained and ready to run. So, all types of owners need MORE, not less, incentives to buy and to keep their horses. Lessening prize money in Ireland would throw up the dichotomies we have here: you need more sole owners to buy foals and yearlings (but they see they'll never even break even half the time, let alone make any profit, on prize monies); you need syndicates to buy the 2 y.o.'s, but they're unlikely to receive more than a fiver each in prize money at the rate even a winner brings in.
The only people actually doing well out of racing in the UK (apart from the obvious target of bookies et al) are trainers, consignors, transporters, and auction houses. Breeders in Ireland have done very well, thanks to ITBA incentive schemes and a certain recklessness as to what they're breeding from, but if you hack back prize monies, you'll leave your owners in the same parlous state as the UK.
(Okay, I'll draw breath now, too!)
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by mrussell
