Dubai Esc. Out

[Danzig]

oh, yeah...cause the shiek couldn't afford it, right?? the meyerhoffs did it, they raced the bid at four, to the enjoyment of all, and it cost them money to do so. yeah, i know all about business--and it's that mindset that is ruining this sport. it's no longer the involvement of those who love horses, want to enhance the breed, and show what they've accomplished by racing the best that they've bred.

yeah, things change, doesn't mean i have to like it. it's a shame that one race is suddenly the barometer of what a horse has accomplished, that one year is 'doing enough'. i think it's bs.

he'll be the greatest since GZ. but won't belong anywhere in the same league as those who have achieved legendary status.
again, like finley said a few years ago, great isn't so great anymore.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

oh, yeah...cause the shiek couldn't afford it, right?? the meyerhoffs did it, they raced the bid at four, to the enjoyment of all, and it cost them money to do so. yeah, i know all about business--and it's that mindset that is ruining this sport. it's no longer the involvement of those who love horses, want to enhance the breed, and show what they've accomplished by racing the best that they've bred.

yeah, things change, doesn't mean i have to like it. it's a shame that one race is suddenly the barometer of what a horse has accomplished, that one year is 'doing enough'. i think it's bs.

he'll be the greatest since GZ. but won't belong anywhere in the same league as those who have achieved legendary status.
again, like finley said a few years ago, great isn't so great anymore.

Well, it is a business.

I don't think that retiring horses like Bernardini ruins the sport. In fact, to me it is the oppsoite. I have no interest in watching or betting on one-horse races. If the Jockey Club Gold Cup and the Travers were your idea of excitement, I have to disagree with you.

I really don't understand a lot of the comments that come from fans. On the one hand, fans get mad when owners over-spend. It seems to turn fans off when owners throw their money around like it's "monopoly money". On the other hand, when an owner acts prudently and makes a good business decision, the fans get angry about that too. When an owner shows that he does care about the money and the money played a role in his decision, fans get mad at that too. I don't get it. Why don't you guys make up your minds? Should owners make prudent business decisons where they consider financial implications or should they just treat the money like it's "monopoly money"?

D. Escapade would have been crushed. She would have run like a madwoman and in that Churchill stretch swallowed up. As far as Bernardini is concerned, I watch horses that run, not breed. He will not be allowed to display his athleticism in his prime. That is sad. And it says a whole lot about the business...

Man it would be such a hoot if this horse shoots blanks like Cigar. That would be an absolutely wonderful turn of events.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Well, it is a business.

I don't think that retiring horses like Bernardini ruins the sport. In fact, to me it is the oppsoite. I have no interest in watching or betting on one-horse races. If the Jockey Club Gold Cup and the Travers were your idea of excitement, I have to disagree with you.

I really don't understand a lot of the comments that come from fans. On the one hand, fans get mad when owners over-spend. It seems to turn fans off when owners throw their money around like it's "monopoly money". On the other hand, when an owner acts prudently and makes a good business decision, the fans get angry about that too. When an owner shows that he does care about the money and the money played a role in his decision, fans get mad at that too. I don't get it. Why don't you guys make up your minds? Should owners make prudent business decisons where they consider financial implications or should they just treat the money like it's "monopoly money"?

Dont get it? The sport is about horses RUNNING. Watching horses RUN. Watching ATHLETES. What is not to GET about that? But then again I am older and get a thrill watching athletes PERFORM. Dont get it...????

Where did all the people go that like to watch horses run? Even more than wagering. We have apparently lost a whole generation of people who appreciate running. How old are you Rupert? Another reason Somer probably is not that interested anymore. I know he appreciated athletes performing.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Well, it is a business.

I don't think that retiring horses like Bernardini ruins the sport. In fact, to me it is the oppsoite. I have no interest in watching or betting on one-horse races. If the Jockey Club Gold Cup and the Travers were your idea of excitement, I have to disagree with you.

I really don't understand a lot of the comments that come from fans. On the one hand, fans get mad when owners over-spend. It seems to turn fans off when owners throw their money around like it's "monopoly money". On the other hand, when an owner acts prudently and makes a good business decision, the fans get angry about that too. When an owner shows that he does care about the money and the money played a role in his decision, fans get mad at that too. I don't get it. Why don't you guys make up your minds? Should owners make prudent business decisons where they consider financial implications or should they just treat the money like it's "monopoly money"?

i don't understand a lot of it either...but i guess it's the same as people begging for winter in the heat of the summer, and then when winter comes....

azeri is a good example to me...when she was winning everything, everything was just peachy. than she slipped a bit, and then faced males...suddenly it was 'cruel' to run her, she'd 'done enough'. same as when funny cide runs....yet, many who post like that are the first to complain when a horse retires at the end of his three year old season. it's too soon, they should run them more, they haven't done enough. you can't have it both ways. well, apparently some think you can.
personally i don't care who spends what, they're all filthy rich and tossing around money like it grows on trees...whoopie for them. but i don't think money is behind the sheiks thoughts on retiring bernardini...he said he is looking at different ways of getting a derby winner-what he's done so far hasn't worked, so why not try to breed one--at his showcase farm he re-built from the ground up? i think he figures why wait another year to get started....

also, the meyerhoffs gambled big time and won with spectacular bid, his four year old season was a loss money-wise, but probably contributed to the syndication fee he ended up getting, far higher than had he quit at three.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Dont get it? The sport is about horses RUNNING. Watching horses RUN. Watching ATHLETES. What is not to GET about that? But then again I am older and get a thrill watching athletes PERFORM. Dont get it...????

Where did all the people go that like to watch horses run? Even more than wagering. We have apparently lost a whole generation of people who appreciate running. How old are you Rupert? Another reason Somer probably is not that interested anymore. I know he appreciated athletes performing.

I've seen Bernardini perform. I will see him perform again in the BC Classic. If he wins the Classic, he will have nothing more to prove to me. I would see no purpose in bringing him back next year. Maybe some of you think that he has to win 10 more races because some horse did that 30 years ago. I disagree but you are entitled to your opinion.

If you guys ever become horse owners and happen to get a graded stakes winner who is very valuable, you can run him until he is 8 years old if you want to. I promise not to criticize you if that's what you do. If you fork out the money to buy the horse and you think he needs to run for several years to prove himself, then that is your business.

Originally Posted by Danzig188

i don't understand a lot of it either...but i guess it's the same as people begging for winter in the heat of the summer, and then when winter comes....

azeri is a good example to me...when she was winning everything, everything was just peachy. than she slipped a bit, and then faced males...suddenly it was 'cruel' to run her, she'd 'done enough'. same as when funny cide runs....yet, many who post like that are the first to complain when a horse retires at the end of his three year old season. it's too soon, they should run them more, they haven't done enough. you can't have it both ways. well, apparently some think you can.
personally i don't care who spends what, they're all filthy rich and tossing around money like it grows on trees...whoopie for them. but i don't think money is behind the sheiks thoughts on retiring bernardini...he said he is looking at different ways of getting a derby winner-what he's done so far hasn't worked, so why not try to breed one--at his showcase farm he re-built from the ground up? i think he figures why wait another year to get started....

also, the meyerhoffs gambled big time and won with spectacular bid, his four year old season was a loss money-wise, but probably contributed to the syndication fee he ended up getting, far higher than had he quit at three.

Azeri was spoiled in her prime. She was not allowed to show her talent as a 4 year old. Her last race was not that bad, but compared to what she was. Sad. There is a point when a great horse is no longer. Bernardini retired at 3 after 8 or 9 races...

If Funny Cide is not injured, and still has the desire to get out on the track; Let him run. He was a great story, a very good 3 year old, but never a great horse. We apparently need more geldings. We will never know what Bernardini is unless this last race allows him to show how special he might be. It would be nice for him to find big trouble, gut it out, and romp. That would be the only satisfactory outcome to what looks to be a very short display of talent. We got no history anymore. No watching a horse adapt with age to grow into a legend. Thats gone.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I've seen Bernardini perform. I will see him perform again in the BC Classic. If he wins the Classic, he will have nothing more to prove to me. I would see no purpose in bringing him back next year. Maybe some of you think that he has to win 10 more races because some horse did that 30 years ago. I disagree but you are entitled to your opinion.

If you guys ever become horse owners and happen to get a graded stakes winner who is very valuable, you can run him until he is 8 years old if you want to. I promise not to criticize you if that's what you do. If you fork out the money to buy the horse and you think he needs to run for several years to prove himself, then that is your business.

So you dont need to see the horse run anymore? No thrill for you? You are not a fan then. If you dont want to see this horse run again, you dont like watching horses run. Nothing to prove to you? What the hell does that mean? The horse has satisfied your appetite for his style, he will be boring? I really dont get it. An owner can do what ever the hell he wants thats not the point. The point is this WAS a SPORT in which ATHLETES performed. Showed their brilliance. But you have seen enough... Well I have not. Whether or not I am an owner has nothing to do with the love of sport.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

As I said, it is a combination of a business decision and what is best for the horse.

Why should Bernardini run next year? What do they have to prove? If he wins the BC Classic, that would be the perfect time to retire him. He could go out on top and he'd probably be worth about $100 million. It would make no sense to run him next year.

I'm not in the wrong business. It doesn't sound like you have much business sense when it comes to horses if you think that Bernardini should run next year. The insurance alone would cost $5 million a year.

I'm confident that if the Maktoums insured their horses the total bill would be larger than the GNP of most small countries.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Well, it is a business.

I don't think that retiring horses like Bernardini ruins the sport. In fact, to me it is the oppsoite. I have no interest in watching or betting on one-horse races. If the Jockey Club Gold Cup and the Travers were your idea of excitement, I have to disagree with you.

I really don't understand a lot of the comments that come from fans. On the one hand, fans get mad when owners over-spend. It seems to turn fans off when owners throw their money around like it's "monopoly money". On the other hand, when an owner acts prudently and makes a good business decision, the fans get angry about that too. When an owner shows that he does care about the money and the money played a role in his decision, fans get mad at that too. I don't get it. Why don't you guys make up your minds? Should owners make prudent business decisons where they consider financial implications or should they just treat the money like it's "monopoly money"?

They spend it like monoploy money so why all the "business decisions" when it comes time to retire? It is not about business with Sheik M, it is about having a stallion to one up Coolmore. Period. That is his drive here. He has been getting his ass kicked in the stallion dept. by Coolmore for years and now he has the stud that he thinks can even the score. And he may finally be right.

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

And as a 4 year old she won horse of the year, so how was she not allowed to show her talent? And it's not like when she was with Lukas as a 6 year old she dodged anyone.

First of all as a 3 yo in the BC in Arlington she would have beaten any horse on that track. She was the best horse. How can you like her 4 yo campaign when the design was to beat up on weak female fields in order to break a winning streak record? Her career in her prime was all about setting a flippn record, beating up on horses she had trounced over and over.

She should have been running with the boys. She was that good. That is what she should have been doing when she was 4. She was allowed to rot. The horse lost interest imo. When Lukas took her she was still very good, but not a good as she could have been. So we did not get to see a horse perform at her best. Thats the way I feel about Azeri.

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Um no, check your facts. She was 4 when she won the BC at Arlington. She only ran twice as a 3 year old, her maiden race in November, and NW1X in December. She was HOY as a 4 year old, and at 5 lost once, in the Lady's Secret, came out of the race injured, and was kept out of the BC that year, which was in her home state of California. She was then transferred to lukas as a 6 year old. And I don't know if "allowed to rot", is the phrase I think of when a horse wins 12 of 14 and 8 grade 1's in a 2 year span, but hey that's just me.

I stand corrected on her age. And I thank you.

But Linda de la french name ran her against inferior competition in her prime imo. She could take all the G1's she wanted against her sex. She needed to run against males. Let us also remember Linda wanted her retired because of her severely bowed tendon that never showed up. And her campaign was set up to win, not compete. When you get a horse this good, I want them challenged. She was not at 4 and 5. No O. Board type campaign for Azeri. I would rather see her in the mile at the BC though. Or the Turf. But O. Board really is a horse that has nothing to prove... at least I can say that about one horse. A European horse.

I like to watch challenges. I like watching really good horses beat each other back and forth. Ali-Frazier... I guess this is all a pipe dream now. Way in the past. Too bad. Maybe I should get more heavily into the European races where some rivalries get established?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pgardn

So you dont need to see the horse run anymore? No thrill for you? You are not a fan then. If you dont want to see this horse run again, you dont like watching horses run. Nothing to prove to you? What the hell does that mean? The horse has satisfied your appetite for his style, he will be boring? I really dont get it. An owner can do what ever the hell he wants thats not the point. The point is this WAS a SPORT in which ATHLETES performed. Showed their brilliance. But you have seen enough... Well I have not. Whether or not I am an owner has nothing to do with the love of sport.

I mean exactly what I said. If Bernardini wins the BC Classic, he will have nothing more to prove to me. Would he still have something more to prove to you? How long will he have to run for to satisfy you? Would his 4 year old year be enough or would he have to run as a 5 year old also? Does he need to run a certain number of times as a 4 year old to satisfy you? If he ran 6 times next year, would that be enough for you or does he need to run 10 times next year?

That would be really entertaining to see him run run some more next year and go off at 1-5 every time. That's great entertainment to watch 5 horse fields with 1-5 shots that can't lose. I guess if I don't likes seeing that, it means that I don't like watching horses run according to your logic. I admit that I don't like watching total mismatches in any sport.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I mean exactly what I said. If Bernardini wins the BC Classic, he will have nothing more to prove to me. Would he still have something more to prove to you? How long will he have to run for to satisfy you? Would his 4 year old year be enough or would he have to run as a 5 year old also? Does he need to run a certain number of times as a 4 year old to satisfy you? If he ran 6 times next year, would that be enough for you or does he need to run 10 times next year?

That would be really entertaining to see him run run some more next year and go off at 1-5 every time. That's great entertainment to watch 5 horse fields with 1-5 shots that can't lose. I guess if I don't likes seeing that, it means that I don't like watching horses run according to your logic. I admit that I don't like watching total mismatches in any sport.

As many times as possible as long as the horse runs healthy, hard, and happy to do so. That many. That is exactly how many. So he has reached this limit... ?
And apparently you think there is no possibility of a horse stepping up to challenge him at a later date. Thats part of the fun of having a champion. Another horse runs in some races and shows great promise by winning by some very large margins, setting some track records. And then we get a chance for Bernardini to wipe the imposter out. Challengers arise and fall to champions. It used to be that way. It was fun. Ohio State looks unbeatable and Michigan rears up and a great matchup is waiting. But not for horses.

Horse racing at its purest never has been about making money. Never. Not for the patrons or the owners. The two largest players in the game. The two entities that make it happen. Money is for the middle men that provide services to the big two... bingo. The arrow arrives.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I mean exactly what I said. If Bernardini wins the BC Classic, he will have nothing more to prove to me. Would he still have something more to prove to you?

Yes. Because other horses will improve. And thats because you are not a fan. Too much of a middle man. This very revealing. I think this particular thread illustrates the difference between the incredibly educated, in the know, ultrapragmatic horse people, and the ignorant masses (me). And the game as a whole takes a big fat back seat.

Dont be offended by my brashness/picking a fight. This is part of the fun of the board. I actually very much respect your opinions.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pgardn

As many times as possible as long as the horse runs healthy, hard, and happy to do so. That many. That is exactly how many. So he has reached this limit... ?
And apparently you think there is no possibility of a horse stepping up to challenge him at a later date. Thats part of the fun of having a champion. Another horse runs in some races and shows great promise by winning by some very large margins, setting some track records. And then we get a chance for Bernardini to wipe the imposter out. Challengers arise and fall to champions. It used to be that way. It was fun. Ohio State looks unbeatable and Michigan rears up and a great matchup is waiting. But not for horses.

Horse racing at its purest never has been about making money. Never. Not for the patrons or the owners. The two largest players in the game. The two entities that make it happen. Money is for the middle men that provide services to the big two... bingo. The arrow arrives.

Money has always been a part of it. It's not all about money. Owners are also in it for the sport but money is important too.

I'll give you a good analogy. A horse owner is sort of like a person that goes to Las Vegas. When you go to Las Vegas, you probably don't expect to make money but that doesn't mean that you won't try your hardest to make money. Whether you win or lose, you will probably have a good time, but you will have a better time if you come home a winner. You will try to use god money management and you will probably play the games that you think have the best odds. You don't want to throw your money away. If you play craps, you're not going to bet "the field". That's a sucker bet. When you go to Las Vegas, you will use your best business sense to try to win money even though you know it's a tough game. I think it's the same with most horse owners. Most of them know it's a tough game and they don't expect to make money at it, but they will try to make good business decisions and try to come out on top.

Why do you think you see really good horses being sold? Darley just bought Zada Belle for $3 million. The guy who sold her was a wealthy guy and he wanted to keep her, but the offer was so good that he sold her. It was a business decision, plain and simple.

It's not all about sport and it's not all about money. It's a combination of both.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Money has always been a part of it. It's not all about money. Owners are also in it for the sport but money is important too.

I'll give you a good analogy. A horse owner is sort of like a person that goes to Las Vegas. When you go to Las Vegas, you probably don't expect to make money but that doesn't mean that you won't try your hardest to make money. Whether you win or lose, you will probably have a good time, but you will have a better time if you come home a winner. You will try to use god money management and you will probably play the games that you think have the best odds. You don't want to throw your money away. If you play craps, you're not going to bet "the field". That's a sucker bet. When you go to Las Vegas, you will use your best business sense to try to win money even though you know it's a tough game. I think it's the same with most horse owners. Most of them know it's a tough game and they don't expect to make money at it, but they will try to make good business decisions and try to come out on top.

Why do you think you see really good horses being sold? Darley just bought Zada Belle for $3 million. The guy who sold her was a wealthy guy and he wanted to keep her, but the offer was so good that he sold her. It was a business decision, plain and simple.

It's not all about sport and it's not all about money. It's a combination of both.

If any owner or fan is in it for the money... there are much better investments. Vastly better investments. My analogy would be the lottery. Almost everybody loses except the middle men. The ones that provide the entertainment. And the business men that get into horses do it mainly for the competition imo. They grow a little bored and want to try something very difficult and of course they use business sense, it would not be fun if they did not. That is part of the challenge. But they absolutely have to know there are much easier ways to make money. So I dont believe its about the money. Its about decision making in an extremely difficult game. And a little recognition for the ego outside of their line of business.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Yes. Because other horses will improve. And thats because you are not a fan. Too much of a middle man. This very revealing. I think this particular thread illustrates the difference between the incredibly educated, in the know, ultrapragmatic horse people, and the ignorant masses (me). And the game as a whole takes a big fat back seat.

Dont be offended by my brashness/picking a fight. This is part of the fun of the board. I actually very much respect your opinions.

I've been in the sport on all levels. I've been in it as a bettor, a fan, an owner, and a racing manager. So it's not like I see things from any one angle. I see things from each of those points of view.

With regard to Bernardini, I actually have the same opinion no matter which hat I'm wearing. If I owned the horse, I would definitely retire him for a number of reasons. He will be worth so much money if he wins the BC Classic that there would be no real upside to run him next year. As I said, he would probably be worth at least $100 million. It would cost $5 million just to insure him next year. Even if he won a bunch oif races next year, I don't think his value would go up much more. But if he started losing next year, his value could come down quite a bit. So there simply would be practically no upside to running him next year, but quite a bit of downside.

As a fan and bettor, I would want them to retire Bernardini next year assuming that he wins the BC Classic relatively easily. The reason being that I do enjoy betting big races and when a horse like Bernardini is running, the race usually becomes unbettable for me. I couldn't see anyone challenging Bernardini for at least the first half of next year. Even if there is some freakish 3 year old next year, that horse would probably not run against older horses until September or October. So we would probably have nothing but four and five horse fields every time that Bernardini runs and he would go off at 1-5 every time. That would pretty much ruin those races for me from a bettor's point of view.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I've been in the sport on all levels. I've been in it as a bettor, a fan, an owner, and a racing manager. So it's not like I see things from any one angle. I see things from each of those points of view.

With regard to Bernardini, I actually have the same opinion no matter which hat I'm wearing. If I owned the horse, I would definitely retire him for a number of reasons. He will be worth so much money if he wins the BC Classic that there would be no real upside to run him next year. As I said, he would probably be worth at least $100 million. It would cost $5 million just to insure him next year. Even if he won a bunch oif races next year, I don't think his value would go up much more. But if he started losing next year, his value could come down quite a bit. So there simply would be practically no upside to running him next year, but quite a bit of downside.

As a fan and bettor, I would want them to retire Bernardini next year assuming that he wins the BC Classic relatively easily. The reason being that I do enjoy betting big races and when a horse like Bernardini is running, the race usually becomes unbettable for me. I couldn't see anyone challenging Bernardini for at least the first half of next year. Even if there is some freakish 3 year old next year, that horse would probably not run against older horses until September or October. So we would probably have nothing but four and five horse fields every time that Bernardini runs and he would go off at 1-5 every time. That would pretty much ruin those races for me from a bettor's point of view.

I did not mind watching Mineshaft destroy short fields. I loved it. And of course if they weight Bernardini down enough we could see a performance like Mineshaft and Perfect Drift. Set some more modern weight carrying records. As far as betting goes. I would think their might be better ways to make money than on big races. I personally would want to go against an ignorant public. I think the big races bring out too much competition for the causal fans money.
The addicts. Find the addicts and the money follows seems to me.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Yes. Because other horses will improve. And thats because you are not a fan. Too much of a middle man. This very revealing. I think this particular thread illustrates the difference between the incredibly educated, in the know, ultrapragmatic horse people, and the ignorant masses (me). And the game as a whole takes a big fat back seat.

Dont be offended by my brashness/picking a fight. This is part of the fun of the board. I actually very much respect your opinions.

By the way, if you did become an owner or a racing manger, you would certainly see things quite differently. Because there is so much money in breeding, your focus is going to be just as much about maximizing your horse's value for breeding as it will be about anything else. You're going to pretty much have something in mind for every horse you buy. You will basically have a game plan for every horse. In this day and age, you can't really expect horses to stay sound for a long time. They may stay sound for a while, but you can't expect it. You have to assume that you will be lucky if your horse runs 10 times in its entire career. That may sound like a short career but in this day and age you can make a fortune with a horse that only runs 10 times, if the horse is good. If a filly wins a Grade I race, she is going to be worth a minimum of $1.2-$1.5 million and possibly even much more. The horses we buy are usually in the $200,000 range. If the horse is filly, the main thing on my mind is try to win a big race. If she can win just a single Grade I race, we're going to make at least 6-7x our money.

What Oracle did with Wonder Lady Anne L is exactly what you want to do. You want to find a filly that wins a Grade I race and you will have a huge profit. Any black type that you can get will make a horse's value go way up but the ultimate is winning a Grade I.

The purses of the race are often times not even a big deal in comparison to what the win would mean for the horse's value. Sometimes I will tell a friend when we have a horse running in a big race. The first thing they will usually ask is how big is the purse. My answer is usually something to the effect of, "The purse is only $150,000 but it's a Grade II race. First place is only $90,000 but if the horse wins her value will go up by about $400,000 for breeding.

Anyway, the reality of today is that there is so much money in breeding that it affects all the decisions you make as an owner or racing manager. I don't know if it's a good or a bad thing but that is the reality of the business today.