AI allegation in Australia

[Retrospectiv]

And here come the lawsuits before it's even an issue............ shocker Coolmore, Spendthrift and Three Chimneys at the forefront....

https://www.paulickreport.com/news/bloo ... ITfC7SbE1Q

This is what I imagine they are thinking, "We have to get ahead of it. Its 2021, we are going to be buying our future stallion prospects this year at the yearling sale!"

I hope they don't get a judge that agrees with them but they aren't going to stop if the first judge rules against them. These are big name farms with deep pockets, I'm sure they've had very expensive lawyers pouring over laws and ways they could get this reversed. Looking at it from a future sense, they stand to lose a lot of money. They'll take it the whole way up the ladder if they have to. I know the USTA had lawsuits and they never even went the whole way through court before they were dropped but these Thoroughbred farms are owned by people that aren't going to stop. Their lawyers will adapt their cases and move on to the next court if they don't win.

I personally don't think these stallions need to be breeding more than 140 mares. Will it effect what stallions stay in the US in the future? Its very possible it does.

In complete agreeance.

Sad thing is, it was one of the leading standardbred farms who pushed for the cap with the USTA, and here the big TB farms are already firing off lawsuits
No regard for the overall health of the horses and the breed whatsoever.

[TapitsGal]

Spendthrift and coolmore regularly sell off thier cast off stallions overseas. Spendthrift on a yearly basis....so what do they care if the cap stands? I hope the judge is reasonable and sees this is all about $$$ for those particular farms and has nothing to do with concern for the welfare of the horse or small time breeders....I'm a small time thoroughbred breeder and I SUPPORT the jockey club book cap

[Flanders]

Spendthrift and coolmore regularly sell off thier cast off stallions overseas. Spendthrift on a yearly basis....so what do they care if the cap stands? I hope the judge is reasonable and sees this is all about $$$ for those particular farms and has nothing to do with concern for the welfare of the horse or small time breeders....I'm a small time thoroughbred breeder and I SUPPORT the jockey club book cap

Every big farm in Kentucky has stood stallion's whose SYNDICATES sold them overseas when they don't succeed at stud, maybe those farms have a perceived higher turnover rate because they bring in more stallions but its pretty much the same across the board. Somewhere around 25-30% of stallions that start in Kentucky are actually still there after their first couple of crops race. They care because it could honestly put them out of the market for future stallions. That part of their argument is valid and of course its about money, its a business.

Also don't think other farms are going to be able to buy those horses. The big farms that stand a lot of stallions have the syndicates and purchase power to get them because they can get them huge books of mares. The big books of mares is what keeps a lot of these horses in the US to begin with. Sure I don't like that part, I don't think they need to breed more than 140 mares. But if it actually hurts the breed more by putting in the limit, I don't want that either. There isn't genetic diversity left in the US thoroughbred population, there's really only a small amount of sire lines that are considered commercial.

By the way, you posted the exact same message on HRN under that name that you vehemently claimed is "your friend".

[starrydreamer]

Wouldn't capping the number of mares a stallion can breed to in a year HELP genetic diversity? That means that more foals are born with different sires. And if a stallion does get hot, offspring will be more in demand, and stud farms can increase stud fees. Stallions don't need to breed to 200 mares in a season to become elite - just look at War Front. Even early on in his stud career, he didn't breed more than 140 mares in a season. He managed to get a good number of black-type winners and his quality of mares and stud fee went up accordingly.

[Katewerk]

Wouldn't capping the number of mares a stallion can breed to in a year HELP genetic diversity? That means that more foals are born with different sires. And if a stallion does get hot, offspring will be more in demand, and stud farms can increase stud fees. Stallions don't need to breed to 200 mares in a season to become elite - just look at War Front. Even early on in his stud career, he didn't breed more than 140 mares in a season. He managed to get a good number of black-type winners and his quality of mares and stud fee went up accordingly.

One of the unintended consequences of limiting the number of mares bred is that good mares who would otherwise have access to an elite sire may no longer "make the cut". As a result their yearlings are likely to be less valuable (if not less competitive on the track) and without access to genetic infusion from top tier sires, the decline could lead to an accelerated loss of female lines from the gene pool.

Of course, the opposing argument could be made that second tier sires will get more opportunity to prove themselves with a higher quality mare than they might otherwise be booked to them, but the cut off number is probably too high for that.

[Slinky_Malinky]

Wouldn't capping the number of mares a stallion can breed to in a year HELP genetic diversity? That means that more foals are born with different sires. And if a stallion does get hot, offspring will be more in demand, and stud farms can increase stud fees. Stallions don't need to breed to 200 mares in a season to become elite - just look at War Front. Even early on in his stud career, he didn't breed more than 140 mares in a season. He managed to get a good number of black-type winners and his quality of mares and stud fee went up accordingly.

Improving genetic diversity is a risk management concern.

A few years ago, an Australian horse named Shellscrape went to stud. He was ingloriously pensioned after 20% of his first and only foal crop were born without tails. Because he was at a smaller breed-to-race farm, that first crop of 59 foals wasn't such a huge number. The sons were gelded, only 19 of those 56 were winners so it's unlikely that many of the fillies are breeding on.

Now if that had been a horse like Justify, he would have served somewhere between 400 and 500 mares in his first year at stud, between Kentucky and Hunter Valley shuttle duties. It would take some time after the first crop of foals was born for people to realize there was a problem, so potentially he could serve another 50-100 mares before being pulled from service. If this hypothetical horse served 250 mares in Kentucky in his first season, 220 of them delivered a foal, and the total foal crop is 20,500 (JC 2020 numbers), then our hypothetical stallion with a genetic defect would have sired 1 out of every 100 foals born that year. And that genetic defect would also be present in Australia thanks to the shuttle.

If the genetic defect were not something visually obvious at birth, like a missing tail, but something that didn't show up until much later, then after 5 seasons of 200 mares, the potential for that genetic defect to spread rapidly increases. A couple of sons retire at 2, fillies enter the shed, etc, and that's how you wind up with HYPP spreading through the Quarter Horse breed. Again with a hypothetical situation, if a horse breeds 1% of the total foal crop each year for 5 years, and the devastating consequences show up after 4 years, the consequences to bloodstock are huge. After 5 years at 200 foals a year, plus 1-2 stallion sons who enter stud at 3 breeding 150 mares each, then you're suddenly talking about removing a LARGE number of stallions and breeding mares from the overall population, which would be far more devastating to smaller breeders than not getting a chance to go to Into Mischief at $225,000. Imagine if 500-600 mares, some from rare mare lines, were removed from a population of 20,000 overnight.

One of the unintended consequences of limiting the number of mares bred is that good mares who would otherwise have access to an elite sire may no longer "make the cut". As a result their yearlings are likely to be less valuable (if not less competitive on the track) and without access to genetic infusion from top tier sires, the decline could lead to an accelerated loss of female lines from the gene pool.

Of course, the opposing argument could be made that second tier sires will get more opportunity to prove themselves with a higher quality mare than they might otherwise be booked to them, but the cut off number is probably too high for that.

Into Mischief started out at a fee that was two postage stamps and a ham sandwich. In his first four crops, he has 42, 37, and 37 foals. He now breeds over 200 a year with a fee that is more expensive than my house. Dynaformer, Distorted Humor, Kantharos, Scat Daddy, and Laoban all fit that mold and I could reel them off the top of my head.

[KatieK101]

^ Agree with everything Slinky said.

Stallions don't need to breed to 200 mares in a season to become elite - just look at War Front. Even early on in his stud career, he didn't breed more than 140 mares in a season. He managed to get a good number of black-type winners and his quality of mares and stud fee went up accordingly.

Just look at Lanes End's roster. In 2020, Liam's Map bred 156 mares, the most for a stallion at their farm. Leading stallions Quality Road and Candy Ride only bred 126 and 117 mares, but I doubt it's because that's all they could attract. They're selective with their books, and their stallions certainly don't suffer from it.

[CoronadosQuest]

Wouldn't a 140 cap be a good thing for the sport? Not only for genetic diversity but wouldn't there be a better chance for a horse to stick around on the track longer if he could pick up the big 4yo+ purses if he might only have a book of 140 compared to 200-250?

[Flanders]

Wouldn't a 140 cap be a good thing for the sport? Not only for genetic diversity but wouldn't there be a better chance for a horse to stick around on the track longer if he could pick up the big 4yo+ purses if he might only have a book of 140 compared to 200-250?

While I'm completely okay with the cap. I do think its very important to try and look at the issue from both sides, because this is a business and people's livelihood.

Because this rule is so new and there are no stallions that the rules apply to at stud yet, I need to use current stallions and stats to give examples.

Farms/syndicates wont be able to get some of the top stallion prospects, they'll get sold overseas or every stallion will have to shuttle. That is the truth. Stallions don't have 100% fertility, the average in Kentucky is probably 70%. That means they will be getting stud fees from, on average 100 breedings a year. Which yes its easy to say that is enough but when a foreign stud offers a huge amount for a stallion, for example Justify(who sold for a reported $75 million), he has to cover big books to cover the cost put into him. Plus they need to cover insurance, general keeping of the stallion, advertising, etc. plus make a profit because they have employees to pay and a farm to run. His stud fee would have to most likely be over 300k. What breeder is going to pay that?

It could put small breeders out of the business, if supply and demand raises stud fees, if they don't have the connections to secure a spot in a stallion's limited book, if they don't have the means to buy into a syndicate when a stallion first goes to stud, the trickle down of mares to other stallions will push their mares further down the line, making the resulting foals less commercial. They might have to settle for a stallion over using one that fit their mare best. Using 2020's breeding stats:

16,458 mares were bred in Kentucky to 205 stallions. That's an average of 80 mares a stallion, however 55 did covered between 1 and 30 mares. Another 22 covered between 31 and 49 mares. Obviously breeders aren't keen to use those stallions for whatever reasons, never heard of, no commercial appeal, aren't doing well as stallions, etc. So those 77 stallions covered 1692 mares. It means the other 128 stallions had an average of 115 mares. There were 49 stallions that covered 130+ mares, for an average of 170 mares each. That'd be 1512 mares that go down into the next group of stallions. That next group of 29 stallions covered 3273 mares for an average of 113 mares. There is still an excess of 787 mares that are now down into the next group of stallions. This method isn't perfect because there are stallions that have books limited under 140 mares for age or fertility reasons, MDO, Tapit, War Front, Distorted Humor, none are covering big books. So there are even more mares that would get pushed into that next group of stallions. That next group of stallions is full of stallions that got sold overseas since the 2020 breeding season, one was gelded and retrained as a riding horse. It will definitely hurt the breeders whose mares get pushed down there and don't want to be. Will it put them out of the business? Very likely. Now where do their mares go? Does it devalue broodmares under a certain level because they can't have the chance to get bred to better stallions?

[CorridorZ75]

It all starts with the overall overvaluing of stallion prospects that was the result of overpaying for yearlings that begin with the Sangster/Arab prince sales battles. That bubble that both enriched and eventually ruined the thoroughbred racing game in favor of the shell breeding game has forever altered the business. I am not sure the cascade can be stopped or even slowed at this late date, but a mare cap on stallions would be a good place to start in making the business more reasonable. Will it completely upend some of the business? Yep. As for stallions being sold overseas, the only country that would apply to is Japan and that happens now already. No other country to going to pay crazy evaluations for top dirt runners. Just look at the what shuttle stallions command-it is always less in Southern Hemisphere because the economics of the business won’t support the ridiculous fees. Insurance is based on value, so with no ridiculous valuations then premiums are reasonable.

The big stud farms realized with the vet reproductive advances, they could breed the stallions as much as possible and print money off of crazy introductory stud fees for the three years on reputation alone before the first crop hits the track. Why do think these same farms are some of the biggest buyers of the first weanlings and yearlings of their shiny new prospects? As long as they can advertise the high sales averages, they can keep the stud fee high enough. It really is a shell game all the way.

[Northport]

It all starts with the overall overvaluing of stallion prospects that was the result of overpaying for yearlings that begin with the Sangster/Arab prince sales battles. That bubble that both enriched and eventually ruined the thoroughbred racing game in favor of the shell breeding game has forever altered the business. I am not sure the cascade can be stopped or even slowed at this late date, but a mare cap on stallions would be a good place to start in making the business more reasonable. Will it completely upend some of the business? Yep. As for stallions being sold overseas, the only country that would apply to is Japan and that happens now already. No other country to going to pay crazy evaluations for top dirt runners. Just look at the what shuttle stallions command-it is always less in Southern Hemisphere because the economics of the business won’t support the ridiculous fees. Insurance is based on value, so with no ridiculous valuations then premiums are reasonable.

The big stud farms realized with the vet reproductive advances, they could breed the stallions as much as possible and print money off of crazy introductory stud fees for the three years on reputation alone before the first crop hits the track. Why do think these same farms are some of the biggest buyers of the first weanlings and yearlings of their shiny new prospects? As long as they can advertise the high sales averages, they can keep the stud fee high enough. It really is a shell game all the way.

This is my main thought regarding big Kentucky farms "not being able to afford the best stallions" where else in the world is there competition to buy top class dirt runners fresh off the track, besides Japan, and even then they only seem to make those purchases every couple of years... who was the last dirt superstar they bought right of the track? War Emblem? Maybe Mind Your Biscuits if you really think he was a top prospect... Because Sunday Silence, California Chrome, etc. were already rejected by American breeders when they were sold.

I know it sounds a little American for someone who isn't american... but the market will adjust.

[Mylute]

I think MYB counts. He was a top class in his category.

We could split hairs about being top class in a specific category VS overall though.

[CorridorZ75]

I think MYB counts. He was a top class in his category.

We could split hairs about being top class in a specific category VS overall though.

No son of Posse out of a good, but obscure close up female family is going to be welcomed with open pocket books in Kentucky.

[Katewerk]

It could put small breeders out of the business, if supply and demand raises stud fees, if they don't have the connections to secure a spot in a stallion's limited book, if they don't have the means to buy into a syndicate when a stallion first goes to stud, the trickle down of mares to other stallions will push their mares further down the line, making the resulting foals less commercial. They might have to settle for a stallion over using one that fit their mare best.

Thanks, this was the same point I was trying to explain. The limit of books could result in a "concentration of wealth" effect.

[Honor Code]

It could put small breeders out of the business, if supply and demand raises stud fees, if they don't have the connections to secure a spot in a stallion's limited book, if they don't have the means to buy into a syndicate when a stallion first goes to stud, the trickle down of mares to other stallions will push their mares further down the line, making the resulting foals less commercial.

The thing is, commercial breeders focus on two types of sires: first year stallions, or commercial stallions. If your stallion isn't in one of these categories, their numbers skydive.

While I do agree that ultimately will lose more stallions overseas, at the same time this would force some mare owners to seek other, less commercial stallions which may keep them here longer. We are already at the point where stallions are now being sold overseas before their offspring really have the opportunity to hit the track. (Daredevil, Take Charge Indy).

Then, as others have pointed out, there's the issue of genetic diversity. It's almost impossible to find a horse that has no more than one line to Northern Dancer, Mr. Prospector or AP Indy now. This is not breed-ending yet, but imagine if Into Mischief's forelegs bred true to every foal he produced. The thoroughbred would soon be defined by those crooked legs.

[Flanders]

While I do agree that ultimately will lose more stallions overseas, at the same time this would force some mare owners to seek other, less commercial stallions which may keep them here longer. We are already at the point where stallions are now being sold overseas before their offspring really have the opportunity to hit the track. (Daredevil, Take Charge Indy).

But does it put these people out of the breeding game completely by forcing them to breed to stallions where they are going to lose a ton of money? Few breeders breed to race, they can't sustain breeding mares to stallions whose foals do not make them profit at the yearling sales.

[halo]

I am in this position, and I imagine Ill be out of business in a few years. i breed in the $5,000-$7500 range, and Spendthrift has done a terrific job of retiring well bred graded stallions and offering them reasonably. In a few years when the caps come into play, and KY has shuffled the current crop of stallions either to a new zip code or raised the fees for those few that are successful, those new young graded stakes winners will come in at a much higher price, as so many mares will be shut out of the upper tier of stallions. I will not breed my mares to just any stallion, it makes no sense at all. A non commercial stallion is still non commercial, and a non producing stallion is still not producing. Theres still only so many buyers, and they want what they want, and with all the syndicates, they will pay for what they want.

Something else not mentioned is the fact that these farms still have the same payrolls to pay, feed bills to pay, vanning and vet bills and farm maintenance to pay. They will lose revenue in outrageous amounts, yet their bills are the same. So what happens? Stud fees go up, smaller breeders get cut out, and once again, the rich get richer, and its all about who you know, not what you know.

Genetic diversity? Hows that working out with dozens of Tapit and Into Mischief sons at stud?

[halo]

It could put small breeders out of the business, if supply and demand raises stud fees, if they don't have the connections to secure a spot in a stallion's limited book, if they don't have the means to buy into a syndicate when a stallion first goes to stud, the trickle down of mares to other stallions will push their mares further down the line, making the resulting foals less commercial.

The thing is, commercial breeders focus on two types of sires: first year stallions, or commercial stallions. If your stallion isn't in one of these categories, their numbers skydive.

While I do agree that ultimately will lose more stallions overseas, at the same time this would force some mare owners to seek other, less commercial stallions which may keep them here longer. We are already at the point where stallions are now being sold overseas before their offspring really have the opportunity to hit the track. (Daredevil, Take Charge Indy).

Then, as others have pointed out, there's the issue of genetic diversity. It's almost impossible to find a horse that has no more than one line to Northern Dancer, Mr. Prospector or AP Indy now. This is not breed-ending yet, but imagine if Into Mischief's forelegs bred true to every foal he produced. The thoroughbred would soon be defined by those crooked legs.

Danzig produced a lot of those crooked legs; didnt seem to hurt him. Thats what defines a smart breeder, to take a brilliant horse with issues, breed to sound correct mares, and produce champions and breed shapers. Europe has a way more serious issue with bottlenecking genetics, with Northern Dancer 3, 4, and 5 times in pedigrees. We have no issue with genetic divesity. Uncle Mo, Tapit, Into Mischief are all different breeding wise. The JC isnt telling the truth. They arent concerned with genetic diversity, they are concerned with the stud fee income all going to 3 or 4 farms. They think setting limits will force people to breed to these other horses. It aint happening. Its hard enough making money when you are breeding to horses of your choice. Do you really think people will spend money on breeding to horses they know arent the right horse, they know arent commercial, they know dont produce runners, and they know they will lose money?

[CoronadosQuest]

While genetic diversity may not come into play with all the Tapit and Into Mischief sons at stud, I feel like it has to be a lot healthier for a stallion to breed 140 mares compared to 200+. Why do stallions need to breed 200+ mares in the NH and then shuffle to the SH to do it all over again? That sounds completely unhealthy for them. I don't recall stallions 15 years ago breeding this many mares but maybe I just didn't pay attention.

[Honor Code]

Danzig produced a lot of those crooked legs; didnt seem to hurt him. Thats what defines a smart breeder, to take a brilliant horse with issues, breed to sound correct mares, and produce champions and breed shapers. Europe has a way more serious issue with bottlenecking genetics, with Northern Dancer 3, 4, and 5 times in pedigrees. We have no issue with genetic divesity. Uncle Mo, Tapit, Into Mischief are all different breeding wise. The JC isnt telling the truth. They arent concerned with genetic diversity, they are concerned with the stud fee income all going to 3 or 4 farms. They think setting limits will force people to breed to these other horses. It aint happening. Its hard enough making money when you are breeding to horses of your choice. Do you really think people will spend money on breeding to horses they know arent the right horse, they know arent commercial, they know dont produce runners, and they know they will lose money?

I'm not saying detrimental characteristics being passed down has happened. I'm saying what would happen if there was a very commercial stallion(or four) that have detrimental breed characteristics? Given the breeding volume of large stud farms, this could affect a large portion of the breed much faster than in other breeds. More importantly, you are clearly a conscientious breeder. But not all breeders are-I'm sure you've seen breeders whose intent is to breed as commercial a horse as possible-large, pretty, mature looking horses irrespective of ability and health.

You're right by the way-we have many sons of Into Mischief, Tapit, Scat Daddy and AP Indy in the market. This is the trend, and it's not getting better. What happens if it gets worse? Another consideration: expensive stallion valuations are initially largely based on how many mares/stud fees they can get. What do you think of stud book limits lowering valuations of stallions and then by extension lowering the stud fees?

That being said, I've never gotten the impression the JC cares about "equality". But if this is indeed why the JC is intent on limiting stud books, the next question is why stud fees have concentrated at these farms? Into Mischief, Uncle Mo, and Tapit all stand at different farms and each only represent about ~250 mares a year. What about the other ~18-20k foals born every year?