Horse Racing Forum - USA Thoroughbred Races

I couldn't find a RA topic so starting one.
Short video of Rachel being led out of her stall and one with Rachel and the winners of the Stonestreet contest to meet Rachel today.
http://www.tout.com/m/0fwvwv?ref=twihgj2f

Rachel and Dixie greeting each other.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10 ... =2&theater

Wonder if she will be bred this year (2014) or wait until 2015?

I would imagine a thorough vet exam will dictate that. I do hope that she has healed well, she is young and that helps a lot. I would love to see her with more babies in the future. Good luck Rachel!

Squeaky wrote:Wonder if she will be bred this year (2014) or wait until 2015?

This is a quote from their (Stonestreet) facebook page:

Stonestreet Farms
Marcie, Rachel was not bred this year, and there is no timetable for a decision either way regarding her future as a broodmare. Rachel is still our focus and we are still celebrating her remarkable recovery
October 20 at 11:34am

My bet is she will be bred early in 2014.

They won't breed her again. They have a full sister to Rachel . Why risk it?

amfuller wrote:Rachel and Dixie greeting each other.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10 ... =2&theater

That video is adorable! They were like, "Hey girl, how you doing? What have you been up to?"

It depends on how Mrs. Banke looks at Rachel.

My husband says they paid a fortune for her to win races and have babies, so she will be bred again. So I suppose if she is indeed just an investment and no emotions involved she is going to be bred.

Being a woman and knowing how I am, I would just be happy to have two healthy foals, one of each sex and a healthy mare. I would be happy. I think I would lose more money and my health worrying about her and if all goes well after the birth. I don't know, how hard are C-sections on a horse? They use them on humans and dogs to keep from having complications, maybe with a horse it is the same.

I am sure Mrs. Banke will make the best decision. She strikes me as very tender hearted and I think she would rather have Rachel around the farm. As mentioned she has her sister and of course the two foals. Only time will tell. Whatever she decides, I wish her the best, she seems like a first class lady.

Private Thoughts wrote:It depends on how Mrs. Banke looks at Rachel.

She isn't just owned by Stonestreet though. She is also owned by the Estate of Harry McCormick. So I don't know how that factors into their decision. What is one wants to breed her but the other doesn't?

Flanders wrote:

Private Thoughts wrote:It depends on how Mrs. Banke looks at Rachel.

She isn't just owned by Stonestreet though. She is also owned by the Estate of Harry McCormick. So I don't know how that factors into their decision. What is one wants to breed her but the other doesn't?

I didn't know that. I guess in that case if one party felt strong enough about their view they would have to buy the other party out. Aren't partnerships dissolved at auction in most cases?

Private Thoughts wrote:It depends on how Mrs. Banke looks at Rachel.

My husband says they paid a fortune for her to win races and have babies, so she will be bred again. So I suppose if she is indeed just an investment and no emotions involved she is going to be bred.

Being a woman and knowing how I am, I would just be happy to have two healthy foals, one of each sex and a healthy mare. I would be happy. I think I would lose more money and my health worrying about her and if all goes well after the birth. I don't know, how hard are C-sections on a horse? They use them on humans and dogs to keep from having complications, maybe with a horse it is the same.

I am sure Mrs. Banke will make the best decision. She strikes me as very tender hearted and I think she would rather have Rachel around the farm. As mentioned she has her sister and of course the two foals. Only time will tell. Whatever she decides, I wish her the best, she seems like a first class lady.

C-sections are more complicated with horses because of the high risk of infection. Obviously Rachel has access to top quality care that money can buy, but it's just as risky to do a C-section. Only in emergencies should they be used.

Life At Zen wrote:

Private Thoughts wrote:It depends on how Mrs. Banke looks at Rachel.

My husband says they paid a fortune for her to win races and have babies, so she will be bred again. So I suppose if she is indeed just an investment and no emotions involved she is going to be bred.

Being a woman and knowing how I am, I would just be happy to have two healthy foals, one of each sex and a healthy mare. I would be happy. I think I would lose more money and my health worrying about her and if all goes well after the birth. I don't know, how hard are C-sections on a horse? They use them on humans and dogs to keep from having complications, maybe with a horse it is the same.

I am sure Mrs. Banke will make the best decision. She strikes me as very tender hearted and I think she would rather have Rachel around the farm. As mentioned she has her sister and of course the two foals. Only time will tell. Whatever she decides, I wish her the best, she seems like a first class lady.

C-sections are more complicated with horses because of the high risk of infection. Obviously Rachel has access to top quality care that money can buy, but it's just as risky to do a C-section. Only in emergencies should they be used.

Recovery from any surgery (especially major abdominal surgery) is more difficult in horses since they can't lay down for long periods of time. And all the added stress can cause even bigger problems (colic).

Rachel is the perfect candidate to allow Embryo Transfer. I still can't believe how backward and behind the times the TB breeding industry is. They have been doing ET in the cattle industry since the late 70's. I wish they would get with the rest of the world with animal sciences. Heck, they still don't allow AI. Just stupid if you ask me.

seahawkgal wrote:Rachel is the perfect candidate to allow Embryo Transfer. I still can't believe how backward and behind the times the TB breeding industry is. They have been doing ET in the cattle industry since the late 70's. I wish they would get with the rest of the world with animal sciences. Heck, they still don't allow AI. Just stupid if you ask me.

But if those things were allowed then the TB industry would end up in the same boat that the AQHA is in. The AQHA allowed a couple rule changes and then they get sued to get other things added. Stallions being allowed to sire foals 15 years after they died because of frozen semen, mares being allowed to have as many foals in ONE year as they can get out of them because of Embryo transfer, cloned horses, etc. They tried setting rules to prevent all those things but got sued in court for restriction of free trade. I guarantee if they allowed AI or ET, that other stuff would follow.
It doesn't bother me in the least that the TB industry does things the old way. I'd rather have old way than 5 foals a year out of Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra, while the 8 clones of Secretariat are racing around the country.

The reasonable thing to do would be to compromise, and write ET rules that allow embryo transfer only in cases like Rachel's, where carrying a foal to term is threat to the mother's and/or foal's health. Also include a limitation of only one foal per year from that mare. I could live with that...and all those at-risk mares would probably live longer lives with that.
Of course, what is reasonable seldom happens.

Private Thoughts wrote:

Flanders wrote:

Private Thoughts wrote:It depends on how Mrs. Banke looks at Rachel.

She isn't just owned by Stonestreet though. She is also owned by the Estate of Harry McCormick. So I don't know how that factors into their decision. What is one wants to breed her but the other doesn't?

I didn't know that. I guess in that case if one party felt strong enough about their view they would have to buy the other party out. Aren't partnerships dissolved at auction in most cases?

Unless Barara Banke sold a % of Rachel, Stonestreet owns controlling interest.

seahawkgal wrote:Rachel is the perfect candidate to allow Embryo Transfer. I still can't believe how backward and behind the times the TB breeding industry is. They have been doing ET in the cattle industry since the late 70's. I wish they would get with the rest of the world with animal sciences. Heck, they still don't allow AI. Just stupid if you ask me.

The AQHA was forced to allow it, and the breed exploded. It would be even more catastrophic for TB's. For an industry that currently cannot take care of nor provide homes for the plethora of unwanted horses currently being produced, allowing 2-5 times that production per mare per year would be the height of irresponsibility. However the slaughter industry, I'm sure, would be absolutely delighted.

BaroqueAgain1 wrote:The reasonable thing to do would be to compromise, and write ET rules that allow embryo transfer only in cases like Rachel's, where carrying a foal to term is threat to the mother's and/or foal's health. Also include a limitation of only one foal per year from that mare. I could live with that...and all those at-risk mares would probably live longer lives with that.
Of course, what is reasonable seldom happens.

But that is the sad thing. You can't do that. People sue, the judge votes in favor of the suing party and bam, the situation the AQHA is in.

You could argue that every mare is at risk. Healthy mares become at risk mares at the drop of a hat, as just one thing going wrong could end in death. The fact is, if she's sound for breeding, it's not "wrong" or "cruel" to breed her. It's doesn't make her owners greedy, it doesn't mean they're doing wrong by her. I imagine they put a crapton of money into saving her life, with zero guarantee that she'll have any more foals or that the foals she's had will ever earn any amount. With the money they've put into her, if their sole motivation was making money off of her... well they are doing it wrong.