Horse Racing Forum - USA Thoroughbred Races

https://www.anzbloodstocknews.com/serio ... t-breeder/

Wow.. the 2 mares mentioned are Miss Andretti and Strikeline. If the allegation holds true per former employee at the farm, am betting these foals registrations will be revoked

I know it goes against tradition, as well as the rules, but.....
I can see some good reasons to allow embryo transfers, but the strongest for me is being able to get foals from fabulous mares for whom foaling is dangerous to their health.
I also think the TB breeding industry could use a some more influence from strong female lines, instead of fashionable-but-fragile stallions who throw off the genetic balance with their 200+ offspring a year.

BaroqueAgain1 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 12:54 am I know it goes against tradition, as well as the rules, but.....
I can see some good reasons to allow embryo transfers, but the strongest for me is being able to get foals from fabulous mares for whom foaling is dangerous to their health.
I also think the TB breeding industry could use a some more influence from strong female lines, instead of fashionable-but-fragile stallions who throw off the genetic balance with their 200+ offspring a year.

Its not good though when you look at the grand scheme and what would happen.
The AQHA allowed one foal per year, per mare to be registered, and they could be the result of embryo transfer. Then a breeder sued and the court ruled that the AQHA rule was illegal. Now its however many embryos they can get transferred in a given year. Do we need 4-6 foals out of a given mare every year? No, there are already too many horses. And you can't say oh you can only use it if the mare can't carry a foal to term because people will sue and the court will rule everyone can use it. Yes it sucks that certain mares can't have more foals because of reproductive issues but its better than the alternative.

Flanders wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 5:50 am

BaroqueAgain1 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 12:54 am I know it goes against tradition, as well as the rules, but.....
I can see some good reasons to allow embryo transfers, but the strongest for me is being able to get foals from fabulous mares for whom foaling is dangerous to their health.
I also think the TB breeding industry could use a some more influence from strong female lines, instead of fashionable-but-fragile stallions who throw off the genetic balance with their 200+ offspring a year.

Its not good though when you look at the grand scheme and what would happen.
The AQHA allowed one foal per year, per mare to be registered, and they could be the result of embryo transfer. Then a breeder sued and the court ruled that the AQHA rule was illegal. Now its however many embryos they can get transferred in a given year. Do we need 4-6 foals out of a given mare every year? No, there are already too many horses. And you can't say oh you can only use it if the mare can't carry a foal to term because people will sue and the court will rule everyone can use it. Yes it sucks that certain mares can't have more foals because of reproductive issues but its better than the alternative.

The AQHA is the biggest and loudest pro-slaughter group, and that the vast majority of horses sent to slaughter are quarter horses and qh- types. They already breed far too many.

Whatever went down with that "case" of a bunch of mares supposedly being AI'd by Stronach-connected stallions in California? I think one of us here found where a lot of cheap low-quality mares i/f to Shaman Ghost, City Wolf, etc. were being doled out on like Starquine.

Anyone remember this?

Those texts look pretty incriminating...
Surprised to see it with two such high profile mares though.

I agree that ET has so much potential in terms of getting foals from mares that can't carry to term, Rachel Alexandra immediately springs to mind. And it would be a bit of an equaliser to the 200 foals some stallions churn out in a season.
But I think on balance, it is more of a poisoned chalice. There would need to be some thorough legislation in place to stop breeders just whacking out six foals from one mare in order to turn a profit. I definitely would prefer to see ET rather than AI though, girl power!

Although the scientist in me thinks it would be cool to see brothers and sisters going head to head on the track at the same age.

BaroqueAgain1 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 12:54 am I know it goes against tradition, as well as the rules, but.....
I can see some good reasons to allow embryo transfers, but the strongest for me is being able to get foals from fabulous mares for whom foaling is dangerous to their health.
I also think the TB breeding industry could use a some more influence from strong female lines, instead of fashionable-but-fragile stallions who throw off the genetic balance with their 200+ offspring a year.

Agreed.

I'm not disagreeing with everyone wholeheartedly but I don't understand how these lawsuits happen.

theoretical situation:

Jockey Club: We will allow a mare to participate in embryo transfer once per breeding season. In order to participate they must have a demonstrated recorded history of difficulty carrying to term or difficulty during labor (i.e. Rachel Alexandra or New Money Honey).

Breeder: No I want to be able to have 6 foals out of one mare per year.

Judge: You're right.

???

I mean the JC still stands by live cover as a law and nobody has won a lawsuit to change that.

Agreed with above.

I'd have no issue allowing embryo transfer and possibly AI assistance to those select mares who have a vet record of difficulty delivery, or concieving.
They DNA test all horses now anyway so parentage verification as an excuse is out the window.

And I'm not sure how someone could win a lawsuit against the JC if they put in rules for allowing one emyrbo transfer foal per year to be registered per mare. As ML pointed out, no one has won a lawsuit against the limit of live cover, nor has there been one yet for the new limits for stallions entering stud in a few years limiting covers to 140.
It hadn't stopped the USTA from setting rules on covers or AI either.

The AQHA is a bad example as they and their registers are literally the wild west...

Retrospectiv wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:09 pm Agreed with above.

I'd have no issue allowing embryo transfer and possibly AI assistance to those select mares who have a vet record of difficulty delivery, or concieving.
They DNA test all horses now anyway so parentage verification as an excuse is out the window.

And I'm not sure how someone could win a lawsuit against the JC if they put in rules for allowing one emyrbo transfer foal per year to be registered per mare. As ML pointed out, no one has won a lawsuit against the limit of live cover, nor has there been one yet for the new limits for stallions entering stud in a few years limiting covers to 140.
It hadn't stopped the USTA from setting rules on covers or AI either.

The AQHA is a bad example as they and their registers are literally the wild west...

The thing is, its not just the Jockey Club, its EVERY Jockey Club/Thoroughbred registry in the world. If the Jockey Club allowed it in the US, it would end any outside use of US thoroughbreds in the world because they wouldn't conform to those countries breed standards and wouldn't be considered thoroughbreds anymore.

As for the AQHA and the USTA, its different situations. The AQHA lost the ruling on the amount of embryo transfers allowed per year, not on limiting books which was what the USTA lawsuits were about, which were dropped before they went before a judge. The judge ruled the AQHA limiting embryo transfer to one per mare a year was against Anti-Trust laws but the AQHA settled out of court and changed the rule. Anyway, all of it really doesn't matter, cause hell would freeze over before the world's thoroughbred registered allowed any of it.

Flanders wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 3:51 pm

Retrospectiv wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:09 pm Agreed with above.

I'd have no issue allowing embryo transfer and possibly AI assistance to those select mares who have a vet record of difficulty delivery, or concieving.
They DNA test all horses now anyway so parentage verification as an excuse is out the window.

And I'm not sure how someone could win a lawsuit against the JC if they put in rules for allowing one emyrbo transfer foal per year to be registered per mare. As ML pointed out, no one has won a lawsuit against the limit of live cover, nor has there been one yet for the new limits for stallions entering stud in a few years limiting covers to 140.
It hadn't stopped the USTA from setting rules on covers or AI either.

The AQHA is a bad example as they and their registers are literally the wild west...

The thing is, its not just the Jockey Club, its EVERY Jockey Club/Thoroughbred registry in the world. If the Jockey Club allowed it in the US, it would end any outside use of US thoroughbreds in the world because they wouldn't conform to those countries breed standards and wouldn't be considered thoroughbreds anymore.

As for the AQHA and the USTA, its different situations. The AQHA lost the ruling on the amount of embryo transfers allowed per year, not on limiting books which was what the USTA lawsuits were about, which were dropped before they went before a judge. The judge ruled the AQHA limiting embryo transfer to one per mare a year was against Anti-Trust laws but the AQHA settled out of court and changed the rule. Anyway, all of it really doesn't matter, cause hell would freeze over before the world's thoroughbred registered allowed any of it.

Each Jockey Cluub have their own set of individual rules. The US has already set limits on future stallion books, that other JCs have not adopted.
I think if the US one did end up approving embryo, the succeeding offspring would eventually be accepted to race, or into breeding stock elsewhere. Doesn't mean they'd change their own rules, but would likely adapt to dealing with other JC practices.

If limiting number of foals per mare per year was against anti trust laws, so is the stallion book limits imposed on standardbreds and future TBs. It's a slippery slope.
I'm still in favor of allowing embryo transfer in situations that would warrant it for the mare.

Retrospectiv wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:28 pm
I'm still in favor of allowing embryo transfer in situations that would warrant it for the mare.

I understand the concerns surrounding reproductive tech, as it could allow fertility and foaling issues to spread into the gene pool in ways that can be hard to undo. It's just too bad the JC wasn't as diligent about the three year olds with 4 starts and patched up legs hobbling off to stud.

Naming regulations and breeding regulations are different entities but different JCs/connections will tolerate the naming practices of other JCs.

The Down Under is almost comical in its naming registries (.e. making a current MG1W race under a different name because a horse from 1970 that didn't race or breed already has the name) but everyone puts up with it.

Retrospectiv wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:28 pm

Flanders wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 3:51 pm

Retrospectiv wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:09 pm Agreed with above.

I'd have no issue allowing embryo transfer and possibly AI assistance to those select mares who have a vet record of difficulty delivery, or concieving.
They DNA test all horses now anyway so parentage verification as an excuse is out the window.

And I'm not sure how someone could win a lawsuit against the JC if they put in rules for allowing one emyrbo transfer foal per year to be registered per mare. As ML pointed out, no one has won a lawsuit against the limit of live cover, nor has there been one yet for the new limits for stallions entering stud in a few years limiting covers to 140.
It hadn't stopped the USTA from setting rules on covers or AI either.

The AQHA is a bad example as they and their registers are literally the wild west...

The thing is, its not just the Jockey Club, its EVERY Jockey Club/Thoroughbred registry in the world. If the Jockey Club allowed it in the US, it would end any outside use of US thoroughbreds in the world because they wouldn't conform to those countries breed standards and wouldn't be considered thoroughbreds anymore.

As for the AQHA and the USTA, its different situations. The AQHA lost the ruling on the amount of embryo transfers allowed per year, not on limiting books which was what the USTA lawsuits were about, which were dropped before they went before a judge. The judge ruled the AQHA limiting embryo transfer to one per mare a year was against Anti-Trust laws but the AQHA settled out of court and changed the rule. Anyway, all of it really doesn't matter, cause hell would freeze over before the world's thoroughbred registered allowed any of it.

Each Jockey Cluub have their own set of individual rules. The US has already set limits on future stallion books, that other JCs have not adopted.
I think if the US one did end up approving embryo, the succeeding offspring would eventually be accepted to race, or into breeding stock elsewhere. Doesn't mean they'd change their own rules, but would likely adapt to dealing with other JC practices.

If limiting number of foals per mare per year was against anti trust laws, so is the stallion book limits imposed on standardbreds and future TBs. It's a slippery slope.
I'm still in favor of allowing embryo transfer in situations that would warrant it for the mare.

Limiting books is very very different from changing one of the breed standards, which is no artificial breeding methods. Germany has very strict rules on what stallions can be an approved stallions, one of those being free of congenital defects that could be passed on to the foal. For example ridglings and parrot mouths would not be approved to stand at stud. They also require their stallions to have raced drug free, have correct conformation, and reached a minimum form level.
I'm fine with the stallion book limits, no horse needs to be covering more than 140 mares. But I still think if someone sued and got the right judge, it could be ruled anti-trust. I don't think every judge would rule that way though.
They couldn't say, "This mare can use it and that mare can't." It would have to be available to every mare. Breeders would do the exact thing that the QH breeders did, flush as many embryos as possible to make sure they got the foal they wanted, whether it be to insure they got a foal, they wanted a colt or filly, or just wanted to pick the nicest one. Then they'd see they have all these foals on the ground that are all worthless but one and decide to sue to get them all registered. Another thing, some QH breeders have flushed so many embryos from certain mares they are forever barren now because mares bodies aren't meant to have that many pregnancies. But the AQHA is also very different than the thoroughbred registries, as they are the ONLY registry for Quarter Horses in the world. Every thoroughbred registry in the world would have to vote okay to get a change with artificial breeding. There are certain rules that every country must do for their horses to be considered thoroughbreds. DNA typing, 18 letter name, follow the International protected names list, not artificially breed, etc.

Mylute wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:43 pm I'm not disagreeing with everyone wholeheartedly but I don't understand how these lawsuits happen.


I mean the JC still stands by live cover as a law and nobody has won a lawsuit to change that.

The Jockey Club is a private entity where (a) the rules are well-understood and fairly apply to everyone, and (b) because the rules apply to everyone equally, there's no restraint of trade. That's why nobody has won any lawsuits to get them to go from live cover to assisted reproduction.

Where the QH lawsuit against embryo transfer in mares failed was on restraint of trade. Why did some mares get that exception, and others did not? Why can only one embryo transfer foal per mare be registered, when it's possible to do many successful transfers in a breeding season? That IS a restraint of trade and that's why the lawsuit was successful. By requiring live cover, the Jockey Club avoids that issue.

The forthcoming restrictions on the number of mares a stallion may serve in a year will NOT be considered restraint of trade because of the reasoning behind it -- genetic diversity and health of the animals. The JC is also phasing in those restrictions so that their bloodstock markets are not thrown to pieces. They apply to all stallions entering stud after a certain date and apply equally to all owners.

I need to read up on embryo transfer...but I'm quite curious about how mares are selected to become ET recipients, and what happens to them once they're too old to be surrogates.

Gemini wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:15 am I need to read up on embryo transfer...but I'm quite curious about how mares are selected to become ET recipients, and what happens to them once they're too old to be surrogates.

My guess is they have a uterus and they probably get a ride on a truck to Mexico. As Zippypop said, the QH industry is responsible for the vast majority of horses that go to slaughter, I've heard numbers from 1/2 to 2/3.

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

Three Chimneys being involved kind of surprises me, as they aren't nearly as commercial as Ashford or Spendthrift. They also haven't produced a star stallion in over a decade... or ever, depending who you ask. I would have expected Win$tar to be in there.

Allow me to play the world's smallest violin for B Wayne Hughes, John Magnier, and Goncalo Borges Torrealba

Retrospectiv wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:52 am 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.