According to eurodressage http://www.eurodressage.com/news/happen/2010/january2.html Blue Hors stud has dropped licensing champ Doolittle from the roster due to a poor foal crop.
Sucks if you have a foal due by him, I guess I’m surprised they were so public about it.
Now I don’t feel so bad that the two doses of his frozen I bought didn’t result in a pregnancy. 
Yes, that would seriously suck to be expecting a foal. I felt the same way you do Clint when I bred a mare that didn’t take, and the stallion was sold and gelded for ummmm…“an inability to concentrate on his work under saddle”.
Not being a Danish breeder, I have a couple of questions…
Would the resulting fillies be somewhat stigmatized? Like a filly would be in my registry that was from a provisionally approved stallion - that in turn did not successfully complete his stallion test requirements.
I know that stallions can be put on a “watch” list with the Dutch (which always reminded me of gathering black storm clouds on the horizon)…and once on that list you see those same stallions leaving for other countries…is it usual that a stallion would get deep-sixed by their stallion station so quickly (and so…visiably) with a bad foal crop? My first thought would be that the foals exhibited that registries “fatal flaw”. Because it’s been my observation that every registry has that one certain thing they will not tolerate.
Ah, just think of all the poor Doolittle kids growing up with a complex…
Would the resulting fillies be somewhat stigmatized?
Just imagine, as it goes in Europe breeding for the latest and hottest that hopefully bring $ in an auction. Not for those kids and breeding a filly from him would not make any commercial sense either after these denouncements.
considering his breeding?
what on earth could be wrong with the WHOLE foal crop? What WAS wrong with them? Does anybody know? I would not be happy to say the least.
On the one hand, good. I wish more stallions were watched and dropped for bad foal crops. I applaud Blu Hors for being so responsible and not being “barn blind”.
On the other hand, that really, really stinks for anyone who’s bred to him. I wonder if the foals will grow up with some kind of stigma. I expect the fillies will, if any go on to be bred.
131 in the first year seems like a lot for such a young stallion, even though he did so well at his licensing. I wonder what in the world could be so wrong with them?
Also, I read it to say that just Blu Hors was dropping him. Is he in trouble with the registry as well?
An unfortuante name, in retrospect.
The statement on Eurodressage reads that too many of the foals from Doolittle had “problems with the conformation”. Perhaps it was not a single conformational fault seen throughout, but that enough of the foals did not meet their expectation for excellence. I personally applaud their striving for a high standard of excellence in their breeding stock. They have such a stellar roster, why bother with less than the best producers? I suppose it would be easy enough to tell a good Doolittle foal from a poor one, if it’s conformation that is the issue. Sure, there is likely to be stigma for the foals overall, and now, as Edgar suggests, one can say that the foals have lost commercial value as a result. But, it doesn’t mean that some of them won’t make good riding horses.
It just goes to point out that it is what a stallion PRODUCES that makes him a good sire, not so much how he himself performs or looks, or what prizes he wins, though that is something. But not everything.
Anyway, it’s a confidence booster for using the other Blu Hors stallions!
Blue Hors Doolittle versus Dr. Doolittle
Doolittle is a black 5-year-old stallion sired by Don Schufro out of a Lauries Crusador mare. This particular stallion has 3 white socks and all black face.
He should not be confused with the black 1999 stallion, Dr. Doolittle, sired by Donnerhall and out of SPS Lacosta (also a Lauries Crusador mare). He has one hind sock and has been found to be a very good sire and producer of high quality foals.
It is hoped that this announcement will not impact other stallions of similar name, but who have been found to be very good sires.
[QUOTE=Indy-lou;4617116]
Perhaps it was not a single conformational fault seen throughout, but that enough of the foals did not meet their expectation for excellence. I personally applaud their striving for a high standard of excellence in their breeding stock. They have such a stellar roster, why bother with less than the best producers? …
…
Anyway, it’s a confidence booster for using the other Blu Hors stallions![/QUOTE]
Being cynical, I am curious whether his foals were truly subpar or whether this is a bit of a publicity stunt to underscore a commitment to excellence.
[QUOTE=rodawn;4617141]
Doolittle is a black 5-year-old stallion sired by Don Schufro out of a Lauries Crusador mare. This particular stallion has 3 white socks and all black face.
He should not be confused with the black 1999 stallion, Dr. Doolittle, sired by Donnerhall and out of SPS Lacosta (also a Lauries Crusador mare). He has one hind sock and has been found to be a very good sire and producer of high quality foals.
It is hoped that this announcement will not impact other stallions of similar name, but who have been found to be very good sires.[/QUOTE]
Eurodressage (or Dr. Doolittle’s owners) should clarify that point
That thought X’d my mind too YL
I mean with that superb breeding what could go wrong with the WHOLE LOT. What …were they all born breathing fire from their baby nostrils and killing their mamas before nursing or with 6 legs or 3 heads…I doubt it. From what I read, they bought him as a baby and fed him at least twice a day for a few years…and nobody noticed he just might not be a good daddy? If I had a baby in the oven, I would be P…SSSED!!!
I have no problem gelding one that is passing on a genetic fault or obvious conformation problems but usually “the fruit does not fall far from the tree” as my grandpa used to say, so it would be really weird for this nice of a colt to start dropping disgusting baby bombs out of EVERY mare.
Something smells funny to me.
[QUOTE=YankeeLawyer;4617190]
Being cynical, I am curious whether his foals were truly subpar or whether this is a bit of a publicity stunt to underscore a commitment to excellence.[/QUOTE]
Hadn’t thought of that. I see what you mean, given where I went with it myself. I hope we hear more about this.
Truly an awful name for a stallion, in any case!
Only 1 batch of foals? How can they tell what the “real” quality is until those foals are grown up?
I’m dense: I don’t understand why they’d pull him for publicity reasons. 
[QUOTE=back in the saddle;4617294]
Only 1 batch of foals? How can they tell what the “real” quality is until those foals are grown up?
I’m dense: I don’t understand why they’d pull him for publicity reasons. [/QUOTE]
You can tell some things with foals. Obviously, it’s nice to see the whole package when they grow up, but if the foals came out with very straight shoulders, exceptionally long backs, wonky legs, etc, I can see not wanting to wait and produce more foals, especially at the rate of 100+ babies a year.
The would pull him for publicity reasons to show that quality is a big deal to them. By making an example of this really, really nice horse, it makes the rest of the stallions that they decided to keep on the roster look even better, as if they are producing just really outstanding foals.
[QUOTE=Coppers mom;4617366]
You can tell some things with foals. Obviously, it’s nice to see the whole package when they grow up, but if the foals came out with very straight shoulders, exceptionally long backs, wonky legs, etc, I can see not wanting to wait and produce more foals, especially at the rate of 100+ babies a year.
The would pull him for publicity reasons to show that quality is a big deal to them. By making an example of this really, really nice horse, it makes the rest of the stallions that they decided to keep on the roster look even better, as if they are producing just really outstanding foals.[/QUOTE]
I’m skeptical of him being pulled for “only” publicity. I mean, they must have quite a bit of time and money invested in this guy, and then just to demolish his whole reputation to make an example of how committed they are to quality?
Perhaps there is something really bad that he is throwing (it can happen, congenital abnormalitites can be thrown even if the parent does not themselves exhibit that trait) and they took that “opportunity” to make the best of a bad situation (making a public announcement) that does underscore their “commitment to excellence”.
seems very odd…unless some dramatc proportion of these 131 foals had some BIG problem - club feet or wobblers or parrot mouth or something.
Hilllside, I see that we had the same thought…at the same time!
[QUOTE=Hillside H Ranch;4617403]
I’m skeptical of him being pulled for “only” publicity. I mean, they must have quite a bit of time and money invested in this guy, and then just to demolish his whole reputation to make an example of how committed they are to quality?
Perhaps there is something really bad that he is throwing (it can happen, congenital abnormalitites can be thrown even if the parent does not themselves exhibit that trait) and they took that “opportunity” to make the best of a bad situation (making a public announcement) that does underscore their “commitment to excellence”.[/QUOTE]
I agree, just explaining, had they done it for publicity, why they would have.
I still want to know what in the world was so wrong with all these babies? Do they have any inspection results or anything that could give an idea?
I would guess some genetic issue has popped up and the press release is a PC way of dealing with a tough and potentially embarrassing situation.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
