Breeding Big Brown

[LaurieB]

[QUOTE=rcloisonne;3254746]
Uhh, the horse now has THREE quarter cracks. He had one in each front going into the KD (that’s 2) and just popped another this week (that’s 3). Everyone raise their hands who is competing a horse with three quarter cracks. Must be media thing to fire up the ignorant public for no reason. Durn media! :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

I guess you must be closer to the horse than the owners, the trainer, and the blacksmith (who has been interviewed extensively in the BloodHorse and TB Times) because they seem to be unaware of these problems.

[Rienzi]

There have been many great points made in this thread. It will be interesting to see how BB’s feet look, say, a couple years after he retires.

I have a question. If the tracks are faster, and the technologies are better with regards to understanding how horses move, etc, and I’m sure most breeders are breeding “the best to the best” as they see it (and as they can afford to), then shouldn’t the horses be faster than they were 30, 40 or 50 years ago? (Maybe they are, and I just missed it.) I am only a casual observer, certainly no sort of expert. Have we reached the top speed we will ever see for an equine? Can more be done? Is it the limitations of the species, or is it a management issue?

[Pronzini]

I think we’ve reached the limits of equine physiology. Many of the leaps forward previously had much to do with improvements in technology in tracks and track maintenance, aluminum versus steel shoes, as well as I suspect nutrition and vetwork.

What hasn’t improved (I think) is horsemanship. If you look at great trainers in years past, they all grew up on farms and ranches. Now we have way too many cellphone trainers who drifted onto a track or were set up by well connected families and didn’t pay their dues. We have hustlers and salesmen who make more money buying and selling horses than they do training them and they jealously guard their percentages so they claim and drop and never run when they are not favored. Whittingham was a solid 15 % trainer. He believed in running them into shape. Now we have the notion that they need to win almost all the time and horses need to run when they peak. Since you can’t peak them every other week, they end up running every 6 weeks or every other month. To do that, horses have to be trained hard but they are not running as much.

Now is that genetics or management? Well respected folks have differing opinions.

[ArtilleryHill]

Laurierace wrote:

<<But you will not take the 50 million and stand him at stud because you can’t bear the thought of some poor bastard having to go through the hell that you are going through now.>>

Just a small point: Three Chimneys didn’t pay $50 million. They bought a minority interest in the horse (rumored among bloodstock folks to be 10 percent, but that’s not confirmed) for a price that would put the horse’s total valuation at $50 million. So, if the 10 percent figure is correct, then they probably paid $5 million for the 10 percent interest. Don’t get me wrong–I think that’s a lot of cash, too, but it’s not the same as writing a check for $50million!

Recently, Michael Iavarone has been indirectly quoted (as in “A farm paid $50 million for the colt’s breeding rights, Iavarone said” as opposed to " ‘We got a check for $50 million,’ said Iavarone") as saying they got $50 million or $60 million for the breeding rights. That’s unlikely, and either the reporters misunderstood what Iavarone was really saying or Iavarone is trying to make it sound like there was a $50 million payoff in order to gin up investors for his proposed $100 million horsey hedge fund–or Three Chimneys really did put together people to actually pay that kind of money up front, which doesn’t make sense considering that they themselves have said they only bought a minority interest.

[YankeeLawyer]

[QUOTE=Evalee Hunter;3255443]
Assuming you are, in fact, a breeder … how do you know how “bad” or “good” the hooves of the stallions you choose for your mares are? If you are a warmblood breeder, you certainly don’t know.

IF you happen to be a warmblood breeder, warmblood stallions are never asked to do anything anywhere near as hard as a TB racing at classic distances so their feet are not stressed as young TB’s feet are. Furthermore, without a talkative trainer & the press recording every word, you have no source of information about warmblood stallion feet. There are certainly warmblood stallions with BAD feet, worse problems than Big Brown. Go to shows & take a look at the feet. Always interesting. (Maybe you do this. Most mare owners do not live close to the stallions &, thus, do not generally see the feet of the stallion.)

If you are a TB breeder, maybe you have more room to talk & maybe not. I don’t know you (obviously). Again, talkative trainer combined with the press results in information being given out that is not being (or hasn’t been in the past) given out regarding other runners.

Edited to add: I am not joking about WB feet. I have first hand knowledge of the foot problems of several WB stallions. In one case, we have a mare with bad foot problems & I ran into the owner of a popular stallion at the vet clinic, was introduced to her & learned about her stallion’s problems. H-m-m-m. If you ask about his feet, what do you think you are going to be told?[/QUOTE]

Thank you Evalee! Not to mention the potentially far more serious issues a stallion may have that we can’t see.

I know of a few grey stallions that are fairly spectacular. Grays have a much higher incidence of melanomas than other horses. These stallions may even have melanomas that we cannot see. Melanomas are hereditary. Should all grey stallions be removed from the breeding pool? The propensity to have melanomas is probably far more heritable than hoof issues (even assuming BB’s are due to a heritable condition, which I doubt). Oh, and melanomas can be fatal.

I am amazed that people are carrying on so about this horse’s feet. As I said elsewhere, has anyone seen the feet / shoes on GP jumpers? Or advanced-level eventers? I used to own a GP horse that had to have some pretty fancy shoes. He nonetheless competed at GP until he was 17 and junior jumpers until he was 20, and retired sound from showing in the Big Eq at 24. He was not off one day in the 9 years that I owned him.

[LaurieB]

[QUOTE=ArtilleryHill;3255699]
Laurierace wrote:

<<But you will not take the 50 million and stand him at stud because you can’t bear the thought of some poor bastard having to go through the hell that you are going through now.>>

Just a small point: Three Chimneys didn’t pay $50 million. They bought a minority interest in the horse (rumored among bloodstock folks to be 10 percent, but that’s not confirmed) for a price that would put the horse’s total valuation at $50 million. So, if the 10 percent figure is correct, then they probably paid $5 million for the 10 percent interest. Don’t get me wrong–I think that’s a lot of cash, too, but it’s not the same as writing a check for $50million!

Recently, Michael Iavarone has been indirectly quoted (as in “A farm paid $50 million for the colt’s breeding rights, Iavarone said” as opposed to " ‘We got a check for $50 million,’ said Iavarone") as saying they got $50 million or $60 million for the breeding rights. That’s unlikely, and either the reporters misunderstood what Iavarone was really saying or Iavarone is trying to make it sound like there was a $50 million payoff in order to gin up investors for his proposed $100 million horsey hedge fund–or Three Chimneys really did put together people to actually pay that kind of money up front, which doesn’t make sense considering that they themselves have said they only bought a minority interest.[/QUOTE]

Iavarone insured BB for 50M after his Derby win, and the fact that an insurance company was willing to write the policy set his value at that amount–as was most likely his intention. The stud farms he negotiated with, however, didn’t agree, and when Three Chimneys bought their minority interest (one third) they did so for an amount quite far below that 50M figure.

[Equilibrium]

[QUOTE=Laurierace;3255327]
Are there REALLY people posting here on this message board who can look themselves in the mirror and say that they own a horse who has never been beaten, who has easily won the first two legs of the triple crown and is considered a lock to win the Belmont. But you will not take the 50 million and stand him at stud because you can’t bear the thought of some poor bastard having to go through the hell that you are going through now. The hell of watching your horse suffer through glue on shoes and quarter crack patches. The horror you wouldn’t wish on any horse.
Give me a freaking break. This is one of the soundest triple crown horses in decades. We only know about the problems he does have because his trainer couldn’t shut the hell up if you used a tongue tie and a figure eight on him. Good thing Lukas could keep his mouth shut, that would have kept half the country awake a night.[/QUOTE]

Well said Laurie!

But I will have to say I did work for Wayne for 12 years on and off. Some things just aren’t as bad as everyone likes to think. I have worked for much worse and they too are considered at the top of the game. Wayne had a lot fewer breakdowns and deaths than some believe it or not, especially considering numbers.

Terri

[Foxtrot_s]

Just a quick point for clarity - re heritability of malanoma: melanomas appear in grey horses; if a grey stallion bred to a bay mare and produced a bay foal, the resulting foal would not be at risk for developing melanoma.

[Equilibrium]

[QUOTE=Evalee Hunter;3255443]
Assuming you are, in fact, a breeder … how do you know how “bad” or “good” the hooves of the stallions you choose for your mares are? If you are a warmblood breeder, you certainly don’t know.

IF you happen to be a warmblood breeder, warmblood stallions are never asked to do anything anywhere near as hard as a TB racing at classic distances so their feet are not stressed as young TB’s feet are. Furthermore, without a talkative trainer & the press recording every word, you have no source of information about warmblood stallion feet. There are certainly warmblood stallions with BAD feet, worse problems than Big Brown. Go to shows & take a look at the feet. Always interesting. (Maybe you do this. Most mare owners do not live close to the stallions &, thus, do not generally see the feet of the stallion.)

If you are a TB breeder, maybe you have more room to talk & maybe not. I don’t know you (obviously). Again, talkative trainer combined with the press results in information being given out that is not being (or hasn’t been in the past) given out regarding other runners.

Edited to add: I am not joking about WB feet. I have first hand knowledge of the foot problems of several WB stallions. In one case, we have a mare with bad foot problems & I ran into the owner of a popular stallion at the vet clinic, was introduced to her & learned about her stallion’s problems. H-m-m-m. If you ask about his feet, what do you think you are going to be told?[/QUOTE]

I too brought up this point in an earlier post. I breed both racehorses and warmbloods. I don’t have bad feet at the moment and hope to keep it that way. Have very few problems with horses feet in fact. But they aren’t getting the punishment of sandy tracks day in and day out either.

Terri

[YankeeLawyer]

[QUOTE=Foxtrot’s;3255790]
Just a quick point for clarity - re heritability of malanoma: melanomas appear in grey horses; if a grey stallion bred to a bay mare and produced a bay foal, the resulting foal would not be at risk for developing melanoma.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I believe that is incorrect. My understanding is that horses of any color can get melanomas; grays just have a much higher incidence of the condition. In any event, the foal with one gray parent has a 50% chance of being gray.

[Dazednconfused]

[QUOTE=jumper11;3254781]
This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I’ve read on this BB in awhile. Are you suggesting that jockeys are not actually “riding” so one is unable to determine rideability or are you suggesting that as a three year old they are too young to make this assessment? Either way you sound like an idiot. I don’t think the OP is suggesting that you could hop on the horse and ride him around a hunter course, I think she’s just saying that as a three year old he’s rideable and has a great temperment. Am I missing something here?[/QUOTE]

Yes, you are :rolleyes: Usually one takes a nod at rideability when they ride sporthorses. To say a three year old racehorse is “rideable” based on those standards is ludicrous, and secondly, it’s darn near irrelevant in a race horse - it’s who gets across the finish line first, not how easily he does it for the rider. And even then, how would you ever determine how “rideable” he is from a few clips on TV? :lol:

[Laurierace]

[QUOTE=Equilibrium;3255783]
Well said Laurie!

But I will have to say I did work for Wayne for 12 years on and off. Some things just aren’t as bad as everyone likes to think. I have worked for much worse and they too are considered at the top of the game. Wayne had a lot fewer breakdowns and deaths than some believe it or not, especially considering numbers.

Terri[/QUOTE]

That may be true but I was referencing Charasmatic in a not so direct manner who was held together with vet wrap throughout the triple crown, that was one sore horse, long before the breakdown in the Belmont.

[Laurierace]

[QUOTE=ArtilleryHill;3255699]
Laurierace wrote:

<<But you will not take the 50 million and stand him at stud because you can’t bear the thought of some poor bastard having to go through the hell that you are going through now.>>

Just a small point: Three Chimneys didn’t pay $50 million. They bought a minority interest in the horse (rumored among bloodstock folks to be 10 percent, but that’s not confirmed) for a price that would put the horse’s total valuation at $50 million. So, if the 10 percent figure is correct, then they probably paid $5 million for the 10 percent interest. Don’t get me wrong–I think that’s a lot of cash, too, but it’s not the same as writing a check for $50million!

Recently, Michael Iavarone has been indirectly quoted (as in “A farm paid $50 million for the colt’s breeding rights, Iavarone said” as opposed to " ‘We got a check for $50 million,’ said Iavarone") as saying they got $50 million or $60 million for the breeding rights. That’s unlikely, and either the reporters misunderstood what Iavarone was really saying or Iavarone is trying to make it sound like there was a $50 million payoff in order to gin up investors for his proposed $100 million horsey hedge fund–or Three Chimneys really did put together people to actually pay that kind of money up front, which doesn’t make sense considering that they themselves have said they only bought a minority interest.[/QUOTE]

I was just throwing a number out there to point out how hypocritical many of these posters are. I have no concrete idea what the agreement was but I sure know its way more than anyone would turn down just so they didn’t have to worry about one of his poor, pitiful foals having to endure the horror of having a foot patched.

[Laurierace]

[QUOTE=Dazednconfused;3255812]
Yes, you are :rolleyes: Usually one takes a nod at rideability when they ride sporthorses. To say a three year old racehorse is “rideable” based on those standards is ludicrous, and secondly, it’s darn near irrelevant in a race horse - it’s who gets across the finish line first, not how easily he does it for the rider. And even then, how would you ever determine how “rideable” he is from a few clips on TV? :lol:[/QUOTE]

I think the term we are searching for is adjustability. I have never seen a horse that can turn his speed on and off at the rider’s request so easily. You are lucky if you can get them to rate at all. This horse rated then moved, then geared right back down again to save something for Belmont.

[titan]

[QUOTE=Dazednconfused;3255812]
Yes, you are :rolleyes: Usually one takes a nod at rideability when they ride sporthorses. To say a three year old racehorse is “rideable” based on those standards is ludicrous, and secondly, it’s darn near irrelevant in a race horse - it’s who gets across the finish line first, not how easily he does it for the rider. And even then, how would you ever determine how “rideable” he is from a few clips on TV? :lol:[/QUOTE]

You are the one missing the point. The discussion is about breeding RACEHORSES. If you think rideability is not an issue, you’ve never tried to get one around the track.

[Dazednconfused]

[QUOTE=Laurierace;3255834]
I think the term we are searching for is adjustability. I have never seen a horse that can turn his speed on and off at the rider’s request so easily. You are lucky if you can get them to rate at all. This horse rated then moved, then geared right back down again to save something for Belmont.[/QUOTE]

That’s certainly valid. “Rideability” is not the same thing (to me anyway), hence why I thought it so odd that was used to describe him…

[Freebird]

@Dazednconfused;3255868

That’s certainly valid. “Rideability” is not the same thing (to me anyway), hence why I thought it so odd that was used to describe him…

Well this thread sure has covered a lot of things here - most of which don’t even have anything to do with the OP!

Anyway, the term “ridability” is a term used in all disciplines…yes, even in horse racing. In horse racing - as in all diciplines - you get all types. You get some that have a crazy streak, and try their best to get their rider on the ground - we always said that type of horse was “common” Then you have the ones that are like turning a 2x4, have no power steering, no breaks, don’t switch leads, get rank if behind other horses, don’t break well, etc. etc. I would not call that type of racehorse, “ridable.”

Then there is the type that love to work. They walk up to the track on a loose rein, they jog with their ears pricked, but are still relaxed. When they gallop, they arch their necks, and are as soft as butter. They take a feel without pulling your guts out, or becoming rank. When it’s time to work, they give it 110%, and are ratable down to the second. Their changes are right on, and they break sharply every time. When you ask them to wait, behind the front runners - like Big Brown did - they wait patently, and relaxed, and when you ask them to go - they really GO…which again, is just what Big Brown did.

Just like in any other discipline, I would define “ridability”, as a horse that is relaxed, but attentive to the rider’s cues, soft and supple, knows what his job is, and does it.

[grayarabpony]

A lot of these posts really make me go :rolleyes: Sure, a lot of TB shoeing is very badly done, often the horses are shod with long toes on purpose to try to increase strides length (with disastrous results), but some horse’s feet are naturally better than others and are less easy to screw up.

[SleepyFox]

[QUOTE=KatherineC;3253478]
They are going to breed hundreds of mares and many of his babies will not be successful racehorses. Some may be exceptional racehorses, but odds dictate that most won’t and they will need to be useful in another discipline. If they have bad feet it will be difficult for them. [/QUOTE]

Good point of discussion. On boards like this there is a lot of talk of people breeding to stallions that are known for passing on conformation defects and I think the common perception is that the breeders do this out of greed and just don’t care what the resulting foal looks like. But, in reality, the reason people are breeding to these stallions is that they get runners. If a stallion passes on a defect that inhibits his foals’ ability to perform, he’s not going to make it as a stallion. And, I assure you, race training is a lot more physically demanding than most OTTB pursuits.

There is also a lot of talk of people breeding for the sales. This does happen, but what commercial breeders are doing is breeding for a perfect looking horse and one with bad feet just won’t pass that test. There absolutely are a goodly number of deep pocket owners who want the most fashionable horse at the sale, but the guys out there picking horses for them - for the most part - have a pretty good idea what a good horse looks like and they aren’t going to pick too many that already have the deck stacked against them.

[grayarabpony]

Well if that is true then why is there a trend toward TBs with small feet and very fine bones? It’s not as though people on BBs such as this make up the commonplace existance of such OTTBs. Breeders produce such horses because they might hold up long enough on the racetrack for the owner to make a profit.