At least at the moment, per The Blood Horse. He’s got a suspensory injury, but the story doesn’t say how bad it is or when he will return to training/racing.
“It’s doubtful he’ll run [in the Stephens],” said McKenna, who also indicated Conquest Mo Money could head back to New Mexico, where he won the first three races of his career, for further evaluation.
Your point? Suspensory injuries happen. A lot. Not just because horses have “Mo” in their name. You just normally don’t hear about them when the horse isn’t a graded stakes winner, which a disproportionate number of Uncle Mo’s happen to be.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. Uncle Mo really doesn’t have a disproportionate number of winners to runners, and he also doesn’t have a “disportionate” number of graded stakes winners compared to other, and often cheaper, stallions. Twirling Candy has better stats this year and is only 20k compared to Uncle Mo’s 150k.
I also don’t see your point. Are you saying that stallions that stand for high stud fees shouldn’t have offspring that get injured?
When comparing the stats of stallions with 2 such very different stud fees, you can’t just look at the numbers. Yes, Twirling Candy has a higher percentage of winners to runners so far in 2017. But his offspring are much more likely to be running in claiming races than Uncle Mo’s are. Easier wins there than in the competition the Uncle Mos are facing.
Twirling Candy has 5 SWs, 2 of them graded, and 2 who won stakes so small they barely qualify for blacktype. Uncle Mo has 8 Sws, 4 graded SW and 4 SW at big tracks. Despite having the same number of winners as Twirling Candy, Uncle Mo has an additional 1.5M in earnings, again attesting to the fact that they are running in much better company.
I can’t think of any student of racing that would agree with your assertion that TC is outperforming UM.
Uncle Mo is “hot”; people spend big bucks for his stud fees, send him their best mares, pay huge amounts for get at the sales, send them to the best trainers, and plunk to have them run in the biggest races with the biggest purses. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy based on fashion and opportunity. I still say he’s vastly overrated, and his top males break down and are sent to stud as soon as they do–just as he was. I think he is terrible for the Thoroughbred race horse’s long term future.
If all Twinkling Candy is producing is claiming racers, $2 million in winnings from his 80 foals, 50% of whom are winners, is, at least to me, more of an achievement.
Saying that just because a horse runs at big tracks or in big races means that he’s automatically better than other horses of his year reeks of snobbery. All it really means is that the horse has an owner who is willing to pay to race there and in those races. After all, there are no qualification requirements other than age and sex in open races except for the Kentucky Derby and Oaks and the Breeder’s Cup races.
You cannot be successful in the “biggest races with the biggest purses” unless you are fast enough. Period. End of sentence. Racing is NOT like show horses. Any advantage from being with the best trainers at the best tracks is secondary to speed. Uncle Mo’s offspring are fast enough to hit the board in these races with regularity, which is why he is $1.5M ahead of his closest competitor on the 3rd crop sire list and in the top 10 of the leading sire list with so few crops running.
I still say he’s vastly overrated, and his top males break down and are sent to stud as soon as they do–just as he was. I think he is terrible for the Thoroughbred race horse’s long term future.
You are entitled to that opinion, but your opinion is not shared by most.
If all Twinkling Candy is producing is claiming racers, $2 million in winnings from his 80 foals, 50% of whom are winners, is, at least to me, more of an achievement.
No one said he is getting “all” claimers, but he is getting a very different class of race horse. A slower race horse. The whole point of racing is to be fast. It is NOT more of an achievement to produce slower horses who win lesser races, no matter how you spin it.
Saying that just because a horse runs at big tracks or in big races means that he’s automatically better than other horses of his year reeks of snobbery. All it really means is that the horse has an owner who is willing to pay to race there and in those races. After all, there are no qualification requirements other than age and sex in open races except for the Kentucky Derby and Oaks and the Breeder’s Cup races.
It’s not snobbery. Again, you have to be fast enough to be competitive. A great example is the subject of this thread-- Conquest Mo Money was bought for $8,500 by proverbial nobodies out of New Mexico. His connections didn’t pay to nominate him early on; yet he proved he belonged in the big three year old stake races by virtue of his ability.
It’s also not just a matter of entering any race you want or being able to pay the nomination fee. There are indeed qualifications for races beyond the KD and BC. They are called conditions. You can read them yourself in any condition book, which are all available in PDF form online. Also, nomination fees are generally reasonable with the exception of big G1 races with massive purses.
I do not mean to be so rude, but the biggest misconceptions that get perpetuated in the show horse world about thoroughbred racing stem from lack of understanding.
The reason why horses run at big tracks and big races is because of money and prestige which doesn’t end with the horse itself. All things being equal, being the dam of a graded stakes winner can add a million dollars to the value of a young mare. This isn’t about snobbery–horses are bought and sold privately for big money based on the possibility that they can go to Santa Anita or Belmont and win a graded stakes. If the offspring of Twirling Candy could do that more consistently, they and he would be worth more so it is hard to believe that it hasn’t been tried.
Uncle Mo has been a really good sire so far and that is incredibly rare.
I just went to the Santa Anita condition book, and found two races that ran today. Two graded stakes, both GIs. Here is what the condition book says about them:
Santa Anita Park
THIRTY-FIRST DAY – Saturday, June 3, 2017
(Entries Close on Wednesday, May 31, 2017)
(Scratch Time 10:00 AM Friday, June 2)
SEVENTH RACE
STAKES
Shoemaker Mile
Breeders’ Cup “Win and You’re In” Challenge Race
$400,000 Guaranteed Grade I
FOR THREE-YEAR-OLDS AND UPWARD.
By subscription of $100 each to accompany the
nomination. Supplementary nomination of $8,000 due at time of entry. $6,000 additional to
start, with $400,000 guaranteed $240,000 to the winner, $80,000 to second, $48,000 to third,
$24,000 to fourth and $8,000 to fifth. Three-year-olds 121 lbs. Older 126 lbs. Non-winners of a
Grade I at One Mile or Over since December 3, 2016, allowed 2 lbs.; Non-winners of a Grade I
or Two Grade II races at One Mile or Over since June 3, 2016, allowed 4 lbs. *The Shoemaker
Mile has been selected as one of the Breeders’ Cup “Win and You’re In” Challenge Races. The
nominated winner of the Shoemaker Mile will be entitled to automatic entry into the 2017
running of the Breeders’ Cup Mile division. The nominated winner will be entitled to have
pre-entry and entry fees waived ($40,000 value) for the Championship race, and will be entitled
to receive a travel stipend. Winner must be Breeders’ Cup nominated by pre-entry deadline to
receive Challenge rewards. Starters to be named through the entry box by the closing time of
entries. A trophy will be presented to the winning owner.
Nominations Close Saturday, May 20, 2017
ONE MILE(Turf)
EIGHTH RACE
STAKES
Beholder Mile
$400,000 Guaranteed Grade I
FOR FILLIES AND MARES THREE YEARS OLDS AND UPWARD.
By subscription of $100 each to accompany the nomination. Supplementary nomination of $8,000 due at time of entry.
$6,000 additional to start. $400,000 guaranteed with $240,000 to the winner, $80,000 to
second, $48,000 to third, $24,000 to fourth and $8,000 to fifth. Three-year-olds 121 lbs. Older
126 lbs. Non-winners of a Grade I at One Mile or Over since December 3, 2016 allowed 2 lbs.;
Non-winners of a Grade I or Two Grade II races at One Mile or Over since June 3, 2016
allowed 4 lbs. Starters to be named through the entry box by the closing time of entries. A
trophy will be presented to the winning owner.
Nominations Close Saturday, May 20, 2017
ONE MILE
Maybe I’m missing something, but there is absolutely nothing about having to qualify by performances in other races. The only conditions that I see have to do with paying nomination and entry fees and start fees.
I’ve just been and looked at the big Belmont Stakes weekend and read their condition books. Except for the Invitationals, the condition book doesn’t say that unqualified horses can’t run, just that preference in making the field will be given to either high weights or (for some) winners of certain kinds of stakes races. It does appear that the NYRA does have some standards, but they do not absolutely disqualify horses that don’t meet those standards.
I’ve rarely seen someone just so “not get it”.
Ummmm… I think Texarkana had something other than G1 Stakes in mind when suggesting reviewing the condition books; so yes, I think you are missing something.
Yeah, anyone could enter a horse in a G1 stakes if one wants to pony up the $$ but for the vast majority of horses, it would be a total waste of money as the chances of most horses hitting the board in a G1 are fairly slim unless, like today, there were only 3 that raced in the Beholder Mile (5 entered, 2 scratched so based on entries, at least 1 horse would have spent more on entries fees than they got back in purse money).
It would cost you $14.1K to run with a possibility of winning either $24K or $8K and ending up with a totally outclassed horse. I think for most 3 years and older mares and fillies, the weight allowance wouldn’t make a difference against the classy mares such as Stellar Wind, Vale Dori and Finest City.
The Shoemaker Mile had 7 runners with same $14.1K to run and even less of a chance for an “average” horse to hit a positive payout (4th through 7th would loose money just based on purse and entry costs).
Most owners/trainers really do try to enter their horses in races in which the horse is likely to have success rather than entering their horse in a race in which that horse will be totally outclassed and very little chance of success. It’s these horses that have all the non-graded stakes conditions written. Yes, sometimes horses are entered in races in which they aren’t too likely to hit the board but occasionally they do (they’re called long shots 
).
Conditions help ensure there are races for all classes of horses so that the horses further on down the rungs of the ladder have places they can run… claiming, allowance, etc… wins etc…
The pinnacle of racing is winning the big races. That’s not snobbery, that’s what the sport of racing is ABOUT. And yes, horses that win the big races are automatically better (faster, sounder, fitter) than the vast majority of other racehorses running currently.
Horses are entered where they will be competitive. Nobody enters horses in big races at big tracks just to be there, because it costs money, there’s no point, and horses get discouraged if you keep running them over their heads.
So yes, you can judge the quality of a horse by the company he keeps. And that has nothing to do with snobbery–it’s simply a matter of understanding how racing works.
I sometimes think the major exception to this is the Kentucky Derby…lol.
You have to qualify (by winning or placing in Graded Stakes races) to get into the KD, so the 20 horses there are by and large the best 20 3yos running in the early part of the year. Now granted, you can make an argument that some of those 20 don’t have a realistic shot at winning, but you can’t deny that they earned their way there.
You need to keep in mind that Uncle Mo started with a fee of $25,000. Though I would guess most didn’t pay the full asking price. I breed to him for $12,500 on a pay out of proceeds contract in 2014. (Bred to Scat Daddy for $7,500 before his first foals hit the race track also) I would guarantee that most of the mares breed to him the first couple of years were not nearly the caliber of mares being breed to him on a $150,000 stud fee. So theoretically the foals out of those mares “should” be that much better when they hit the racetrack. Time will tell.
I believe Twirling Candy started off at $7,500
In past, one didn’t always have to qualify to race in the Derby but once the fields started to get full, there have been various methods of qualifying to run.
I did go back for fun and look to see who won the Derby that probably shouldn’t have been in the starting gate (long shots).
1913: Donerail @ 91/1 (he paid $184.90 on a 1913 $2 ticket )
2009:: Mine That Bird @ 50/1
2005: Giacomo @50/1
1940: Gallahadion @ 36/1
1999: Charismatic @ 31/1
1967: Proud Clarion @ 30/1
1918: Exterminator @ 29/1
1953: Dark Star @ 25/1
1995: Thunder Gulch @ 25/1
1908: Stone Street @ 24/1
As I always think when I see horses that sure don’t seem to make sense standing in the gate… that’s why they run the race and not just go off odds. Sometimes the long shot does win
As Laurie said, running/winning/hitting the board in the stakes at the big tracks isn’t snobbery, it’s a fact of racing. Horses that do that earn that spot in the gate through breeding as well as performance on the track.
I suspect you won’t see Copper Creek (winner of the 5th race at Emerald Downs yesterday; a claiming race FOR THREE YEAR OLDS AND UPWARD WHICH HAVE NOT WON A RACE IN 2017 OR WHICH HAVE NEVER WON FOUR RACES. Three Year Olds, 120 lbs.; Older, 124 lbs. Claiming Price $2,500) in a G1 stakes race at Santa Anita any time soon.
BTW, Copper Creek was claimed.
What you are saying is that times in Graded Stakes at big tracks are always faster than times in races at lesser tracks. And that times in G1s are always faster than times in G2s or G3s or other stakes or other classes of race, all track conditions being equal. Is that a fair assessment of what you are saying?
No, they are not saying anything silly like that. What they are saying is that by and large the best horses race for the biggest money and they invariably race at the biggest tracks.
I’m not sure why you feel the need to argue this point, it is irrefutable.
Nobody said anything even remotely resembling that. Anywhere.
I have a Twirling Candy, Annie’s Candy. He won a stake last week it was 50,000 CND, which I assume is what you consider barley a stake race. He did however earn a 93 beyer in his effort. Lots to like about him, so far. I will be getting an Uncle Mo pretty soon, I will let you know how they compare, if you have any interest.
I like Annie’s Candy alot. I’ve seen him run at Santa Anita a few times and I wouldn’t mind a few like him in my barn.
But three months ago, he ran last for $62,500 and no one took him. He was claimed for $40,000 in February. He clearly is not competitive in Southern California stakes but there’s nothing wrong with that because few are. He is also one of the better Twirling Candys out there right now (Danzing Candy is pretty nice too) which when compared with the kind of runners Uncle Mo churns out is the point some of us are making.
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
