[QUOTE=stoicfish;7812723]
Jumping. Anything works but donkey colored :lol:[/QUOTE]
LOL, stoicfish. But even in jumping/hunting/eventing etc riders don’t mind a pretty face or a little curb appeal in a horse that they’re going to live with and see every day. In racing, it’s just talent, heart, and soundness. We’d take donkey colored happily if that’s what the right package came wrapped up in. 
I would guess $1000 or less as a riding horse, unless there are successful sport horses close up in the pedigree somewhere. As a racehorse prospect I would guess a value of $0, unfortunately. I agree that you may be better off to hang onto the horse until it is going under saddle, although at that point you have invested a lot more money as well.
FWIW…Challenged broke his shoulder as a suckling. Healed, was broken to ride and trained, but not raced. He is sound, nicely broken and has no soundness issues. Thanks for all the responses.
Well, that’s the problem with a color-based breeding program. If they don’t come out with any color and they pedigree isn’t filled with successful horses, the animals don’t have much of a market or selling point.
A solid bay TB filly from unremarkable parentage (meaning neither sire nor dam has any kind of performance record OR performance production record) doesn’t have alot to recommend it.
NOT that it is a horrid horse…just the fact that there are older horses out there to be had for much cheaper.
Small rant but I find it extremely sad that Tb’s are a throw away horse if they can not race. They were and some still are an extremely talented horses in NA and if more racing breeders thought about producing long term quality instead of an end product that might race, then there would be an amazing reservoir of talent for many riders. But so many horses are not well bred and not suitable for other disciplines. I know there are responsible breeders but there are more dreamers who create a horse with no real future and should never have been bred. I sometimes think the industry does little to encourage responsible breeding to any degree. This is not about the OP, more that she has to compete with a by-product of a large industry.
[QUOTE=stoicfish;7812871]
Small rant but I find it extremely sad that Tb’s are a throw away horse if they can not race. They were and some still are an extremely talented horses in NA and if more racing breeders thought about producing long term quality instead of an end product that might race, then there would be an amazing reservoir of talent for many riders. But so many horses are not well bred and not suitable for other disciplines. I know there are responsible breeders but there are more dreamers who create a horse with no real future and should never have been bred. I sometimes think the industry does little to encourage responsible breeding to any degree. This is not about the OP, more that she has to compete with a by-product of a large industry.[/QUOTE]
This is very true. The problem these days is that fewer people “can” or “want to” ride a TB. Back years ago a TB was the ONLY breed of choice for the show ring. I have literally owned dozens of OTTB’s…some bought, most given to me. Most worked out for their new careers…a few didn’t. I find that some people would rather spend more than OTTB price to have a clean slate/problem free/mentally balanced TB to start with. And we DO NOT “breed for color”. We breed for quality, show/sport and HOPE for chrome and color. There is a big difference in breeding programs where the breeding stock is chosen for an odd color. Some buyers recognize and appreciate the difference. I know of one big “colored TB” breeder who sells the solid/plain colored foals (unregistered) for a few hundred dollars on CL or takes them to a kill auction. Talk about irresponsible breeding!!
[QUOTE=stoicfish;7812871]
Small rant but I find it extremely sad that Tb’s are a throw away horse if they can not race. They were and some still are an extremely talented horses in NA and if more racing breeders thought about producing long term quality instead of an end product that might race, then there would be an amazing reservoir of talent for many riders. But so many horses are not well bred and not suitable for other disciplines. I know there are responsible breeders but there are more dreamers who create a horse with no real future and should never have been bred. I sometimes think the industry does little to encourage responsible breeding to any degree. This is not about the OP, more that she has to compete with a by-product of a large industry.[/QUOTE]
I agree that TBs are undervalued, but purpose-bred TBs still sell for a good price. If you have a young TB that is by a successful sport horse and out of a successful sport horse/sport horse type/mare related to a good sport horse, those babies are still worth money. Racing-bred (and built) horses with no strong familial performance record in the sport of interest will not have as much value, just as a horse bred for doing H/J or eventing is fairly worthless as a racehorse. You need to demonstrate success in the pursuit you are trying to sell the horse for.
People who breed racehorses shouldn’t change their breeding program to market for anything after racing because they need to breed the horses to race. That’s what they are aiming for, to win races not the show ring. If they were aiming for the show ring, then they can change their program to suit that need. In racing you need horses that can run not be able to clear a jump, do dressage or any other sport.
[QUOTE=spotted draft x filly;7813430]
People who breed racehorses shouldn’t change their breeding program to market for anything after racing because they need to breed the horses to race. That’s what they are aiming for, to win races not the show ring. .[/QUOTE]
While what you say is basically true, I think TB breeding even for racing took a terrible wrong turn about 20 yrs ago. The trend was (and is) for
Stuff like good feet, stamina, a horse that will excel in the classic distances, adequate bone, etc. etc. (basically, most of the attributes that make an athlete) are not really considered by most modern breeders.
And the sad part is, this formula hasn’t worked. Despite better footing, more advanced vet care, (supposedly) improved knowledge of equine nutrition and (again, supposedly) more knowledge of the equine “psyche”, race horses haven’t gotten any faster OR any sounder.
A horse hasn’t won the Triple Crown in what? 35 yrs? Most of the racing records for distances of a mile or more were set by horses racing 30-40 yrs ago.
So the problem is, if those horses aren’t fit for racing, what sort of job can they do afterwards?
Obviously not ALL TBs are like this, but I see a huge difference in general conformation & soundness it the modern TB and what I worked with when I was on the track from '72 to early '80’s.
If I was picking a mare for sport or breedign, I would have never picked the one that I got. She was very sweet, but super light bone on this heavy body, flat soles and small feet and very little general athletic ability.
I wouldn’t even use her for breeding.
Jobs for these sort of horses are hard to come by, especially when there are some 100,000 “throw away” horses going to slaughter every year.
It’s tough to sell a plain bay TB filly that isn’t old enough to break. If you want to hit the racing market, consider starequine.com (ads are not cheap), try CL or send her to a state where she can be entered in a yearling sale (Texas, Florida, NY, etc.) Sometimes equinenow.com has racing stock on there.
For sporthorse - put up some ads for $1500 and see what happens. You might get lucky. I actually got a plain bay yearling TB filly for free, because she wasn’t a good candidate for the yearling sales. Nothing wrong with her, just the sales weren’t doing well at the time and she wasn’t that royally bred. She was pretty and tall, eventually finished at 16.2hh. I broke her as a 2 year old and eventually sold her as a 3 y.o. as an event/sport prospect for $3500 and I think that was lucky. I did not make money on that horse when you consider what 2 years of feeding/vet/training/etc. costs.
[QUOTE=spotted draft x filly;7813430]
People who breed racehorses shouldn’t change their breeding program to market for anything after racing because they need to breed the horses to race. That’s what they are aiming for, to win races not the show ring. If they were aiming for the show ring, then they can change their program to suit that need. In racing you need horses that can run not be able to clear a jump, do dressage or any other sport.[/QUOTE]
Yes and no. Racing is a man made sport and isn’t written in stone. Do people have to breed and support a sport that has a huge mortality rate, no. They can change it so it is more responsible to the horses.
And some of the great horses in history were NH horses who run very long distances and jumped. Those are amazing athletes.
The Triple Crown is a futurity that has shaped the sport and like Kyzteke said, not in a good way for the horses in terms of soundness and overall athleticism. There is a reason the Irish did so well with their sport horses, they had some really good Tb stock in their NH horses. I think they could re-work the sport to keep it but make it more responsible.
ps- if someone has 30k to spend on a stud fee but can’t bother to plan out a retirement home for the horse, they do not have my support or much respect.
For reference:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Rum
Red Rum died at 30, won the Grand National at 12 which was the last of 3 times winning, and ran 100 races.
The Grand National is over 4 miles and 30 fences.
[QUOTE=stoicfish;7813715]
Yes and no. Racing is a man made sport and isn’t written in stone. Do people have to breed and support a sport that has a huge mortality rate, no. They can change it so it is more responsible to the horses.
And some of the great horses in history were NH horses who run very long distances and jumped. Those are amazing athletes.
The Triple Crown is a futurity that has shaped the sport and like Kyzteke said, not in a good way for the horses in terms of soundness and overall athleticism. There is a reason the Irish did so well with their sport horses, they had some really good Tb stock in their NH horses. I think they could re-work the sport to keep it but make it more responsible.
ps- if someone has 30k to spend on a stud fee but can’t bother to plan out a retirement home for the horse, they do not have my support or much respect.[/QUOTE]
^^^^Exactly!! It’s sort of “chicken vs egg”, but if the SPORT was changed to put more emphasis on stamina, longer distances and longer careers, then breeders would follow suit.
And I will tell you exactly why no horse has won the TC in 35 yrs: they are not bred for it. Breeders breed for speed and precocious performance and that’s what they get.
Then along comes a test that requires a young horse to go against the best of his generation in only a 6 wk span at ever increasing distances, even against fresh horses…well, that’s when a deep pedigree (and maybe better training) will show.
Is it easy? Of course not…it’s not designed to be. But because of a sheer “Forrest Gump” accident of timing, I was fortunate enough to be working on the track during what is widely considered the last “golden age” of TB racing. During the decade or so I was on the track THREE horses won the TC. THe Jockey Gold CUp was 2 miles (it’s been shortened twice since then, and is now only 1 1/4 mi).
Working on the backside, I saw many TBs up close, and even the cheaper claimers were more robust than many of the TBs I see now.
I need to make it clear that there ARE TBs out there with the right qualities, but they are not valued as much by breeders (of racing stock) and so are not used. And then the sporthorse market is awash with WBs…
If “racing” consisted of 2mile runs and more classic distances, those horses would be more suitable for a job afterwards. Unfortunately, humans don’t seem to have the attention span required to watch a series of 2 mi. races…
Decades ago they used to breed racehorses to race and now they breed for the sales. Also, trainers who knew how to train as opposed to the more lightly trained and raced horses now. Check out the old workout schedules for horses in the 60’s, even Secretariat’s training schedule and see how different it is than they are today.
A non race bred TB foal (as the OPs foal is) wouldnt bring a bid at a sale. I dont know what its value would be if offered as a show prospect, but with the huge amount of already broken and trained OTTBs being offered for very low 4 figures (or less) I wouldnt think there would be any value.
Just a word to those thinking they have “racing bloodlines”. If you are considering offering a foal as a racing prospect, the sire has to be a graded stakes horse or a producer of such to have any value. An unraced sire is worth nothing in the race horse world, no matter how they are bred. If the dam line of the foal doesn’t have black type in the first (or maybe second dam if significant), there is no value. The dam of the sire means nothing. The pedigree means nothing to racing people if the sire isnt a stakes winner or if there isnt black type in the dam line, close up. Period. Thats the only place in the pedigree that is significant, if you are wanting to market to racing people.
[QUOTE=Kyzteke;7813738]
^^^^Exactly!! It’s sort of “chicken vs egg”, but if the SPORT was changed to put more emphasis on stamina, longer distances and longer careers, then breeders would follow suit.
And I will tell you exactly why no horse has won the TC in 35 yrs: they are not bred for it. Breeders breed for speed and precocious performance and that’s what they get.
Then along comes a test that requires a young horse to go against the best of his generation in only a 6 wk span at ever increasing distances, even against fresh horses…well, that’s when a deep pedigree (and maybe better training) will show.
Is it easy? Of course not…it’s not designed to be. But because of a sheer “Forrest Gump” accident of timing, I was fortunate enough to be working on the track during what is widely considered the last “golden age” of TB racing. During the decade or so I was on the track THREE horses won the TC. THe Jockey Gold CUp was 2 miles (it’s been shortened twice since then, and is now only 1 1/4 mi).
Working on the backside, I saw many TBs up close, and even the cheaper claimers were more robust than many of the TBs I see now.
I need to make it clear that there ARE TBs out there with the right qualities, but they are not valued as much by breeders (of racing stock) and so are not used. And then the sporthorse market is awash with WBs…
If “racing” consisted of 2mile runs and more classic distances, those horses would be more suitable for a job afterwards. Unfortunately, humans don’t seem to have the attention span required to watch a series of 2 mi. races…[/QUOTE]
I can not disagree with the bolded more. California Chrome nearly won it this year, losing the Belmont by about 2 lengths. In 2005, Afleet Alex was beaten a length in the Derby, then won the Preakness and Belmont. In 2009 Mine That Bird won the Derby, then ran 2nd in the Preakness to Rachel Alexandra and 3rd in the Belmont. In 2004 Smarty Jones won the Derby and Preakness, and was only beaten a length in the Belmont. The year before that Funny Cide won the Derby and Preakness, and ran 3rd n the Belmont. In 1997, 1998, and 1999, Real Quiet, Silver Charm, and Charismatic all won the first 2 legs, to just miss in the Belmont (Real Quiet by 2 inches).
If it was so impossible because of not being bred for it, there wouldnt be so many near misses. Its meant to be hard to win. Its meant to be special.
[QUOTE=crosscreeksh;7812667]
Just note…Not all painted TB’s are created equal. We breed for quality…not the color.[/QUOTE]
You may breed for a quality horse which is commendable but you are not breeding for a quality race horse. There isn’t anything wrong with that but you would be better served marketing to your audience than the racing industry than getting rejected by race buyers.
[QUOTE=Laurierace;7813992]
You may breed for a quality horse which is commendable but you are not breeding for a quality race horse. There isn’t anything wrong with that but you would be better served marketing to your audience than the racing industry than getting rejected by race buyers.[/QUOTE]
I appreciate your comment, but I never once stated that we were breeding for the track or sales!! I specifically said we were NOT interested in selling for racing!! And FYI…this is not a “plain bay filly” as stated in the OP. She is dark seal brown (almost black) with a very pretty head and a large star and lovely hunter movement. My only comment was that she was not expressing the Dominate White gene characteristics of her dam. Good TB blood lines suggests IMO, some quality, class and conformation…not necessarily racing aptitude or appeal.
[QUOTE=crosscreeksh;7812178 Her sire is our “Challenged” stallion - stud fee on his sire (Unbridled’s Song) is $175k, first four dam’s on mother sire are ALL multiple stakes winners themselves AND multiple stakes producers. We are not near an area with “good” TB Horse Sales - Lower Midwest. I’d rather she went as a sport horse/show horse than to the track despite DH having trained Top TB’s for over 40 years…[/QUOTE]
It does sound as if you think that this horse is well bred for racing, only that since you are an area where there is no market for (young) racehorses, she may not sell as a race prospect. .
Whether the horse is “plain bay” ( a description which you object to) or “dark seal brown, almost black, with a large star”, the color 
really makes no difference whatsoever to people who would buy a weanling for racing or for sport.
OP you never did answer the question of what you’re breeding for. According to your website, none of your stallions or mares have done anything. That they only came from “good” breeding and they have lots of color or produce lots of color. So what is your breeding program? Horses that can play over jumps in their paddock or show promise without being tested isn’t going to help sell your products.
[QUOTE=halo;7813944]
I can not disagree with the bolded more. California Chrome nearly won it this year, losing the Belmont by about 2 lengths. In 2005, Afleet Alex was beaten a length in the Derby, then won the Preakness and Belmont. In 2009 Mine That Bird won the Derby, then ran 2nd in the Preakness to Rachel Alexandra and 3rd in the Belmont. In 2004 Smarty Jones won the Derby and Preakness, and was only beaten a length in the Belmont. The year before that Funny Cide won the Derby and Preakness, and ran 3rd n the Belmont. In 1997, 1998, and 1999, Real Quiet, Silver Charm, and Charismatic all won the first 2 legs, to just miss in the Belmont (Real Quiet by 2 inches).
If it was so impossible because of not being bred for it, there wouldnt be so many near misses. Its meant to be hard to win. Its meant to be special.[/QUOTE]
Tons of horse have won 2 o/o 3 of the races…24 to be exact.
Twenty-three horses have won both the Derby & the Preakness only to fall short in the Belmont. Since the point is to win all three, ‘near misses’ don’t count.
So I stand by my statement.
Of course it’s tough…of course it’s hard…but even so it can be done. It’s been done 11 times since 1919…and if you look at the records, this is the longest span since the beginning that a horse hasn’t won it.
When Secretariat won in '73, it had been 20 yrs since a horse hit all 3 races. But then after that 2 more horses in one decade managed it. And even more amazing, if you look at the TC record PRIOR to Secretariat, there were horses winning it every few years.
For instance in the span of 18 yrs, SEVEN horses won the TC. All those horses were bred, trained and ran in the '30’s & 40’s…see below.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD=“align: left”]1919
[/TD]
[TD]Sir Barton[/TD]
[TD]John Loftus[/TD]
[TD]H. G. Bedwell[/TD]
[TD]J. K. L. Ross[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=“align: left”]1930[/TD]
[TD]Gallant Fox[/TD]
[TD]Earl Sande[/TD]
[TD]James Fitzsimmons[/TD]
[TD]Belair Stud[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=“align: left”]1935[/TD]
[TD]Omaha[/TD]
[TD]William Saunders[/TD]
[TD]James Fitzsimmons[/TD]
[TD]Belair Stud[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=“align: left”]1937[/TD]
[TD]War Admiral[/TD]
[TD]Charley Kurtsinger[/TD]
[TD]George Conway[/TD]
[TD]Samuel D. Riddle[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=“align: left”]1941[/TD]
[TD]Whirlaway[/TD]
[TD]Eddie Arcaro[/TD]
[TD]Ben A. Jones[/TD]
[TD]Calumet Farm[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=“align: left”]1943[/TD]
[TD]Count Fleet[/TD]
[TD]John Longden[/TD]
[TD]Don Cameron[/TD]
[TD]Mrs. J. D. Hertz[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=“align: left”]1946[/TD]
[TD]Assault[/TD]
[TD]Warren Mehrtens[/TD]
[TD]Max Hirsch[/TD]
[TD]King Ranch[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=“align: left”]1948[/TD]
[TD]Citation[/TD]
[TD]Eddie Arcaro[/TD]
[TD]Ben A. Jones[/TD]
[TD]Calumet Farm[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=“align: left”]1973[/TD]
[TD]Secretariat[/TD]
[TD]Ron Turcotte[/TD]
[TD]Lucien Laurin[/TD]
[TD]Meadow Stable[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=“align: left”]1977[/TD]
[TD]Seattle Slew[/TD]
[TD]Jean Cruguet[/TD]
[TD]William Turner, Jr.[/TD]
[TD]Karen L. Taylor[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=“align: left”]1978[/TD]
[TD]Affirmed[/TD]
[TD]Steve Cauthen[/TD]
[TD]Lazaro S. Barrera[/TD]
[TD]Harbor View Farm[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
So what other explanation would you give for this long absence of winners? If no horse wins in 2015 it will be 38 yrs…almost twice as long as any other gap.
It’s either breeding or training…take your pick. Personally, I think it’s both.
BTW, sorry to the OP for derailing your thread.
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
