IRISH BLOODSTOCK FORUMS :: View topic - U.S. Authorities to limit cover numbers?

Bono 2U»Fri Sep 06, 2019 21:49 pm
They just might do it in USA but they certainly wouldn't be allowed do it in Ireland! Reply

Valerie»Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:36 am
The US Jockey Club are probably strong enough to push this through. Reply

barney»Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:50 am
This is probably a real silly question but when they say North America is that the complete States? Reply

Reference Point»Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:59 am
If they achieve this (and I certainly don't support it), Artificial Insemination is the obvious next step (which I would support). Reply

Oreally»Sat Sep 07, 2019 8:06 am
No Way will A.I. ever be allowed in thoroughbred breeding. It would be the end of the breeding industry as we know it - stallions would have no value, winning racehorses would have no stud value etc.. Reply

Reference Point»Sat Sep 07, 2019 9:04 am
I think you are wrong Oreally. I can't see any reasons for your arguments. It's an absolute certainty and it will happen quickly. The breeding industry will thrive and small breeders will become competitive. It would be the best thing that ever happened to the industry. Reply

Irish Paddy»Sat Sep 07, 2019 8:57 am
As far as I know, 38 stallions covered more than 140 mares [ not sure if that was this year or 2018]. Of the 38 stallions, it appears that 37 were based in Kentucky and just one in Florida. Reply

Irish Paddy»Sat Sep 07, 2019 9:02 am
For what it's worth, I think there should be a limit. The popular stallions would have a big increase in their nomination cost but more importantly, the less popular stallions would finally get an opportunity to prove themselves on a more level playing field. Reply

amadán»Sat Sep 07, 2019 10:21 am
I would be for a limit on covers. I would be against artificial insemination. Reply

Villicious»Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:30 am
I think I am happy with this in theory. I would have leapt at it as a good idea normally but as the years tick by I realise more and more that there are always two sides. If someone has sufficient money and influence then the temptation to use Dubawi or Galileo is often too tempting to resist. If those type of breeders can't always get what they want then hopefully they will spend time on working out the best mating for their mares not just the obvious. History is littered with stallions that had less than perfect credentials that actually made it. I think that on balance there are enough of them, even in recent times, to make it valuable that a wider spectrum get a chance from the off once again. Reply

TOPOFTHEHILL»Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:23 pm
A limit on stallion coverings will result in an increase in nomination values or prices from top to bottom. Be careful what you wish for. Reply

amadán»Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:41 pm
Higher prices for established stallions would make it attractive to stand other stallions. An extreme example to illustrate the point: increase every stallion that stands at 20k+ stallion to 1000k, and there will be a rush to retire colts to stud, and those new sires to stud and those sires already at stud under 20k will get all the business. Reply

Villicious»Sun Sep 08, 2019 18:03 pm
Of course the price of the top stallions would go up under such a system. That in itself is only a problem if it affects the value for money of those nominations. I am not remotely sure that this is the case as of course one would Up have to wait for the sales test to judge that. Fewer around would certainly raise that stock's value as in all other form of retail or food output for instance a scarcity of product leads to a rise in value usually greater than the actual 'problem' caused by the under supply. Hopefully the less sexy Stallions wouldn't be able to charge any more, just get a book size that gives them more chance. HOWEVER, I am not sure how 'broke' the current system really is but I can never get to like a 200 mare book. Then when it is simply a get in get out sort of Stallion industry that is another result of that then there is nothing healthy about that either. Reply

Irish Paddy»Sun Sep 08, 2019 19:52 pm
If the lower prices stallions cover the same number of mares that the high end stallions do - then that is a more level playing field. Of course, the quality of the mares covered will also be a factor in favour of the higher stallions but the opportunity for a lower end stallion to prove himself will be very healthy for the breeding bloodlines. In my opinion, there are too many 'successful' sires these days that are only top of the list because of the vast number of runners they have - not quality and the good ones they sire could in many cases be credited to their dams! Reply

TOPOFTHEHILL»Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:41 am
Just a couple of observations on this topic. Firstly here in Europe would the limit make any difference at all to genetics. I think not because the high price stallions are by and large carrying pretty similar genetics to the lower price stallions. They are just not so good. That raises the question if you encourage the use of less good stallions what do you do to the breed in general. IMO its a giant step back in terms of quality. That step back in quality could arguably be worth it in the long run if and only if it opened up the gene pool, but I have some very serious doubts. My belief that stallion prices will increase throughout the whole market is a bit shallow. Of course the really useless stallions will stay cheap or get even cheaper but who benefits from that. A cap on number could encourage the big guys like Darley and Coolmore not to stand their superstars, but to use them as private stallions removing access to them for a lot of breeders with a lot of money. That will have serious consequences for commercial breeders and put many second tier stallions out of reach driving them into the useless stallions and ultimately oblivion. Reply

Reference Point»Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:42 am
To some extent this already happens. Smaller breeders can hardly afford 3/4th tier stallions let alone 1/2. This is why we have a huge appetite for unproven stallions. No one wants average any more and so breeders gamble. If you restrict numbers and have some sort of 'sensible' strategy you would allow proven stallions to cover bigger books than unproven (250 Galileo's a year will do less harm to the breed than 250 1st season 108 rated sprinter on average). Perversely this will inflate the price of the unproven stallions. Its a conundrum!! Reply

Justamoment»Mon Sep 09, 2019 13:18 pm
A big advantage to reduced numbers covered being limited would be the opportunity for many breeders to get their stock into the Sales! TOTH if as you suggest, the big Stallion/Owner/Breeders use their own horse then most likely their resultant progeny will not be in the Sales. Hurragh! Reply

TOPOFTHEHILL»Tue Sep 10, 2019 8:10 am
RP you have the basis of a much better system based on quality. A stallion should only be allowed to cover according to his record, initially his race record, and then his stud record. The better he does the more mares he gets to cover. So a G1 winning 2 yo who goes on to win a G1 at 3 yo gets the most mares, A G1 winning 3 yo gets the next highest, A G2 winner the next and so on. When they get to stud its all about winners, and then bonus mares for winning stakes. If they have a good year they get a few more mares if they bomb out they get restricted. Its all a bit Orwellian but perfectly easy to manage and will have a huge impact on the market for stallion nominations. It will make it like a stock market if you think a stallion has under performed then you will bid up his price, if you think he may have had plenty of winners but they were all low grade you would bid his price down. It would be a lot of fun and nominations could be traded all year by anyone not just mare owners. It would provide a dynamic market with opportunities to make money. Just think about the market before a big race, it would be more exciting than the racing and could also be a force to reduce the very small fields in some big Stakes. Reply

Gone West»Tue Sep 10, 2019 8:42 am
In theory you are correct TOTH but if restricted number of coverings comes in then the same theory will work. By the time a stallion becomes 'proven' he will have already covered at least FOUR seasons. 140 mares over four years that's 560 coverings so say 450 foals. If however the stallion who was commercially popular is now looking 'unproven' he will also have approx 450 produce that will quickly become uncommercial. If those same stallions had books of 200+ there will be an awful lot of non-commercial horses around by him - say 700 (as is the situation we have now). Reply

TOPOFTHEHILL»Tue Sep 10, 2019 13:21 pm
OK but if you restrict the numbers of the unproven to less than 100 that will improve the picture. Of course the downside for a lot of breeders will be that stallion owners will not let their stallions cover the less good mares as it will be uber important for them to do well per cover. I am registering the domain NOMEX in anticipation. It would bring a lot of money into the business, money that would otherwise go elsewhere. I really like the idea of a nomination exchange and free trading of seasons by anyone who is interested. They may get left with a load of nominations and have to buy mares to get them covered. It would be a nice source of income for pedigree consultants. Hooray!!!! They would need to buy the best mares for their stallions to ensure the value went up. Of course I am only thinking about the breed and the gene pool and not at all about the opportunity to make some money. Reply

Reference Point»Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:13 am
I put this very idea forward to a number of people a few years ago, almost word for word. Great minds ......... Reply