Bloodstock & Breeding
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
06 Sep 11
22:36
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Jan 10
Louise Hall
September 6, 2011 - 3:25PM.
A "coalition of powerful interests" is opposed to lifting the long-standing ban on using artificial insemination technology in thoroughbreds out of fear it would loosen their stranglehold on the lucrative racing industry, a court has heard.
Bruce McHugh, a former chairman of the Sydney Turf Club, says allowing artificially bred horses to race and breed would increase competition because the costs for smaller operators would lower and more horses would be produced, inevitably leading the entry level price for racehorses to drop.
Under international rules, only horses that are conceived by "direct cover", where the stallion directly inseminates the mare, can be registered, which allows them to race and breed.
Mr McHugh has taken legal action in the Federal Court against several racing industry bodies, claiming that the refusal to register horses bred via artificial insemination is a restraint of trade and a breach of the Trade Practices Act.
His opponents argue that lifting the ban would lead to Australian horses being boycotted internationally.
Outside the court, the chief executive of Thoroughbred Breeders Australia and former Howard government minister, Peter McGauran, said: "The Australian thoroughbred industry will be devastated if AI is introduced and in a relatively short period of time it will diminish to an inward looking domestic industry."
But Ian Tonking, SC, for Mr McHugh, told the court the major studs, such as Coolmore, Darley and Arrowfield, make millions of dollars shuttling stallions to and from the northern hemisphere by air, where they service more than 150 mares for up to $200,000.
Coolmore, at Scone, is owned by John Magnier, one of Europe's richest men, while Darley is owned by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai.
Many small breeders cannot afford the cost and risk associated with transporting horses to studs for several months, however shipping semen is more affordable.
"This has meant that the ownership of a top stallion can be a licence to print money, provided it was not threatened with competition such as AI," Mr Tonking said.
"In turn, the top stallions commanded prices at auction beyond the pockets of all but the top echelon of investors.
"This in turn meant that it was critical to defend the ban."
About 40 witnesses are expected to be called during the six-week hearing before Justice Alan Robertson.
Mr McHugh, who was once Australia's biggest bookmaker and was famed for duelling the late media tycoon Kerry Packer, will call Tony Hartnell, a breeder and expert on trade practices from his days running the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
The hearing continues.
Louise Hall is a Herald Court Reporter
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/horseracing/battle-over-artificial-insemination-of-thoroughbreds-20110906-1jvg4.html#ixzz1XD7bYCJb
September 6, 2011 - 3:25PM.
A "coalition of powerful interests" is opposed to lifting the long-standing ban on using artificial insemination technology in thoroughbreds out of fear it would loosen their stranglehold on the lucrative racing industry, a court has heard.
Bruce McHugh, a former chairman of the Sydney Turf Club, says allowing artificially bred horses to race and breed would increase competition because the costs for smaller operators would lower and more horses would be produced, inevitably leading the entry level price for racehorses to drop.
Under international rules, only horses that are conceived by "direct cover", where the stallion directly inseminates the mare, can be registered, which allows them to race and breed.
Mr McHugh has taken legal action in the Federal Court against several racing industry bodies, claiming that the refusal to register horses bred via artificial insemination is a restraint of trade and a breach of the Trade Practices Act.
His opponents argue that lifting the ban would lead to Australian horses being boycotted internationally.
Outside the court, the chief executive of Thoroughbred Breeders Australia and former Howard government minister, Peter McGauran, said: "The Australian thoroughbred industry will be devastated if AI is introduced and in a relatively short period of time it will diminish to an inward looking domestic industry."
But Ian Tonking, SC, for Mr McHugh, told the court the major studs, such as Coolmore, Darley and Arrowfield, make millions of dollars shuttling stallions to and from the northern hemisphere by air, where they service more than 150 mares for up to $200,000.
Coolmore, at Scone, is owned by John Magnier, one of Europe's richest men, while Darley is owned by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai.
Many small breeders cannot afford the cost and risk associated with transporting horses to studs for several months, however shipping semen is more affordable.
"This has meant that the ownership of a top stallion can be a licence to print money, provided it was not threatened with competition such as AI," Mr Tonking said.
"In turn, the top stallions commanded prices at auction beyond the pockets of all but the top echelon of investors.
"This in turn meant that it was critical to defend the ban."
About 40 witnesses are expected to be called during the six-week hearing before Justice Alan Robertson.
Mr McHugh, who was once Australia's biggest bookmaker and was famed for duelling the late media tycoon Kerry Packer, will call Tony Hartnell, a breeder and expert on trade practices from his days running the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
The hearing continues.
Louise Hall is a Herald Court Reporter
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/horseracing/battle-over-artificial-insemination-of-thoroughbreds-20110906-1jvg4.html#ixzz1XD7bYCJb
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 1
|
By:
The repercussions worldwide, if this appeal is upheld, and there is every chance it will be, is enormous.
For a start any horse conceived through AI in Australia, will not be allowed to race internationally, as the rules now stand. There is talk of a separate stud book. Also and probably more importantly, there would be a precedent established to challenge this in other countries, with similar consumer laws to Australia. Interesting times ahead. |