How is See The Stars getting on?

I bet he is......... Gilltown I hear was like a knocking shop this year,now he's having a rest,well earned I'd say!

Just imagine the buzz when the first STS Jr hits the track

Should have stayed in training. Big mistake sending him to stud. Huge. Would have cleaned up this year so serves the greedy cowards right.

"Just imagine the buzz when the first STS Jr hits the track "




Especially if it's out of Zarkava......Arc winner at 100-1 [:o]

brigust1     27 Aug 10 06:43 
Should have stayed in training. Big mistake sending him to stud. Huge. Would have cleaned up this year so serves the greedy cowards right.

Big mistake is it?Have you any idea just how much money this stallion has earned this year 8 million euros,more than double his entire racecourse earnings, compare this with his potential racecourse earnings as a 4 year old,not rocket science and always remember if he did not achieve anything at 4 his gloss may be fading by the time he went to stud, or indeed he may of been injured poss' fatally.We often hear people saying very similar things when some horses are retired,but always have in your mind it is a business and a very lucrative one.

PD, it may not be rocket science to you but looking at the results so far this year I think he could have increased his stud value by a conservative 25%. How much do you think that would increase both his lifetime earnings and his overall value? Not to mention his esteem.

What races would he have won brigust1 that would have increased his value at stud. If he raced at a mile 4 he would surely be less commercial. I'm not sure did he have the speed to go head to head with Paco Boy, Goldikova, Canford Cliffs and Makfi so he would have to have been racing at a 1m 2f i believe that he was retired at the right time that horse is worth so much to risk him

Well even if he won all the top races this year his value would imo be no more certainly not 25% as he then is a year older,so one year less at stud to rake the cash in,he was rightly held in the highest esteem by almost everyone anyway.
This years middle distance runners look at best moderate so perhaps if he did contest those races people may say things like "he only beat poor fields",if he was mine he would be in the same job as he is now in,as really he had done everything asked of him,nothing to prove at all.A bit like Zarkava true champions.

Any increase in stud fees would be purely speculative I know but if we agree that there would be little to beat this year and selected targets, definitely not over a mile, would be penalty kicks then surely there would be no loss in stud revenue over his lifetime.
STS only became recognised very late in his career, perhaps only after the Arc so another year plying his trade, I think, would have been hugely beneficial. Of coure you may think he had nothing to prove but may I suggest to you that a huge number still think he had a lot to prove.
In fact I think he was rushed off to stud with undue haste. But that is quite simply my opinion.

'STS only became recognised very late in his career, perhaps only after the Arc'

Time to give up the game if you only recognized STS after the Arc fella

Mr Mischief, can I quote to you from Nicholas Godfrey in yesterday's racing Post?
He says 'Sea the Stars, for his part, was aggresively campaigned throughout 2009, yet it was only at the time of his Arc success that he really started to bridge the great divide to the wider public'.
Not giving up just yet fella. Actually I joined in 2001, you joined in 2009 and I see you are already keen to put us 'old fella's out to grass'. Shame on you.

could he not have gone for triumph hurdle ?

guineas derby eclipse juddmonte irish champ and arc!!

name another horse in the history of the sport that have won these races at 3? different countries, different tracks, distances from 8-12f

if he has a lot to prove god help any horse that didnt do this, namely zarkava dancing brave dubai mill mill reef and any other horse that ever lived!!

Silly statement 'ilike'. You can't just select races and put that forward as a reason because no other horse ran in the same races ffs.
Whether you like it or not there are still those who think Sea the Stars still had something to prove and I am sure Timeform can be included in that number.
I believe, had the owner and trainer the courage to keep him in training, he would have cleaned up this year and silenced any 'doubting Thomas's'. You may disagree, that is your right.
Do I care whether the owner is more or less wealthy because of this? Frankly no, I do not care. Racing is the poorer imo.

racing is of course poorer for him retiring!!

and of course u can put forward races won as the reason when the races are the above mentioned!the top middle distances on turf in europe!what else did he have to prove? all im saying is if he has something to prove then so does every horse that the modern era!! only horse ever to win those races in a single 3yr old season, theres a reason hes the only one!!why has no other horse ever done this in the history of the sport?

brigust1 Joined: 07 Dec 01
Replies: 603 27 Aug 10 17:37 
Mr Mischief, can I quote to you from Nicholas Godfrey in yesterday's racing Post?
He says 'Sea the Stars, for his part, was aggresively campaigned throughout 2009, yet it was only at the time of his Arc success that he really started to bridge the great divide to the wider public'.

Thats Nick Goffery opinon maybe he is coming from a UK perspective aswell but if he had jumped on a plane and went to Leopardstown for the Champion Stakes or even before that to see the disappointment before and at that years Curragh Derby, his opinon might be very different.

Also Im interested to know the "huge number" that "still think he had a lot to prove"  certainly some of the worlds biggest breeding operations that bid massive money to stand him or the top breeders and owners who fought to get their mares in his first book didnt seem to think this way.
An Arc winner out of an Arc winner who happens to be one of the greatest broodmares of all time. He's a half brother to the previous years champion sire but more importantly unlike his half brother he had won Group 1's over 8, 10 and 12f.
He had nothing left to prove on the course for the breeder and that at the end of the day that is the goal in flat racing!

ian balding said sts was better than the great mill reef and id rather take his word having trained the horse so where do we go from here? godfrey saying a huge number think he has a lot to prove, who is this huge number? and since we're believing everyone who says anything i would think baldings view of the horse is far more accurate having trained the great mill reef as to even compare sts to his great would be something!!

nothing to prove!horse would slaughter any horse on the track today!the 3yr olds are worse than last years and the only horse i see giving him a race is PROBABLY canford over a mile and i bet he'd be one horse that canford wouldnt go past!!anyway thats irrelevant, he did everything asked of him and passed easily!

and to say that people only noticed him after the arc is the single most ridiculous thing ive ever heard on this forum and thats sayin something!a guineas and derby winner and then winning the rest b4 the arc!just a stupid thing to say!that is backed up with absolutely no evidence whatsoever!

Did STS have plenty to prove? Not in comparison to 99% of flat "champions."

But I don't think anyone can deny from an intrigue point of view there was plenty more to be found out about how good STS was and exactly what limitations, if any, he had. Intrigue, understandably, doesn't come into the thinking of any trainer or owner when they were dealing with a horse of that value.

A review of the wfa scale would have been a good thing after a horse like STS.... and no I am not mad.

'Mr Mischief, can I quote to you from Nicholas Godfrey in yesterday's racing Post?'

No, I'd rather you didn't as the columnists on there tend to be fairly full of s**t.

Time you started making up your own mind for a change, self proclaimed 'old fella'

Oh dear, such vitriol. Calm down. I didn't criticise Sea the Stars remember. I simply stated that it would, in my opinion, have enhanced his reputation had he stayed in training. Looking at the results so far this year I doubt anyone would dispute that. True? Perhaps in the back of your mind you think he would have been beaten. In that case there is no point to discuss.

And Mr Mischief that is my opinion. If you read any threads on this forum you will see that I am quite capable of forming my own opinion. Thank you.

Back to Sea the Stars.
For you believers can I say that I am not alone in thinking STS still had something to prove. On Timeform ratings he is joint 7th in the list. And that is higher than anything he produced on the racecourse. Personally I would also put him below Pientre Celebre and Nijinsky and alongside Montjeu in 10th. But that is me.

What you now need to ask yourselves before leaping to the keyboard is this. Could he be rated higher?
If the answer, for you, is 'no' then my point is lost and there is nothing more can be said.
If, however, the answer is 'yes' then my point is proven.

You must also consider that many on the list rated higher than STS had reached the zenith of their achievements but, in my opinion three horses namely Sea Bird ll, Pientre Celebre and Sea the Stars hadn't before they were rushed off to stud for the money.
Now you may defend the protection of the owners wealth if you wish but I am not for one minute concerned with owners and their wealth. I think racehorses are bred to race and should be allowed if physically possible to reach their full potential
irrespective of owners financial demands. They are quick enough to sieze the prestige of our classics to increase their personal wealth perhaps they should pay the full price for them.

brigust,Sorry but imo you are missing the point with this horse,have a good think about what you are saying,its not about owners wealth what races could he win iyo that would increase his value by 25%,in comparison to his stud earnings for that year,if you understand the breeding side of racing you will have your answer.

No PD, I am no missing the point. I do understand the breeding industry but it holds no place in my heart. I love horse racing, not horse breeding. I want to see racehorses fullfil their pontential when they are able to not only when it is financially viable. You watch the breeding pages if you wish, I will watch the horses race. After all they are called race horses, aren't they.
And inclosing can I add that the only reason you could believe that by running as a 4 year old would not have enhanced STS's reputation is because he could have been beaten. In that case he cannot be the champion you think. You cannot have it both ways.

brigust you have slightly changed tack from your original point. You first said that the owners made a 'huge' mistake by not keeping him in training. I would be interested to hear from you why you think they did. NOT your opinion of what you think he may have won or what rating he could have achieved but what mistake they made. What have they lost? They still have the most talked about and most widely accepted champion for several years, they also have him safe sound and well and they have the not inconsiderable amount of money earned from his noms this year.

To now change the discussion to one of what I think he would have achieved at 4 or whether we all think he would dominate or be beaten is a slightly different debate. He may have enhanced his reputation but in today's climate he would not feasibly enhance his stud fee but he may have ruined his chances of being physically able to cover. The owners would have lost a years fees as well. I think the owners made the correct decision. Whether it is the most PR friendly one for racing is a side issue and also not the point you made in your first post.

PD do you not think ratings relate to stud fees? By rushing to stud and accepting current (possibly reduced levels of fee due to the economic climate) market conditions the die is cast. Had STS remained in training there is/was a chance to enhance his standing and thus his fees. Only one year that can compound hugely over a number of years. Let us not forget the trainer and jockey stated he was still improving and injury free.
You seem to be looking short term whereas I am looking long term.
May I also make one point abundantly clear, I do not in fact care how much money the owners would have won or lost. But I do believe they fled in too much haste and I also hope it is a reminder to all future owners of champions that fleeing to stud prematurely may not, in fact, be the best policy.
You can defend their financial decision as much as you like but the facts are a 'race' horse has been deprived of the opportunity to show 'everyone' just how good he might have been. That opportunity only arises occasionally and I believe they owe a duty to their charge and the sport which gave them thier rewards to show some dignity and honour.
As I said earlier if you believe he is a true champion surely you would welcome the opportunity to prove to any doubters that you are right.

well firstly the ratings are a load of tosh and as u say just any opinion and are open to interpretation!!take dubai mill being rated above sts, the mind boggles!purely on the fact that he went and won his races by many lengths!could he have won the arc like sts did? no!

and itsnot a matter of keeping him in training for one more yr to enhance his fees!!one he'd only end up beating the same horses or the inferior 3yr olds this yr and 2 the risk of possible injury and even death!of course everyone would want to see him but when ur talking about sts  re stud, youre talking about a horse whom i  believe has the finest record in the game since it began!imo he'd had beat the same horses amd not by far so his rating would have been the same!

brigurst, IMO the only way his owners could have made STS a true'great' of the turf and enhanced his reputation was to have run in the St Leger and become a Triple Crown winner. Then he has no more questions to answer he would be then a better horse than Nijinsky and gone down as setting the benchmark for a champion.If he had achieved the TC along with his other races then you may have a point that his stud fee could have been larger. ATM he is 85k had he won the TC he poss could have been 100k. I don't really see what he could have won this season that would have increased his 85k fee. Ratings do not influence stud fees I am afraid. I refer again to your point that his owners made a huge mistake, the mistake they made was avoiding the St Leger, nothing else. Hawk Wing had a ridiculously high rating but no-one was under any illusion that he was better than Rock of Gibraltar, Dubai Mill another good example.

We will have to agree to disagree on this point then PD.

Was there any indication that STS may have soured, had he stayed in training? Was there a way that STS could have got his oats, between races, to keep him sweet?

I would say 'no' on both counts 'united'. His temperament always looked 100% and covering mares while training to race would be  impossible without putting both codes at massive risk. The rewards would definitely not match the risk.

Agreed that everything in his bearing indicated that he would have continued to enjoy racing, bigrust, but what is the massive risk implied if horses are allowed stud duties in tandem with racing?

Not sure the motives for retiring top class 3 year olds is entirely financial. Owners gain a great deal of personal satisfaction from having a horse with a record like Sea the Stars - and the idea of that record being tarnished at 4 is not a risk they want to take. I believe Zarkava was an example of this - there is no way the Aga Kahn retired her just so she could have an extra year of foaling in her.

I agree with that 100% A_T. There should be a rule written in the terms and conditions of the classic races and crown jewel races where an entry means they could not go to stud until five years of age. That would do more to promote flat racing than anything the Racing for Change mob could come up with.

Scrapping the wfa scale would do more than writing in a condition about not going to stud until 5 years of age.

I don't agree with that Jose.

Why give concessions to the older horses? The wfa scale has survived the test of time. And do you really think either STS or Zarkava would have raced at four years old because of a weight for age change? I sincerely doubt they would.
There are already lots of stipulations with regard to racing in certain races by adding another I believe racing and its followers would be the beneficiaries. Otherwise you have a very tiny minority gaining hugely at the expense of the vast majority.

Is there anyone who has an idea of a horse's priorities as a 4 year old? I remember Slip Anchor reappeared at 4 for the Jockey Club Stakes and it had turned sour on racing but everything in the bearing of STS suggests he would have continue to oblig his jockey, whatever the task. Once a stallion tastes the fruits of his prowess, though, does that spoil him for racing? Or keep him sweet?

A compromise might have been to go for the Breeders Cup

If John Oxx learned one thing from Dancing Brave it was avoid the Breeders Cup.

Only colt to get near Zarkava rear

A_T     29 Aug 10 11:49 
I believe Zarkava was an example of this - there is no way the Aga Kahn retired her just so she could have an extra year of foaling in her.

That is true,but in her case certain horses don't last forever,she was showing signs of having her own ideas about racing towards the end of the season,what on earth would there be to gain from seeing her going down the Sariska route, filly's by and large don't hold their form as well as the colts,this fact would not of escaped the Aga Khan so he made the right decision to retire her as a unbeaten champion.
With mares it is very different in terms of future stud value she can have only 1 foal each year,meanwhile STS has a 3 figure book,the scale of earnings in comparison to her is massive.
The idea of setting rules that any classic winner not being able to go to stud until he was 5 years,would only ruin them as the top colts would not contest them.

In terms of profitability then there could be no comparison between STS and Zarkava. However I think it could be argued Zarkava is in fact the much rarer and irreplaceable commodity to the owner / breeder.

what on earth would there be to gain from seeing her going down the Sariska route, filly's by and large don't hold their form as well as the colts,this fact would not of escaped the Aga Khan so he made the right decision to retire her as a unbeaten champion.

What difference does it make whether she retired an unbeaten champion or not? It's not like she could be a stallion - plus the Aga Khan is not going to be selling any of her foals any time soon. The Arc was the best run of her career and every chance she might have had a good 4 year old career especially now there is a good programme of Group 1s that are exclusive to fillies and mares - with a crack at the King George and Arc thrown in.

Basically I think the Aga retired her because it meant a lot to him personally to have an unbeaten champion and he could not bear the thought of her losing. That's fine she's his horse but it's shame for the rest of us. I like the Aga Khan seems a decent guy with principles who doesn't throw his money around at the sales but he is very defensive in the way he campaigns his best horses and the good ones almost never race on after 3.

Looks like I am disagreeing with you again PD.
You see you are working on the basis that everyone knows what the best horse will be. That is almost impossible to predict. Who could possibly have known pre 2 year old campaign what STS would achieve?
I suggest the owner at the time would have been quite happy to accept the rules and dream.

brigust, of course I am not saying that I know who the best horse of each generation is at the beginning of their 2yo campaign. But what I am saying that there are a number of horses each year that on pedigree alone would almost qualify for a stud career.This is especially true of fillies.I don't know how familiar you are with the practicalities of horse breeding but it is not always straightforward to get a mare in foal fresh out of training. Sometimes they need a year or moreoff before they will hold a pregnancy, (look at Soviet Song) imagine then further restricting that by not allowing them to be covered until they are 5. Add on the 11 mths gestation and the earliest a mare could produce her first foal is at age 6. She can probably breed until about the age of 20 and will have on average a barren year in every 4/5 years. So you have the potential of 10 foals. Add into that that she needs more time out of training before conceiving and you can see how quickly you are limiting yourself. Imagine if Urban Sea had been limited in such a way, or Hasili. It is ludicrous to suggest that the very best stock be hampered in their breeding careers and yet the lesser animals have no such restrictions!

Going back to colts, what would happen if there was a the most wonderfully bred colt that won the 2000gns, and then injured himself on the gallops (it happens, ask Harbingers connections) are you seriously expecting those owners to wait for TWO YEARS before breeding from him!!! How about top 2yos that place in the Classics but don't fully train on? I really think that you need to be a bit more realistic about this. Unfortunately until the breeding industry moves away from the desire for precocity there is little motivation for top class colts to stay in training. Darley/Godolphin have kept good horses into their 5 and 6yo seasons (Fantastic Light for example) but it does them no favors in the breeding shed as they have that 'older horse' stigma to overcome. It is very few the number of very good 2/3yos that Coolmore run at 4 and 5. That is for a reason and it is not just bad sportsmanship.

brigust1     29 Aug 10 17:44 
I don't agree with that Jose.

Why give concessions to the older horses? The wfa scale has survived the test of time. And do you really think either STS or Zarkava would have raced at four years old because of a weight for age change? I sincerely doubt they would.
There are already lots of stipulations with regard to racing in certain races by adding another I believe racing and its followers would be the beneficiaries. Otherwise you have a very tiny minority gaining hugely at the expense of the vast majority.

Why give concessions to older horses? Because in a sport, or a section of the sport (flat racing), where people complain about the champions not staying in training, (Zarkava, STS) a serious attempt to make them the "older horses" makes sense imo.

Can you write a condition (3yo's who are retired) into a race that they can't go to stud until the age of 5? Doubt it tbh. Legal challenges would be likely, the European pattern would refute it etc. It is not that I don't like it, but you could bet your life these horses would stand somewhere else.

I'm not stating my idea is perfect, or would definitely succeed, but at the very least it might tell us something interesting in relation to those champions.

Number One - if there was no wfa scale, would the connections of Zarkava and STS turn up for the Arc?
Number Two - if they did turn up, would they win?

If I posted a thread on here asking, "who would you back in a fictional Arc at level weights with STS aged 3 versus Dylan Thomas at 4?," I think most would go for STS. Because he was the perceived horse of a century, equine perfection etc. Many would think the wfa scale wouldn't matter with such a horse.

Arguably the perceived success of the wfa scale has seen the sport develop into the "breeders paradise." It is there to compare horses of different ages, but the truth is it is not able to do that currently. It is just 3 Vs the "weaker" 4 year olds.

Removing the wfa scale could be somewhat restrictive. 3yo's, who we would see win Guineas, Derby's etc, might not turn up for the open championship races. The average "guideline" 3yo's might not run in open company. But if the "exceptional" Derby winner of a certain year does not turn up for the major open championship races, and we can't get a real handle on how good they are, would the same horses' value at stud remain the same, decline or increase? I realise there are many possibilities - a 3yo only G1 winner put away until the following year; 3yo's still being retired as normal; or "exceptional" 3yo's who (in theory) now finish 2nd, 3rd or 4th becoming the new standard "retirements?"

A bit confused there PD. First you say how difficult it can be to get into foal straight after training then you say waiting would be wrong. Don't forget they would only be missing one season not two. The break, according to your thoughts could well be a good thing. In some cases it may even encourage the owners to race on, though I do agree Zarkava was becoming wayward, not so STS though.
And of course we could all come up with individual reasons for and against everything but that is not progress.
This would not be a fix all and would need some work but at least it is an idea worth consideration. Rules are there to be changed.
Unlike the wfa scale Jose. That has survived the test of time admirably so I see absolutely no reason why that should be tampered with. 
I really do not believe any top 3 year old retired to stud early because of the wfa scale. Whereas I know of quite a few top 3 year olds rushed off to stud prematurely.
Were they all a benefit to the breed PD?
Rock of Gibraltar
Henrithenavigator
Galileo
Kris Kin
North Light
Motivator
Authorized
New Approach
Sea the Stars.
Have we any documentation which states that their first season at stud was hugely beneficial?
Or did they just push the existing stallions lower down the list?

I really do not believe any top 3 year old retired to stud early because of the wfa scale.

Well it allows them to win the major races allowing for immaturity. It allows them to prove their selves in one season in people's minds when they are not "fully mature" on the basis of the "average" of horses' maturity.

brigust1 it's very hard to ask were Henrythenavigator,Motivator,Authorized,New Approach,Sea the Stars beneficial to the breed because only one of them has progeny racing and that is motivator his oldest are only 3 hard to judge him yet. And the rest only have foals and yearlings apart from STS. You could have used better examples.

When a filly comes out of training it takes them a long time to mature and develop a process of waiting til 5 could not work well some mares develop very quick but its all luck. If i retired a very good filly at 3 after being a very good 2 year old it is very hard to wait til she's 5 to cover her. Its just not possible to leave her out in a field til shes that age. Look at Rumplestiltskin what would have happened with her if she could not be covered til shes 5 keep her in training even though she didnt progress i dont think so.

Rip I do understand there are different points of view but I cannot see why a very, very select few who hold the crown jewels are allowed to flee to stud and by doing so deprive the very industry that supplied them with this wealth of some recompense.
Of course some horses have had enough. They have run there course but it is odd that the vast majority of sound racehorses run many times whereas the ones at the pinnacle only run seven or eight times. It is obvious this is not circumstance this is grabbing whatever you can and running off.
This does not happen to all of course. I personally think horses like Nijinsky and Dancing Brave had nothing left to prove and, because of their tough 2 year old and three year old careers had contributed fully to flat racing. Similarly Rock of Gib 13 runs(April-Oct)and Henrythenavigator 11 runs (May-Oct).   
It may not be a perfect solution but I do believe, for the benefit of the sport, keeping the top flight racing on the flat for longer is the way forward.
I am also sure that if you asked STS's owner, before he ever ran, if he would accept a restriction of going to stud in payment for the success he achieved he would grab it with both hands.
Just imagine (as a silly point) someone said to you you can win the £1m Scoop 6 this week but the restriction is you couldn't bet again for a year what would you do?

Prima Donna     29 Aug 10 22:24 
Unfortunately until the breeding industry moves away from the desire for precocity there is little motivation for top class colts to stay in training. Darley/Godolphin have kept good horses into their 5 and 6yo seasons (Fantastic Light for example) but it does them no favors in the breeding shed as they have that 'older horse' stigma to overcome. It is very few the number of very good 2/3yos that Coolmore run at 4 and 5. That is for a reason and it is not just bad sportsmanship.

brigust,re,read this again its obvious to me you are not a breeder and do not understand the bloodstock markets at all,its not just the money the owner makes its all the money other breeders can make by using the stallion.
I think some people still think of racing as purely a sport,when in fact it is an industry generating millions.

PD everything you write only compounds the problem. What part of 'frankly I don't care if a very, very small number of owners lose out' do you not understand. Repeating the same mantra is no way forward. The flat earth society were similar in their views.
Had STS not started breeding until next season do you really think the breeders who used him would have stood by idly? Of course not. Other, established stallions would have been used giving them a greater opportunity to prove themselves. And the same would apply to STS when the next batch of stallions come into the market place.
Purely out of interest tell me one instance, if you can, where a particular colt has been a huge benefit to the breeding industry as a whole singularly because he went to stud early and never raced on.

One that springs to my mind now off the top of my head is Danzig,I am going out now and will answer your points later!

Danzig retired due to injury after 3 races and never ran in, therefore never qualified for, crown jewel (classic races). He would have been exempt anyway but you cannot be sure had his stud career started at 5 that he would not have achieved what he did, in fact, achieve.

brigust, your question was "Purely out of interest tell me one instance, if you can, where a particular colt has been a huge benefit to the breeding industry as a whole singularly because he went to stud early and never raced on."

Not whether it 'qualified' for your scheme.

There are examples of sires producing good horses in their first crop, Sinndar and Galileo for example, that retired at 3. To say that any horses has been a huge benefit singularly because he went to stud early is almost impossible to quantify. How can you say how his mare quality would have been affected by remaining in training? How can you surmise his commerciality would be afected by having a lowner profile the following season? And commerciality is not just a matter of lining owners pockets is is a real factor in all levels of the Bloodstock marketplace. Less return on a stallion would mean less investment in stallion-potential colts as yearlings and a knock-on effect through the whole market,etc

To quote Andrew Caulfield writing about Doyen,and how his fee and mare numbers drastically dropped in his first 3 years at stud

"...To compound it all Doyen was a shadow of his former self when kept in training at five, and a blank final season is a sizeable obstacle."

Whilst you may have an insight into the breeding aspect, you clearly have no idea of the commercial factors that drive it. And like it or loathe it it goes hand in hand with racing. I am not saying that it would not be good both for racing and possibly the breed in general to have top horses tested after their classic season and to have more chances to compare one generation to the next, however I am pointing out how completely unworkable it would be to write that into any rule book and esp to limit classic horses in such a way.

That, of course, is your opinion PD. An opinion I wholeheatedly disagree with. It may please you or, perhaps may be an attempt by you to strengthen your point, for you to state that I obviously know nothing about the financial aspects of breeding when, in fact, you know absolutely nothing about me at all. You will note I have not made similar points about you. 
The very fact that you are unable to find a single occasion when a classic winner taken out of training prematurely has benefitted anything other than his owner only strengthens the point I am making. Using Doyen, (who won how many classics?), and Danzig does give the impression you are clutching at straws.

Am I indeed?Tell me then perhaps you could list the recent classic winners who ran at 4 years and beyond and then enhanced their reputation,the only one I can think of is High Chapparal and the fact with him is he was never as popular or as commercial as say Galileo,others that have nose dived at 4 are Sir Percy along with North Light thus slashing huge amounts off their stud value.

Please let me re-iterate my point PD 'frankly I don't care if a very, very small number of owners lose out'. Get it. The numbers would be in less than single figures each year whereas the beneficiaries who, may I add, provided the kitty and prestige they were chasing would be substantial.
And you are only reinforcing my point by showing that a large number of champion 3 year olds do, in fact, go to stud instead of repaying the system they have worked.
Of the 3 who remainied in training in the last decade all three had had their reputations tarnished before their season had ended.
It must also be said that Sir Percy was never that highly rated and the same applied to North Light. They both had won sub-standard Derby's whereas High Chaparral won a very good Derby but was beaten in the Arc. His 4 year old career, I am sure, did him no harm at all.   
You see PD. The world would not end if champion 3 year olds remained in training for another year. It would be good for flat racing. Racecourses, sponsors and racegoers would only benefit. And perhaps a true champion can be called a true champion without the 'what if's'.

PD, to get away from the hostility our differing points seem to have aroused let me take you back in time.
I saw in person Sir Ivor, Connaught and Remand, Nijinsky, Brigadier Gerard and Mill Reef along with many more of a slightly lesser standard.
I remember as if it were yesterday the 'Race of the Century' planned between Brigadier Gerard and Mill Reef. All through the winter each set of supporters aired their views with newspapers, magazines and TV channels following their every move.
Goodness knows how many hours of coverage and newsprint was spent right up until the time of Mill Reef's injury. Every time they ran as a 4 year old the courses were packed and the anticipation grew.
Mill Reef won the Prix Ganay first time out as a 4 year old by 10 lengths in a canter and then the Coronation Cup at Epsom.
Brigadier Gerard won the Lockinge, Westbury Stakes and Prince of Wales Stakes at Ascot by 5 lengths in course record time beating the Irish Derby winner giving him 1st 5lbs.
The scene was set for a mouth watering clash which sadly never arrived but the furore was intense and interest from inside and outside the sport was massive.
Move forward in time to 2010 with Sea the Stars and Fame and Glory plotting their way to a match. Possibly even Rip Van Winkle.
Flat racing could only benefit as a whole from these instances. It is just such a shame when a champion comes along that the owner is not the sportman John Hislop and Paul Mellon were.

The only thing that Sea The Stars could have done to enhance his profile was to win a Breeders Cup Classic thats the long and the short of it. And it was just not financially possible to risk a horse like Sea The Stars on a synthetic surface. brigust1 i'm not against you but you really have to look on the commercial side of horse racing

It is not me who isn't looking at the commercial side of horse racing RIP.
Just think how much racing as a whole would benefit from STS, for example, racing as a 4 year old. Whereas only a very, very small number may be out of pocket had he stayed in training and even that is only a 'may be out of pocket'. No-one knows what breeding will produce. And what happens if the STS progeny fails to reap any rewards or achieve any sales targets? You are just guessing that a few will make a lot of money.
And, of course, you are also working with the benefit of hindsight.
Had St Nicholas Abbey, for example, been the horse everyone anticipated, had won the 2000 Guineas and Derby and they met in the King George or Eclipse. What then? Also with F&G heading for the Arc looking stronger than last year what then? You see if STS came out of that lot successfully then that would definitely enhance both his ratings and his profile. You must agree with that surely?
But I am not picking on STS in particular I am just using him as an example. I think flat racing as a whole would benefit hugely if champion 3 year olds were made by either beneficial means or a condition of certain races that they remain in training as a 4 year old. No-one would die. The owners of STS's first season mares would simply use another stallion this year then use him next year. It may even lengthen his stud career, who knows?   
Look you guys, I am not being pig headed. I do think this would benefit flat racing as a whole. If you come up with a genuine reason, other than just simply the wealth of a few people who have singularly benefitted from a system all of racing has paid into then I would be happy to hear it.

brigust,I too remember those horses you see I'm as old as you what I also remember is that the Great Mill Reef was injured to the point he very nearly had to be put down and he then would of been a total loss to the bloodstock industry,is that a risk you would take with one so valuable?

Dubai Millenium, George Washington. The breed has survived. You cannot live in fear. No-one knows what the future holds.

But you could stand to lose an awful lot of money and keeping horses in training is not cheap as I'm sure you know I certainly do.

I'm no expert but it seems to me that nowadays a colt has to be retired at the top of it's game to ensure the best possible book of mares for it's first season as a sire. The market seems ruthless and if the sire has not made an impact within a couple of seasons the nomination fee drops like a stone.

brigust1,one more point for you to think about,take a horse like Fame and Glory he has remained in training this year because he did not achieve enough to stand as a commercial stallion last year,you will also be aware he has not run so often this year because each time he gets beat in a race it knocks value of him for his next job,the same does not apply for fillies take both Sariska and Midday both have been beaten this year but it will not really detract from their career as a broodmare,but the same cannot be said for the colt who may have won a classic at 3,they have overall revolutionised the older filly's and mares races the same sadly cannot happen for the colts as they need to protect future stud values,hence why most top class colts will try to avoid each other.Racing and the whole bloodstock markets have changed significantly since the days of Mill Reef and Brigadier Gerard.

Sorry, been out.

Still barking up the same tree PD. How much the owner's can earn or lose. Not interested.

I started off by saying a small number might suffer financially, possibly. Not definitely, only possibly. But flat racing definitely suffers when a champion leaves the scene prematurely.

You do not have a crystal ball, I can tell, so you are only guessing whether or not staying in training would be a loss making exercise. Sadly this whole theory about losses is based solely upon the potential sire failing to live up to expectations in his 4th year. Therefore you obviously feel that conning everyone that a horse is better than he really is, is OK because the owner cashes in. How ridiculous.

Montjue, one of my personal favourites and one I place ahead of STS in my list, may easily have suffered by staying in training but he assured his status in history in the breeding shed by results, not a con, a fact.

Similarly his dad, Saddlers Wells surpassed his racing record as a stallion where staying in training did him no harm. He may not have had the book of mares he would have had had he been a champion racehorse but his results from breeding made him a champion anyway.

Read your letter in today's R Post brigust1,a completely unrealistic approach in my view,

owner is not the sportman John Hislop and Paul Mellon were.Now I see your connection.That era is well in the past racing has moved on so much perhaps you haven't.

just reading thru the the thread and like A_T i am no expert when it comes to the breeding industry but ill just say this..


unlike other horses that have been mentioned such as the great dancing brave, mill reef, even dubai mill, sts achieved a succession of races that even they couldnt in their 3 yr old seasons (im not saying hes a better horse than them, thats a diff discussion), all of which of course stand towards his career as a stallion!now, imo like PD said, what else was there for him to win that would add to his stud value RELATIVE to the risk of running him as a 4 yr old and possibly risking injury even death!this is no ordinary horse, hes a 1 in 10 million imo! basically what im trying to say is, yes of course i would love to see him run at 4 but the races that he could win that would enhance his stud value (basically just the bcc and maybe the st ledger) are not worth the risk CONSIDERING WHAT HE HAS ALREADY ACHIEVED at 3!

put yourself in the owners shoes, youve just won all the races, your horse is valued at 50 million and now u have the chance to breed horses and add to the breeding industry a seemingly perfect thoroughbred, perfect genes and has done it on the track!at that moment, its not just about how much money u can make but also his importance to the breeding industry!

lets say u allow him to run at 4 and he has an accident and must be put down, imagine the not only financial loss but also the loss to the breeding industry!u had the chance to breed using a once in a lifetime horse and possibly the greatest that ever live, debatable as always but there is certainly some that put him right at the top, and i dont just mean a punter like me but people that are involved in horse racing!ian balding for one said he was better than mill reef, again just his opinion but that is where people see this horse in relation to the history of horse racing and imo the risk of possible injury at 4 is far to great inrelation to what he could add to his stud fee!!

of course i would love to see him at 4 but i actually feel in this instance the owner has a responsibility to ensure a horse of  his ability(granted he may not be a great stallion)  has the opportunity to breed with the possibility of breeding further champions!!we dont know this but he could be one of the most influential stallions in the history of the sport and to risk that would just be too great!

brigust1,If STS had stayed in training at 4 and then had done the same as Sariska,then his value would drop like a stone,breeders would shy away,that's a point that you don't seem to able to grasp,if also he had raced on and then pulled a stunt like her what then for his owner? Sit on him for another year at home doing nothing,before they could stand him?you don't make sense.