Barbaro Update: Not all that good

Rokeby Forever · Postby **Rokeby Forever** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:37 am

Could it be that Dynaformer isn't a "sire of sires" because so many are gelded and were never thought of as becoming sires? Now that his fee is $125,000, we'll see if folks put the scissors away and see if his good ones make it to the breeding shed.

Tucumcari · Postby **Tucumcari** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 am

sprucie wrote:If both he and his 1/2 brother Holy Ground have been "retired" because of injury/unsoundness, why would anyone breed to either one?!?!?

Because common sense does not prevail.

Rococoms · Postby **Rococoms** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 12:23 pm

I've heard of this video of him walking several times, but haven't found it- where was it posted?

Barbaro06 · Postby **Barbaro06** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:09 pm

I do not want to be pessimistic, but I believe the inevitable is going to happen. Yes, he's made it this far, but, as many of you have pointed out, what kind of quality of life is he going to have? And what quality of life is he having now? Yes, we prayed and hoped and we got the miracle of his leg being mended but then his other leg/hoof went bad. Laminitis is bad juju period.

I hope when the time comes the decision is made swiftly. I believe the humans that tended to him have done all they can for him.

JMO

horsenuts · Postby **horsenuts** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:14 pm

Barbaro06 wrote:I do not want to be pessimistic, but I believe the inevitable is going to happen. Yes, he's made it this far, but, as many of you have pointed out, what kind of quality of life is he going to have? And what quality of life is he having now? Yes, we prayed and hoped and we got the miracle of his leg being mended but then his other leg/hoof went bad. Laminitis is bad juju period.

I hope when the time comes the decision is made swiftly. I believe the humans that tended to him have done all they can for him.

JMO

Agree, it doesn't sound good what with the laminitic foot. Only so much they can do and they have given it a gallant effort by all involved. Thoroughbreds are very fragile animals due to their inbreeding etc.

Rokeby Forever · Postby **Rokeby Forever** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:33 pm

I think his short future was sealed as soon as he pulled up and Prado jumped off. But, look what equine science has learned from the Barbaro experience. Horses now awaken from anesthesia in swimming pools due to Ruffian's misfortune - something good can come out of something tragic. Maybe what Barbaro has endured will save many an equine life in the future through better knowledge and understanding of his injury.

This horse sure does have a heart of gold...I don't think many, if any, humans could endured the last 7 months as well as Barbaro.

Sam · Postby **Sam** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:49 pm

sprucie wrote:If both he and his 1/2 brother Holy Ground have been "retired" because of injury/unsoundness, why would anyone breed to either one?!?!?

That leg didn't break because he was unsound. He took a bad step. Shit happens. This isn't an injury I would use to disqualify him as a stallion based on the potential for unsound offspring.

As a general rule, I am 100% behind allowing AI. It will NOT affect the high end market like people think it will. We will NOT suddenly see 8 million brokedown Storm Cats every year... think about it. Just how many people in the world have the kind of money to spend 6 million on 12 mares every year... never mind actually having 12 mares worth sending to him.

AI will affect the stallions standing for $100k or less because it will allow people to spend a little more on their stud fee if they don't have to ship the mare halfway across the country to get the best stallion. There will be a gradual upward shift in the numbers as mares normally bred to $5k stallions move up to the $10k stallions, $10k move to the $15k, $15k to 20k and so one. The ones it will REALLY effect are the cheap $500 stallions who probably shouldn't be standing at all.

I know there is one stallion owner here that hates the idea of AI (I forget why) and what it will do to her stallion... what seems to be forgotten is that just because something is allowed doesn't mean a person HAS to use it. If a stallion owner refuses to do AI, so what. If the stallion is of quality, they will still draw mares.

As for the fear of Embryo screening, et al.... AI is (relatively) cheap... embryo screening is not. I'll worry about that when it actually becomes cheap enough that every breeder can do it.

Tairaterces · Postby **Tairaterces** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:57 pm

Sam wrote:
sprucie wrote:If both he and his 1/2 brother Holy Ground have been "retired" because of injury/unsoundness, why would anyone breed to either one?!?!?

That leg didn't break because he was unsound. He took a bad step. Shit happens. This isn't an injury I would use to disqualify him as a stallion based on the potential for unsound offspring.

As a general rule, I am 100% behind allowing AI. It will NOT affect the high end market like people think it will. We will NOT suddenly see 8 million brokedown Storm Cats every year... think about it. Just how many people in the world have the kind of money to spend 6 million on 12 mares every year... never mind actually having 12 mares worth sending to him.

AI will affect the stallions standing for $100k or less because it will allow people to spend a little more on their stud fee if they don't have to ship the mare halfway across the country to get the best stallion. There will be a gradual upward shift in the numbers as mares normally bred to $5k stallions move up to the $10k stallions, $10k move to the $15k, $15k to 20k and so one. The ones it will REALLY effect are the cheap $500 stallions who probably shouldn't be standing at all.

I know there is one stallion owner here that hates the idea of AI (I forget why) and what it will do to her stallion... what seems to be forgotten is that just because something is allowed doesn't mean a person HAS to use it. If a stallion owner refuses to do AI, so what. If the stallion is of quality, they will still draw mares.

As for the fear of Embryo screening, et al.... AI is (relatively) cheap... embryo screening is not. I'll worry about that when it actually becomes cheap enough that every breeder can do it.

Hi Sam,

I have a question about your theory. What makes you think that the stallion owners will lower their stud fees if allowed to AI? Why should they? Isn't that a pretty big assumption?

Just wondering . . . . . . . . .

Thanks,
Tairaterces

Sam · Postby **Sam** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:19 pm

Tairaterces wrote:I have a question about your theory. What makes you think that the stallion owners will lower their stud fees if allowed to AI? Why should they? Isn't that a pretty big assumption?

Where did I say stallion owners would lower their stud fee?

Stallion owners won't, but the MARE owners will upgrade the stallion they go to. If you breed to a $5k stallion now because you have to spend $5k to ship the mare to him and board her there, you will breed to a $10k stallion if AI is allowed because you can keep the $5k ship/board fees and use it to a stud fee.

sprucie · Postby **sprucie** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:28 pm

Sam,

I agree that it probably was a bad step for Barbaro, but when his 1/2 brother is also retired due to unsoundness, it would make me only send a mare if she and her entire family was VERY sound. Yes stuff happens, but to two sons? Maybe the mare is passing on some unsoundness?

As far as AI, I would be able to pick a stallion in any state, or in Europe, and NOT have to subject the mare to all the stresses of travel with a foal at her side. I've done AI with WB crosses, and it is soooo much easier to go to the fed-ex station, and pick up the "package". No stress for the mare, and that usually translates to getting in foal easier. As far as quality, I don't think that will go down, and with all the stallion possibilities, the foals produced can have more genetic diversity.

Sam · Postby **Sam** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:10 pm

sprucie wrote:I agree that it probably was a bad step for Barbaro, but when his 1/2 brother is also retired due to unsoundness, it would make me only send a mare if she and her entire family was VERY sound. Yes stuff happens, but to two sons? Maybe the mare is passing on some unsoundness?

But it ISN'T "two sons".

ONE son for a soundness issue, ONE son for a bad step. Barbaro is not a soundness issue so to make your "two sons" comment is totally incorrect.

BJ · Postby BJ » Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:05 pm

Sam wrote:
sprucie wrote:I agree that it probably was a bad step for Barbaro, but when his 1/2 brother is also retired due to unsoundness, it would make me only send a mare if she and her entire family was VERY sound. Yes stuff happens, but to two sons? Maybe the mare is passing on some unsoundness?

But it ISN'T "two sons".

ONE son for a soundness issue, ONE son for a bad step. Barbaro is not a soundness issue so to make your "two sons" comment is totally incorrect.

Every trainer I've talked to says suspensory injuries are rarely an inherited soundness issue. It is usually training related or conformation related. According to the database, the brother was retired due to suspensory injury. Suspensory injuries can also happen as a result of a bad step, especially on turf, IMO.

So perhaps...just perhaps, we are jumping the gun on the "soundness" argument with this family.

Sam · Postby **Sam** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:14 pm

BJ wrote:Every trainer I've talked to says suspensory injuries are rarely an inherited soundness issue. It is usually training related or conformation related. According to the database, the brother was retired due to suspensory injury. Suspensory injuries can also happen as a result of a bad step, especially on turf, IMO.

So perhaps...just perhaps, we are jumping the gun on the "soundness" argument with this family.

Exactly.

I hate, Hate, HATE people telling me a horse is unsound. The vast majority of the time they are too lazy to recognize that the horse is unsound due to HUMAN INTERFERENCE and not because the horse is genetically predisposed to physical ailments.

"That horse is unsound"
"Why?"
"Back issues."
"Meaning?"
"He has a bad back."
"Yeah, I got that. WHY?"

Answer #1: "Degenerative discs in the back" = Genetic issue. Not necessarily inheritable.

Answer #2: "I over-worked the horse, ran it when I shouldn't have and in general don't know what I'm doing so I ignore all signals the horse is in pain, destroyed his back and made him useless for racing purposes" = Dumbass trainer. The horse isn't unsound, the trainer is.

Trainers telling me a horse is unsound is a cheap, easy and LAZY way to deflect blame.

BJ · Postby BJ » Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:26 pm

But Sam...do you REALLY have an opinion :lol:

More trainer vocabulary:

Soft boned = I trained 'em too hard and too young and I'm too egotistical to admit it.

I've watched entire 1st and 2nd crops have that excuse used on 'em

Funny how the only ones that weren't soft boned, were trained by someone else. :roll:

Sam · Postby **Sam** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:41 pm

BJ wrote:More trainer vocabulary:

Soft boned = I trained 'em too hard and too young and I'm too egotistical to admit it.

I laughed at the last idiot to tell me a horse was "soft-boned".

No such thing.

Brittle bones, maybe, but there were be different indicators/issues and the horse would NEVER stand up to even the prep work of a yearling/2yo-I-T sale, never mind make it to a race track for serious training. Brittle bones, the horse would be dead before it was 18 months old because it would have fractured its pelvis/destroyed its spine/shattered its legs or any number of other things during its foal months when they are most prone to trying to commit suicide by stupidity/youthful exuberance.

A 10 month old foal with "brittle bones" is the equivalent of an 8yo with progeria.