Hi Dan,
I'm interested to hear your thoughts on why you think we dont need it and how the industry will benefit from removing it?
Cheers,
Mitch.
the title of this thread ( Removing 2yo racing) is obviously going to get a few people off side, but I ask people to step back and take a breath before launching anything.
Firstly I think we should honestly ask the question...why did anyone think racing 2yo's was a good option.
Secondly, how did this actually get off the ground in a "democracy"
and third,
how on earth have so many people been seduced into thinking the 2 yo racing hype was sustainable in our particular horse game?
cheers,
Dan
Hi Dan,
I'm interested to hear your thoughts on why you think we dont need it and how the industry will benefit from removing it?
Cheers,
Mitch.
G'day Mitch and Jamie,
I posted three questions in the thread, would you like to have a go at providing your opinion on those?
the questions are basically,
Why? ( did we even start racing 2yos)
How? ( who/what caused the big $$$ for 2yo racing)
Sustainability? ( how much longer will it take to kill every owner out of the game)
Cheers,
Dan
2YO racing in both codes can be defined by one word - GREED.
It's another example of the "get rich quick scheme" which is so prevalent in today's world.
If 2YO racing is held what should happen is that the prize money for any 2YO race should not be greater than the base prize money for the meeting.
No Pacing Gold, Breeders Crown, Golden Slipper, Blue Diamond etc. type races should be allowed.
I am not against 2YO racing but I am dead set against the amount of focus & prizemoney that is thrown at it..
Way too many impressive 2YO's & 3YO's end up disappearing into the "stats" vortex not to mention the "wastage" in general.
I think the sport would be far better off spreading the prizemoney across the board..I guarantee we would see alot more genuine FFA horses
& most importantly a bigger pool of horses which inturn means more participants at every level which our sport is crying out for.
Its such a ludicrous situation when you think about it...a handful of horses racing for $100K with only 1 or 2 capable of winning it(1 in QLD)
when the true battlers,which make up a big majority of our sport,are out there racing week in week out for 2 fifths of ****all
I totally agree, not so much the removal of 2yo racing, but the removal of feature races.
I believe that a 2yo is not physically ready to race without significant wear and tear.
You can talk to most in the industry and they will agree - "but I have to, that is where the money is"
Seeing as though we are being controversial. I cannot remember his name or how long ago it was (I am old enough to have memory problems when it comes to details!) but I do remember a leading American trainer who specialized in 2yo's and then moved them on - no matter how good they were. He believed there was a greater chance of ability and legitimate training skill prevailing in 2yo races and he was not prepared 'to compete with the chemists' in the older races!
Have to agree with the big money for two year olds being removed. High probability that you will not have a horse as a 3, 4 or 5 year old if over-raced as a 2 year old and I don't think the industry can afford this.
1) One extra year earning income is better than paying costs for no return. Cue short term investment type whinge. So what? If trainers have a horse up and pacing and ready to race at two why should he have to turn it out just so an arbitary date on the calendar tells him his horse is now ready?
2) Wouldn't disallowing 2yo racing be more against democracy? Should have the freedom to race 2yos. Short term investment would be a key one. Cue whinge. But what's wrong with that?
3) 2yo racing has been sustained for a long time now and is growing pretty healthily compared to industry as a whole. Bit rich saying 2yo racing is killing owners out of the game? Any evidence or even a statement on why you think so?