Post your favorite Horse(s) shots.

[Win]

A couple from a "reining" competition in Hurricane, UT. The folks are so serious, they practice constantly waiting to go into the arena.

 

[sparker1]

Kentucky

 

[Burnet44]

aTm vs Baylor

 

[West Coast Birder]

I didn't know they had collegiate horse riding competitions!

 

[sparker1]

War Front, Kentucky. His stud fee is $100,000.

 

[OhLook]

War Front, Kentucky. His stud fee is $100,000.

How much do the mares get? I mean, look at what they have to do to produce a colt.

 

[sparker1]

How much do the mares get? I mean, look at what they have to do to produce a colt.

You're inviting some wicked comments, but I'll be nice. The mares are owned and the owner earns whatever the offspring brings in, either through sale or eventual winnings. The mare actually gets the same as the stud...the thrill of it all.

 

[Cliff Hilbert]

How much do the mares get? I mean, look at what they have to do to produce a colt.

The mares get the right to bitch at the stud for the rest of its life because it didn't take care of or support the kids.

 

[OhLook]

You're inviting some wicked comments, but I'll be nice. The mares are owned and the owner earns whatever the offspring brings in, either through sale or eventual winnings. The mare actually gets the same as the stud...the thrill of it all.

Thank you. What I was trying to get at is that the deal seems awfully unbalanced. The stud's owner collects a huge fee, even though the stud's contribution is one and done. That huge fee is only the beginning of the mare's owner's expenses. Maintaining the mare through a pregnancy--the extra vet bills, feed, housing, everything--and then all the costs of raising the colt. All the risk is on the mare's side. What if no pregnancy results? Does the stud's owner keep the money, adding to the pile presumably earned already in prize money that would justify such a high fee?

 

[Cliff Hilbert]

 

[Cliff Hilbert]

 

[sparker1]

Thank you. What I was trying to get at is that the deal seems awfully unbalanced. The stud's owner collects a huge fee, even though the stud's contribution is one and done. That huge fee is only the beginning of the mare's owner's expenses. Maintaining the mare through a pregnancy--the extra vet bills, feed, housing, everything--and then all the costs of raising the colt. All the risk is on the mare's side. What if no pregnancy results? Does the stud's owner keep the money, adding to the pile presumably earned already in prize money that would justify such a high fee?

I understood your point, but had to push back a little. Realistically, I agree that the mare's owner is most at risk and suffers the most work. The stud's DNA is the most important factor in producing winners or losers, although the mare is also important. The mare's owner is truly a gambler. Secretariat never sired a big winner. The only guarantee is pregnancy. If the mare doesn't get pregnant, she has another go with the stud at no charge. The payoff for a good horse includes not only the winnings, but the potential of future stud fees. Buying a young colt/filly with good blood lines is sometimes a less expensive way to get a good race horse.

 

[OhLook]

I agree that the mare's owner is most at risk and suffers the most work. . . . The mare's owner is truly a gambler.

I suppose half the offspring are female, for an additional risk factor. Maybe using CRISPR to tinker with genes would improve the process.

"Fugue for Tinhorns" (it's relevant)

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[sparker1]

I suppose half the offspring are female, for an additional risk factor. Maybe using CRISPR to tinker with genes would improve the process.

"Fugue for Tinhorns" (it's relevant)

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Let's remember, the girls can run, too, although fewer fillies develop into champions (not being sexist, it's just factual). The whole business of thoroughbreds is a great crap shoot. The few great horses earn millions, then more at stud. Most just don't make it, so it's love of the business that keeps those owners in the game.

I enjoyed the video, TFS.

 

[West Coast Birder]

Let's remember, the girls can run, too, although fewer fillies develop into champions (not being sexist, it's just factual). The whole business of thoroughbreds is a great crap shoot. The few great horses earn millions, then more at stud. Most just don't make it, so it's love of the business that keeps those owners in the game.

I enjoyed the video, TFS.

I’m not very knowledgeable about horse racing, but don’t fillies have their own races, like human races that are gender-separated?

 

[fotoi]

Ireland

 

[sparker1]

I’m not very knowledgeable about horse racing, but don’t fillies have their own races, like human races that are gender-separated?

There are fillies only races, but they don't have a big payoff. I really am only aware of the ones that enter big races, like the Derby, and sometimes win.

 

[OhLook]

There are fillies only races, but they don't have a big payoff. I really am only aware of the ones that enter big races, like the Derby, and sometimes win.

The lower payoffs for fillies would be expected; this difference parallels the pay in women's sports. I didn't know fillies were allowed in the Derby. Like WC Birder, I'm uneducated about horse racing.

 

[sparker1]

The lower payoffs for fillies would be expected; this difference parallels the pay in women's sports. I didn't know fillies were allowed in the Derby. Like WC Birder, I'm uneducated about horse racing.

Please don't make it sound sexist. Like sports in general, pay is directly related to revenue brought in. Never do people say "it's female participants, let's underpay them".

Eleven fillies have won a Triple crown race, the three most important races for three-year olds. That's where the bigger purses are. There is a set of three races for fillies only, called the Triple Tiara. I suspect fewer people attend and bet on those races, since I had never even heard of it until now. That would naturally result in lower revenue and smaller purses.

 

[OhLook]

Please don't make it sound sexist. Like sports in general, pay is directly related to revenue brought in. Never do people say "it's female participants, let's underpay them".

I'm not making it sound sexist on purpose, although I suspect that stereotypes and archetypes and traditions about masculinity and femininity may be involved. Given that spectators are more interested in races where males predominate, why is that? Well, for any sport where success depends on strength and speed, males have the advantage if they belong to a species in which nature endows them, on the average, with larger size and bigger muscles. For humans, some sports are free of this built-in asymmetry. Women, even small ones, can become stars in gymnastics and figure skating, for instance, which value agility and the ability to design an artistic routine (they do have to be strong, though).

I could say more, but people come here more to look at photos than to read opinions.