Daily Racing Form National Digital Edition
Jockey Club proposal to limit books not supported by all
LEXINGTON, Ky. – Last week, The Jockey Club floated a controversial proposal to limit stallions to 140 mares bred in a single North American season, and to some in the breeding industry, the measure could not come soon enough.
“It’s something that needs to be done, now,” said Bernie Sams, the longtime stallion manager at Claiborne Farm. “In fact, it needed to be done 15 years ago.”
To The Jockey Club, the convergence of two trends – a startling 45 percent contraction in the foal crop since 2007 and a more than 50 percent drop in the number of stallions covering mares over that same time frame – represents a critical threat to the health of the breed. As a result of those two trends, the 43 stallions that covered 140 mares or more during the 2018 foal crop season accounted for an astounding 27 percent of all mares covered. In 2007, that same population of stallions accounted for 9.5 percent of all mares covered.
“The combination of these changes has resulted in a substantial increase in the percentage of foals produced by a discrete segment of stallions, signaling a worrisome concentration of the gene pool,” The Jockey Club said in its statement announcing the proposal.
Though no one has presented anything but anecdotal evidence for actual pathologies that have resulted from inbreeding in Thoroughbred horses, the dangers are real, according to those that support the proposal.
“I read some of the things, and it’s pretty terrifying,” said Will Farish Jr., who manages his family’s Lane’s End Farm in Central Kentucky. “It’s not something that I had even considered before. But if some of this is even remotely the case, then it’s even more important to do this as quickly as possible.”
Lane’s End stood five stallions in 2018 that went over the proposed cap. None of those five covered more than 157 mares.
“We’d be very comfortable going back to 140,” Farish said.
That opinion, however, is not universally shared – perhaps understandably so, considering several farms would see their annual revenues decline by nearly $20 million under the new proposal, using a crude analysis based on stud fees and the 2018 report of mares bred. And although The Jockey Club is looking for a wide-ranging impact on the gene pool due to the restriction, the cap itself, in practical terms, would significantly hurt only a handful of farms that account for the lion’s share of stallions covering more than 140 mares each year.
Of the 14 stallions that covered the most mares in 2018, 13 stand at just three Central Kentucky farms – Spendthrift, Coolmore
(whose Kentucky farm is called Ashford), and Darby Dan. Officials of Coolmore and Darby Dan declined to comment last week on the proposal, but Spendthrift’s general manager Ned Toffey bristled at the notion that The Jockey Club was proposing to get involved in what has, until now, been a matter between stud farm and mare owner.
“Our position is that we have made no secret about the number of mares that our stallions breed, and breeders can make that choice about whether they want to use our stallions or not,” Toffey said. “That’s their choice.”
The leading stallion by mares bred in 2018, Into Mischief, stood at Spendthrift. An established 14-year-old son of Harlan’s Holiday who is leading the general sire list this year, Into Mischief covered 245 mares in 2018 at a cost of $150,000 a mare. While some of those matings may not have led to a transfer of payment due to lifetime breeding rights held by some breeders in the stallion and other aspects of the stallion business, a simplified calculation of the loss in annual revenue to Spendthrift for that single stallion is just north of $15 million.
“He breeds a large book, but he does it with ease,” Toffey said. “Into Mischief wouldn’t know what to do with himself if he was breeding 140.”
Bigger books, waning numbers
In 2003, the first North American crop of the Coolmore stallion Giant’s Causeway was 154 foals from 213 mares bred. That gaudy number produced by a top-class stallion meant that the big-book era in Thoroughbred breeding had begun.
In the 1960s and 1970s, stallions were often syndicated for 30 to 40 shares. That number expanded to 60 by the early 1990s, but advances in breeding science and stallion management, growth in international racing opportunities and shipping, and the obvious ability to draw far more revenue from a stallion during one season put upward pressure on book size for a decade.
In 2003, 4,041 stallions covered at least one mare, according to Jockey Club statistics. Ten years later though, after a global recession that weeded out thousands of marginal stallions and mares, the total number of stallions covering at least one mare dropped to 2,178.
The trend continues. From 2016-18, the number of stallions covering at least one mare contracted another 26.5 percent, from 1,783 in 2016 to 1,311 in 2018. Some states saw their numbers of stallions cut in half over that period.
To some stallion managers, part of the blame for the contraction is due to the trend of first-year stallions covering enormous books of mares. That policy is easy to justify – a larger book of mares for a new stallion gives a stallion owner a better chance of producing a top-class horse that could establish the sire for a long-term career in the breeding shed.
But many stallion managers – many of whom declined to speak on the record due to concerns about their comments being viewed as critical of their peers – are now pushing back against that idea. To those critics, the policy of come-one, come-all for first-year stallions is robbing other stallions of a chance to establish themselves after the first-year frenzy has worn off.
“What we’re seeing is that we’re all struggling to get mares to those stallions that are in their second or third years,” one stallion manager who supports the cap said, even though several stallions at his farm bred more than 140 mares in 2018. “That can’t be good for the breed. We have stallions out there that should be given a chance, but everyone is running to the first-year stallions.”
Claiborne Farm’s Sams said that a limitation on book size would definitely benefit struggling stallions. Claiborne has generally been conservative with its stallions – its leading stallion War Front covered 82 mares in 2018 – but it also has several stallions with book sizes greater than 100.
“I think it’s in all the farms’ best interests to try to limit the book sizes,” Sams said. “There’s horses out there that get retired and get sent somewhere today that if the book sizes were lower they’d get a chance to breed 75 or 80 mares. They’d have an opportunity to make it now.”
There’s also the impact of supply and demand changes because of the cap. Even critics of the cap acknowledge that stud fees would go up for many stallions currently covering more than 140 mares. If there’s less supply, the demand curve shifts to a higher price.
“What would Into Mischief stand for if he was breeding 140?” said Toffey, of Spendthrift Farm. “It would probably be a much different number. But that would also price out some very good breeders that have supported him all along the way.”
Some of the criticism of The Jockey Club proposal is not based purely on the financial impact of the cap. Those critics say The Jockey Club put some farms deliberately in the line of fire.
“If The Jockey Club was serious about this, then it would have announced the cap and said, ‘Here it is, live with it’,” said one farm manager who did not want to be named criticizing the organization. “Instead you get this proposal that’s going to be talked about and talked about in the press, and people getting on either side of it, with some farms caught in the crossfire.”
Toffey said that The Jockey Club did not include Spendthrift Farm in any discussions about the proposal, despite the fact that the breeding industry was hearing rumors that Jockey Club members were discussing the cap over the summer. He also said that The Jockey Club has not shared studies that it has cited in its decision to propose the cap.
“We’re a significant player in the industry, and [Spendthrift owner B. Wayne Hughes] has been involved in this industry for a very long time and he’s a respected voice,” Toffey said. “It’s disappointing that there was no conversation with us on the subject.”
In an emailed response to questions, The Jockey Club said that the organization’s stewards “believe it is premature to consider releasing its research but they may do so if they conclude it would materially benefit discussion of the proposed rule.”
Toffey and others also were critical of the specific cap, 140 mares, calling the number “arbitrary.” Perhaps not coincidentally, that number is the same one the Standardbred industry landed on when it put a cap on mares bred in 2009 in an effort to diversify its own gene pool.
The Jockey Club said in its response: “The stewards considered historic breeding practices, health concern for the stallions, and the stewards’ experience as owners and breeders,” and that “to offer a proposal, a number had to be included.”
So what’s next? Jockey Club officials have said that they expect the proposal to be discussed for at least a month before the organization decides on a course of action. For some stallion farms facing the potential of severe cuts in revenue, the stakes are high. But for some supporters, the stakes for the health of the breed are even higher.
“All you have to do is look at the trend lines,” said Walker Hancock, the fourth-generation of his family to lead Claiborne Farm, and a Jockey Club member. “We’re spiraling out of control. We’re breeding ourselves into a corner here, and it’s only going to get worse if something’s not done.”