Excellent point. I like to believe there are enough good minds in this industry to figure it out.
If I may add another thought to this discussion. Everyone feel free to correct me if my facts are off or if you feel I am generalizing too much.
Back in the 80\'s, then Pres. Reagan changed tax laws that radically effected ownership in the thoroughbred industry. Many tax-breaks were taken and away, and as a consequence many of the smaller, old school farms disappeared. At the time, many of them raced their homebreds, they could take care of their turnouts and layups themselves, and finally they could retire them. Those farms that survived had a hard time and most had to change their business model to do so. A lot of stock went to sale. As change begets change, a new ownership model came into being, namely large partnerships composed of mainly fans, but few, if any horseman but those in the management of it. The dominant profile of ownership changed. These partnerships, for legitimate business reasons, had to predicate their model on a quick turnaround because a large percentage of their clients were either not of the mind or means to invest in a horse for 3 or 4 years before it could get to a race, and then, it might not. It was important not to let these new owners sour on the business. After all, as everyone knows, the owners write the checks. A return on investment had to be quick if this model was to succeed.
So the nature of breeding changed. The era of \"cheap speed\" was born. and, I believe, drugs became more prevalent to keep them running with less turnout and time in general allowed to the horses. Lasix opened the door to raceway medications. (One of its uses was, and continues to be as a masker to other drugs administered outside of the rules.)
SoCal, your point is very important. Especially about the need for thoughtful transition in the breeding shed. That is where it all starts.
The business can change again.
