Sure. Winstar does very likely retire Chrome early if they were the owners of him. They are in the breeding business first and foremost with their racing operations being secondary afterall. They are also a much, much more respected group when it comes to the breeding establishment than was the start-up partnership that owned Chrome, so because of who they are and the influence they had, they would have been able to command the dollars had they owned Chrome. Remember one of the partners of Chrome went on a ridiculous rant after his horse lost the Belmont, and the other partner also embarrassed himself the next year with his comments during the Eclipse awards. Both of them made a fool of themselves in front of the racing establishment, who were likely quite reluctant to do any business with them. But this is all a moot point anyways. Winstar isn't in the business of associating themselves with horses who had the cheap bloodlines that Chrome had.
You're right, though, there has been a ton of changes over the last 50 years or so when it comes to the amount horse race nowadays. At least for the top quality horses of today since. In the claiming ranks we still see horses every day who have had 50+ races under their belt. The amount of money in the breeding game has certainly played a big part of why the top modern horses only race a limited amount compared to yesteryear. Back then the breeding game was very different as far as how much money was in it, and in fact, it wasn't all that uncommon for horses to perform as both a stallion and a race horse at the same time. One of the more famous horses in history, Seabiscuit, performed as a stallion and then was back to the races according to Laura Hillenbrand's book on him. That practice isn't all that uncommon when it comes to other forms of racing either even today, especially in harness racing. We also have modern "medication" that has a great effect on the modern thoroughbred as well, as there is a recovery period for the horse after every "shot" that horses back then didn't have to deal with. Because of the amount of lasix being used, and things like EPO shots and the like, these modern top horses simply aren't capable of running the way they used to. They'd all be dead of a heart attack if they tried simply because of how these medications turn their bloood into something more akin to red gravy rather than blood. The more shots a horse gets the worse it'll be over the long haul. Back then trainers were also more willing to race their horses "into shape" meaning that they'd get their workouts by entering them in races often whereas today trainers are more reluctant to race their horses into shape and instead are much more reliant on workouts to do that job. But yes, because of the crazy amount of money there is in breeding, owners are certainly much more protective of their asset than they used to be, no doubt.
Having the horses with star power retire early is only one of the many problems with horse racing, though. As you know, the horse racing industry lives and dies with it being almost entirely a gambling based sport, and that's what the sport needs to fix. That's what's needed for it to thrive. People like us who'll put their money on the line if we have an opinion to express with our dollars. Promote the sport for what it is to new people, and quit alienating those who've already made the choice to invest their money in it in the process. What do they do when the sport has the most eyes on it every year? They promote fashion and recipes for awful tasting drinks for 90% of the broadcast. 10% of the broadcast is focused on the horses and their connections, although even that is done with pageantry in most cases. Almost 0% of the broadcast is focused on what drives this sport and that's it's gambling. That shit is utterly ridiculous. How do the powers-that-be expect to attract new people willing to invest in the sport with bullshit like that? They're not as the common person has no interest in crap like that, and at the same time it has zero appeal to people like us who are already invested. There's always been at least a small element of pageantry to the Derby broadcast as far as I can remember (35+ years), but it is way more prevailent nowadays than back then. Way more.
One thing that has always puzzled me about horse racing is why other tracks don't follow the Breeders Cup model. Or the more recent Belmont Stakes day or Travers day models. For me, there are three racing days that I look forward to way more than others. I'm talking about the day of racing being offered up rather than just one particular race since I of course look forward to the Derby and other races every year as well. And it's those three there because the racing is so good on each of them top to bottom. The BC is a huge financial success every year that sees gambling of $100 million plus all the time. That's not including ticket prices, parking, concession, or anything other source of revenue for the track. Just what is gambled on the day. That's a huge amount of money. And for a relatively new event that only goes back 35 years or so. But this is where the "if you build it they will come" line of thinking comes into play, and that's been proven by the recent success of both the Belmont and Travers day cards. Both of those tracks did some shuffling with their schedules over the last decade and both tracks are getting paid off for those decision and in a big way. This year the Belmont gambling handle for it was the 2nd highest in history behind only 2014's card. Ditto for last year's Travers day car, which was also the 2nd highest they had in history. The Belmont day produces $75-$125 million gambling handles and the Travers day card produces $50 million gambling handles. Plus the extra revenue for both tracks. Such a simple concept right? Card some great races all throughout the day featuring the top horses in training and what do you know, people will want to bet on them. Well, duh. I give the greedy crooks and idiots at Pimlico a hard time every year when the Preakness comes around because those morons don't understand that simple concept. They've been given a golden opportunity (and undeserved, in my opinion) every year to put their best foot forward on that day yet can't see it because those running the track have their heads so far up their own asses. The track has been struggling for a number of years now and instead of following the "if they build it" concept they've taken the opposite approach by decreasing the quality of races/racing on that day (the Preakness is the only graded stakes race they have on the day) while trying to gouge the customers with ridiculous ticket/parking prices and by raising track takeout to one of the highest in the country. Instead of electing to make the effort to try to improve the on-track product they were offering they elected the path of trying to take, take, take. I hope they got their fill of taking because the Preakness will be be finding a new home some time within the next few years whether it's Laurel Park or Monmouth. This year's Preakness that we didn't see will be one of the last ones the track hosts. Belmont and Saratoga will never have to face such a thing in our lifetimes with their biggest races because they understand that giving something back to those invested in the sport from a gambling perspective and not trying to gouge the customer at the ticket window (both the Belmont and Travers are significantly cheaper to attend than the Preaknesss) is a whole lot more beneficial to their bottom line in the long run. Offering great racing has proven to net great returns for those who have tried it, and I've always been surprised other tracks don't follow suite.
Sorry for this big rant, but that is only one idea/complaint of many that I have. And one that those involved in this multi-billion dollar industry can certainly afford to do. But I'll leave it there since this post has already gone on way too long as is.
Epic rant, bro! LOVED IT and so on point on so many things.
I had no idea Perry went off the rails at the Eclipse Awards. I hate using the word cringe but this speech is the apotheosis of that word:
I've too got a ton of ideas for cleaning up the horse race world, but mostly from the horse perspective, as horses and horse care are my business.
For starters, in all other disciplines, it is well known that you don't want to start serious training until after 4; put a few rides in break at two, leave them off at three, pick up soft training at 4 and start the more physical work at 5 and after. The results are way better for the horse, so you won't need Lasix and all this other junk to keep them together. And racing is the most the most physically demanding horse sport of all, they are running as fast as they can for as long as they can, and all this wear and tear is happening when they should not even be carrying weight or be ridden - hence why it is well known off the track thoroughbreds are the worst horses to adopt and are riddled with health issues. Use the time at three and four to put ground work foundations on them, so they are better trained, better on the track, more controllable and can find homes after racing.
If you talk to a vet or a natural horsemanship expert, they will all will tell you that essentially everything done in the race world is bad for the horse: from the constant stalling, early starting, corrective shoeing, to the sugary sweet fed they give them, to pulling forage pre and post workouts (90% of racehorses have ulcers as a recent study shown -which are HORRIFICLY painful and grossly effect performance), over reliance on gear\pain devices rather than training, the list goes on all day.... So, it's no wonder these horses are doped up, shot up and end up lame before they at the equivalent to a 9 year old child.
The breeding industry is totally f'd up too, as many mare owners don't have the money or means to go to top studs, so they end up with poor bloodlined foals that run like donkies and a poor horse that is unadoptanle later. Maybe artificial insem could help prevent this (higher quality bloodlines), on top of putting a cap on stallions allowed and foals to be born? Most tb's never make it to the track even, and many are slaughtered right after racing (tho,that part is covered up after PETA blew the lid off). For every horse that is a black type winner on the track, ten more end up in the slaughter house, and pthus the thoroughbred is the most slaughtered horse in the world. Chances are if you've had horse meat, it is thoroughbred. And the breeding pool is also WAY over saturated, with the Byerly Turk line being almost wiped out historically and horses like Northern Dancer and Raise a Native being in almost every bloodline since American type breeding replaced U.K. style.......the end result being inbred horses that lack genetic robustness, have feeble bones, as owners have no care for the breeds integrity and everyone wants an instant winner.
Ahh, I could go on all day about this stuff. And as you alluded, there are certainly many ways to increase aspects of racing for the players, popularity and the sport, as well as the horses; but racing being the oldest sport just seems so stuck in it's traditions and has a hard time pivoting. It's media also makes MMA's media look like Pulitizer Prize quality - just so much money but low quality all around. It's a shame too, because once you get a taste of it, it is the best sport, and it also has availability to all types of people (animal lovers, sports fans, people looking to make a quick buck, enjoy culture) and provides ways for a two dollar bettor to potentially turn that amount in to thousands by the end of the day.