Susan Cameron is a journalist with a long history of equine articles and essays and has been published in many a journal over the years. She's also had a modicum of success as a breeder. According to one source, she was the joint breeder of After The Last, a winner of three races in 1992, Lady Phil 1993, Cardinal Hill, a G1 winning hurdler in 1994, and some others. Ms. Cameron is said to responsible but not credited with five other winners, Troll Lady & Aminah, (both mares sold in foal) Alwal, Quedex and Nervey Crown.
Quote. This does not matter to the people who produce sales horses: their profit is in the sales ring and as few studs keep their mares for very long nowadays, what happens next is largely immaterial. In earlier times it was very important for your mares' progeny to perform so that the following ones could be sold; now the mares are sold before the truth emerges.
Stock has always been bought and sold, Ms. Cameron had been part of this practice herself. Troll Lady and Aminah are examples.
Quote. The demands of the market have also led, I believe, to a deterioration in the way we rear our horses. To be ready for the fashion show at the sales, young horses are brought indoors too early when they should be outside, learning about life and exercising their hearts and lungs. I am sure it is true that owner-bred horses, who are only brought in when they show they are ready, do better than those ‘hot house blooms' who are brushed and pushed and pampered to make them look pretty to the uninitiated at the sales. End Quote.
Yearlings that are "hot housed" and who are brushed, pushed and pampered, are not weaker in heart or lung. They have the same capacity as those left outside. And to infer that buyers are buying into prettiness over breeding is a nonsense. Sure the animal has to look the part, conformation is extremely important, but so too is breeding. It's condescending to think otherwise.
Quote. The ignorant have patronised sprinting stallions on that basis and so they have been the ‘must-have' for many buyers who do not know any better. They end up with horses which often perform well early only to fade away later, and all because they do not know that patience frequently provides a better result and a better horse in the end.
My eyes nearly popped out of my rather average looking head when Ms. Cameron's article lambasted those who buy into sprinting stock, as ignorant. I could say considerably about the article, but the veins in the side of my neck are all to precious to me.
The above is not a shot at you Princess. I'm just not too keen on some of our Susan's opinions. I think we have to ask ourselves whether racing for the most part, is healthy or not? Is it actually on it's death bed, or has it just got a bit of a limp? I firmly believe it's the latter. Glass half full or empty? It is a massive, global entity that trades in the hundreds of billions of dollars and employs God knows who many people. Racing will not only survive but continue to grow, and it will all be on the back of man's manipulation of the our equine friends. If Ms. Cameron wants to suggest that the modern day need for speed is to the possible physical detriment of the horse, then she opens up a whole other debate. To go down the ethical road on the welfare of horses, then calls into question the very sport itself. It opens up a whole new can of worms.
