Kevin Conley (1)

It was interesting to read this book from Conley's perspective, and I believe that he intended it to be a sort of light-read, non-fiction primer about the Thoroughbred industry for people who are curious, but not willing to go deep into the subject of breeding racehorses.

From my perspective of over 15 years working at the track, with supplemental visits to Lexington KY to visit places like Claiborne Farm it seemed just a tad snotty and incredulous. Yes, these are athletes, just like humans, and they deserve the red carpet treatment.....in fact, I believe all horses deserve it, but only the adored companion animals and expensive professionals ever receive it.

The main focus of this book was stallions. Those of us who are truly dedicated to breeding Thoroughbreds appreciate the good studs for what they are, but.......the mare is the most important equation in producing quality offspring. Finding an excellent stallion is pretty easy, but where do we find those great boss mares who conceive easily, gestate reliably, deliver with no complications and are attentive and deeply involved in raising their foals? A good mama is the cornerstone of your breeding program and selecting the right stallion for the desired offspring is not that complicated. Stallions get all the attention, because they are so expensive and glamorous.

By the way, I was very impressed by 2010 Breeders Cup Classic winner, Blame. A wise breeder would buy nice Blame fillies at good prices; I think he will be a leading broodmare sire in the future.… (mais)

This book dragged and dragged, mostly because I don't think it was intended to be read by someone who has been reading The Blood-Horse for 14 years. I found his general tone - sort of a *wink-wink*, heh heh middle-school amusement - irritating and somewhat condescending, as though he intended racing neophytes to read this and giggle a little at how silly he thinks it all is. There are many, many good books, introductory and thorough, on the sport, and reading one that is both disjointed and not particularly informative isn't that worthwhile to me.

Furthermore, I found some of his assertions to be a little shaky, if not downright fallacious. For example, he writes:

"In trotting, the opposite legs (right front and back left, left front and back right) work together in a gait that's natural in a dog but takes some training for a horse . . . In pacing, the legs on one side of the body move together, and the horse runs with a pretty, scissor step." (p 121)

Now, I'm no expert in Standardbreds, but I *have* ridden horses for a while, and I've never heard of a trot not being a natural gait. In addition, I *have* read about training pacers, which involves a strap connecting the legs on each side, which teaches the horse to move those legs together (wikipedia says that's actually a misconception of harness racing). If I'm wrong, mea culpa, but this just sounds downright foolish. However, if he means to say that pacing is a truer gait in *Standardbred* horses, rather than *all* horses, shame on his editor. But correct me if I'm the wrong one here.

On the bright side, Conley did bother to interview an interesting assortment of breeders, and the sections where he directly quotes them are interesting at the least, enlightening at best. If only he had limited himself to that...it's the parts where he takes it upon himself to interpret what he sees for the first time that he leaves me unimpressed.… (mais)

This book dragged and dragged, mostly because I don't think it was intended to be read by someone who has been reading The Blood-Horse for 14 years. I found his general tone - sort of a *wink-wink*, heh heh middle-school amusement - irritating and somewhat condescending, as though he intended racing neophytes to read this and giggle a little at how silly he thinks it all is. There are many, many good books, introductory and thorough, on the sport, and reading one that is both disjointed and not particularly informative isn't that worthwhile to me.Furthermore, I found some of his assertions to be a little shaky, if not downright fallacious. For example, he writes:"In trotting, the opposite legs (right front and back left, left front and back right) work together in a gait that's natural in a dog but takes some training for a horse . . . In pacing, the legs on one side of the body move together, and the horse runs with a pretty, scissor step." (p 121)Now, I'm no expert in Standardbreds, but I *have* ridden horses for a while, and I've never heard of a trot not being a natural gait. In addition, I *have* read about training pacers, which involves a strap connecting the legs on each side, which teaches the horse to move those legs together (wikipedia says that's actually a misconception of harness racing). If I'm wrong, mea culpa, but this just sounds downright foolish. However, if he means to say that pacing is a truer gait in *Standardbred* horses, rather than *all* horses, shame on his editor. But correct me if I'm the wrong one here.On the bright side, Conley did bother to interview an interesting assortment of breeders, and the sections where he directly quotes them are interesting at the least, enlightening at best. If only he had limited himself to that...it's the parts where he takes it upon himself to interpret what he sees for the first time that he leaves me unimpressed.… (mais)