An extract of an article on AI with an argument offered in a court of law against the concept.
In the Thoroughbred Group’s eNews, John Freeman has shared an article on AI. ” I am not a proponent of AI but then neither do I say it’s a bad thing. I don’t know enough about it but when I read the type of argument offered in a court of law against the concept, I wonder. Why?”
“Why has this subject been swept under the carpet for so long and why has it never been debated on a global stage. What is there to lose? Why are we not able to hear people’s views – for and/or against? I went all the way to NZ about 8 years ago to listen to an international debate on the subject. The International Stud Book Secretary stopped the discussion before it started shouting from the floor “stop stop stop – Mr Chairman the subject of artificial insemination will never be discussed by anybody that is a member of our organisation – the Thoroughbred is the product of a live recorded covering by a registered stallion on a registered mare and nothing will ever change that – period – end of discussion”. The Chairman did exactly as he was told and went on to the next item. We were gobsmacked.
Authoritarian stuff indeed and it left me with many questions – like: why can’t controls be implemented to safeguard against overproduction – are the anti-group worried that their own practices of over-production will be looked into? Some of these stallions cover 400 mares a year – if that’s not over-production what is?
Surely it would help if we were able to legislate that AI in any country where mares have direct access, be covered live? But it might be a huge benefit when any stallion’s career is interrupted midseason due to ill-health (like Dynasty last year) or worse, due to death (like Jet Master). Why would we not want to save everyone connected the cost and upheaval of trying to find a suitable replacement for a top sire at short notice when AI might provide a solution? We know from many veterinary lectures on the subject that AI is difficult in horses but it may beat the hell out of not trying at all.
Also why would we not want to be able to breed a Galileo here without having to send a top mare all the way to Ireland and without shuttling the whole horse?
I just can figure out why they won’t even consider talking about it – and then I read articles like the one below and I wonder.
We could have progeny of some of the best stallions in the world being foaled down here – why would that be a bad thing?
Read below – an item from Thoroughbred Owner & Breeder (Pacemaker) – food for thought!
.
“Some of the arguments presented during the intriguing artificial insemination (AI) case that is before the Australian Federal Court make for incredible and embarrassing reading.
Justice Alan Robinson is hearing a case put forward by former Sydney Turf Club Chairman and prominent breeder Bruce McHugh that challenges the rule that disallows the use of artificial insemination in breeding. McHugh’s argument is one of restraint of trade.
He is battling some high profile opposition, including Thoroughbred Breeders’ Australia, the Australian Stud Book, some of Australia’s leading studs and prominent race clubs. Justice Robinson’s decision is expected in February.
Tony Bannon, counsel for the Sydney Turf Club, said: “Allowing AI would threaten traditions behind the sport’s apeal to kings, queens, sheikhs and billionaires.” Justice Robinson may have shifted uneasily in his seat after that.
James Emmett, for Thoroughbred Breeders’ Australia, chimed in by suggesting that if McHugh wanted to breed thoroughbreds by AI, there was nothing stopping him starting up a rival racing association for such horses.
“McHugh can put $1 million into a prize pool for a race and open it to horses bred through AI…that would be very attractive,” he said. “Should Australia allow AI, the race rankings, which determine a thoroughbred’s rankings internationally, would be downgraded or eliminated.”
Emmett went on to say that ‘you can’t sensibly assess a horses’ ranking in races involving thoroughbred (and horses conceived by AI)…it would be like comparing thoroughbreds and camels.”
Are Emmett and the TBA suggesting that horses conceived naturally are superior to those conceived by AI? I know that is one of the arguments some of the anti-AI push has thrown about, but surely nobody takes this claim seriously enough to use it as an argument in a Federal Court?
Try to sell that argument to the many children conceived by artificial means throughout the world. Are they inferior, destined to be banned from competing against the naturally conceived at the Olympic Games?
North American racing commentator Frank Mitchell said Emmett’s suggestion of McHugh setting up a rival racing circuit was an example of the TBA not taking the case seriously.
“The TBA and their legal advisers have not met this issue with the seriousness and depth of understanding that it merits,” Mitchell said on his blog, Bloodstock in the Bluegrass.
“AI is a serious business and it requires careful and judicious examination. There are measures that the Jockey Clubs of the world could take to moderate the influence of AI, but from the tenor of the arguments being made in Australia, those ‘Down Under’ seem to be punch drunk from the attacks on the natural cover requirements as a restraint of trade.
“The TBA’s counter-arguments make them appear to be reeling and waiting for the coming knockout punch. If the decision comes in favour of AI, the change will be felt around the world.”
McHugh’s counsel Ian Tonking argued the industry had become self-regulatory, anti-competitive and exclusionary.”
*
Extract of an article first published in the February 2012 edition of the Thoroughbred Owner & Breeder (Pacemaker) magazine: http://www.ownerbreeder.co.uk
CLICK HERE to read the online edition.
Original image: www.corbis.com
