The Thoroughbred industry is not prepared for the issues raised by the brave new world of biotechnology

The glacial pace of change in the tradition-bound Thoroughbred breeding industry may be on the verge of getting kick-started by the brave new world of biotechnology. The Thoroughbred as a separate breed of the equine species is about 300 years old, and many of the rules and regulations that govern what is and is not a Thoroughbred are firmly rooted in the mores and values of the English nobility of the 18th and 19th centuries.

When Leonard Childers sent his mare Betty Leedes to be covered by the Darley Arabian in 1714, that was the only way to produce a great racehorse like his Flying Childers, who arrived the following spring. The science of animal breeding did not even exist at that time, and English farmers had only just begun to consciously develop by natural methods the many breeds of cattle and sheep that would make them famous. A natural mating between a stallion and a mare was the only way to produce a foal. Mr. Childers, nor any of his contemporaries, would not have known what an embryo was.

Nothing had changed by 1793 when the first volume of the General Stud Book appeared, establishing for the first time a clear definition of the Thoroughbred as a horse that must descend exclusively from animals included in that and subsequent volumes.

Events on the racecourse ultimately forced slight revisions to that definition, leading to the inclusion of Thoroughbred families that originated in America, Australia, Argentina, and elsewhere, but the basic definition of a Thoroughbred has been unchanged for more than 200 years. The Thoroughbred is an animal produced by a natural mating between two other Thoroughbreds registered in a previous volume of an internationally recognized stud book.

When modern animal husbandry developed techniques for artificial insemination in the 20th century, Thoroughbred stud book authorities quickly banned the practice. Initial justifications for that ban stressed the technique was too new and risky.

As artificial insemination became an accepted and proven practice in virtually every other branch of animal husbandry, it became clear that the real reasons for the Thoroughbred industry's rejection of it were economic and traditional. When legalization of artificial insemination was proposed in the United States in the 1970s, critics pointed out that it would completely change the economic basis of the industry since it would allow one stallion to sire 100 or even 200 foals in a single season.

Enter Mr. Digby

That objection seems ludicrous today. Although the Jockey Club rejected artificial insemination, it allowed the use of semen extenders and injecting extended semen into a mare's uterus in conjunction with a natural cover. That, along with advances in detection of the exact moment of a mare's maximum fertility, eventually led to the 100-plus broodmare books that are the industry norm today. Such shuttle stallions as Danehill now can sire 300 foals a year. Artificial insemination is still illegal, but the modern method of breeding has some elements of it in practice.

Enter John Digby. Digby is Australia's keeper of the stud book (the equivalent of the Jockey Club's registrar), and for the past five years or so has been pushing for legalization of artificial insemination. In the first week of December, he blessed a new challenge to the definition of a Thoroughbred.

Australian breeder Jim Fleming has a problem. His exceptional 19-year-old broodmare Eau d'Etoile can conceive but no longer carry a foal because previous pregnancies have scarred her uterus.

Results of those previous pregnancies have been exceptionally successful. Half of Eau d'Etoile's eight registered foals are stakes winners, three of those Group 1 winners, including 1992-'93 champion Australian two-year-old filly Bint Marscay.

Stuck with a mare who can successfully produce an embryo but cannot carry it to term, Fleming had the embryo Eau d'Etoile conceived from her December 2000 cover by Sunline's sire, Desert Sun, transferred to the uterus of a surrogate mare. When the filly foal that resulted from that process was foaled on November 17, 2001, Fleming applied for registration and was denied in accordance with Australian Stud Book rules, despite the fact that DNA testing confirms the foal is genetically the offspring of Desert Sun and Eau d'Etoile.

Fleming plans to sue on the grounds of restraint of trade, since if he could register the foal it could be worth millions but without registration he has an exceptionally nice riding horse.

Digby supports Fleming's action.

This suit is doubtless only the first in what could readily become a flood of legal actions that challenge the definition of a Thoroughbred. The industry does not appear to be ready for such a debate. Few studies specific to the Thoroughbred on embryo transfer or artificial insemination have been done to explore the issues that must be addressed.

For example, it is certain that the intrauterine environment is a crucial element in the development of a Thoroughbred. That is why breeders traditionally prefer roomy mares over narrow, short-backed ones; that is the only visible clue they have. But no one knows what effect the size of the surrogate mother might have on the size and ability of the offspring.

Furthermore, since the Jockey Club funded private, unpublished studies in the 1970s designed to examine the potential effects of the increased inbreeding that many suspected would result from artificial insemination, nothing has been done to study the long-term impact of 100-plus mare books on Thoroughbred genetics. The industry's economists have produced no studies of the long-term economic effects of 100-plus mare books, and potential economic effects of modern techniques like embryo transfer are completely unexplored.

And cloning is just around the corner. The technique for producing Thoroughbred clones is no different from that for producing clones of beef cattle. It can and will be done. Visions of multiple Secretariats are bound to be irresistible for someone.

"That is the way we have always done it" does not constitute much of a legal defense, but that is about all the industry has to offer in response to challenges to many of the hoary rules that govern breeding. We simply do not know whether we would be better or worse off by attempting to incorporate modern science into the breeding process. Even worse, there is no plan to find out.

Emotional responses to these questions are useless and outmoded. No matter how much we love and respect racing's traditions or, on the other side of the question, how high-tech and modern we perceive ourselves to be, either defending or attacking the status quo without more information is not appropriate.

The 21st century, with its brave new world of cloning, embryo transfers, and genetic manipulation, is upon us. Sticking our head in the sand is not an acceptable response.