Comments on: BREAKING: CURLIN BANNED IN NEW YORK - A PAULICK REPORT SPECIAL REPORT

By: Garrett Redmond

Garrett Redmond — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 21:13:10 +0000

The reality is that most owner licencing laws are just silly. They keep the bureaucracy in jobs. Among typical questions is : “What are the names of horses you own? Who is your trainer?” Without any doubt, they know that in 12 months an owner might change many horses and possibly trainers, but they still insist on an answer.
Some have the nerve to ask for your Social Security number! I refuse. When they begin mumbling “can’t issue”, I ask: “Did you get a number for Sheikh Mohammed?” Then the licence is issued quickly.

Anyway, the Kentucky rule for multiple owners of a horse is a person with 5% or greater interest in the horse, must be licenced. Stupid requirement when so many horses are controlled by syndicate managers who may not own any part of the horse.

By: Michael Blowen

Michael Blowen — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:40:49 +0000

Ray, The Paulick Report is great…I read it between tours and horsekeeping chores. Congratulations…Michael Blowen

By: Bellwether

Bellwether — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 06:57:38 +0000

gotta love the net…i can see there are some real Horsepeople here not that the others aren’t welcome to our party…come one come all & watch the greatest game on HOOF climb back to the top of the sports world where it rightfully belongs. ..ALL (one or one thousand Horses) .OWNER’S must form a powerful voice in this game NOW…Long Live The King!!!

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:25:49 +0000

Curlin I think ran in the Jockey Club Gold Cup because the rules state that you can run once without a licence-but that’s it.

By: Superfecta

Superfecta — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:55:14 +0000

Yet another reason one hopes that the judge in the Kentucky case forces the sale of their remaining assets sooner rather than later — and that Einstein gets a good owner who keeps him with Helen Pitts. One presumes Jess Jackson is simply waiting (and none too happy about that) to pick up the remaining share in Curlin.

By: William J. LePetomane

William J. LePetomane — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:47:34 +0000

Kentucky’s licensing rules are asinine if the lessor doesn’t require licensing. What’s the point of licensing at all if the beneficial owners of an animal are not looked at?

From what I read, Tanaka has a license recognized in New York, thus Proudinsky can race. Cunningham let his license expire. Big difference. Maybe New York should take Tanaka’s license, but that’s a different story.

Looks like Curlin shouldn’t have run in the Gold Cup. Who’s responsibility is it to check owner licensing? NYSRWB? the trainer? NYRA? the owner? Someone is apparently at fault.

By: Eagle One

Eagle One — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:57:17 +0000

All good questions. Logic suggests that Curlin should NOT have been able to enter the Jockey Club race last year and that Gary Tanaka should NOT have been able to race Proudinsky…………..

By: Ben Dover

Ben Dover — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:35:49 +0000

If Cunningham’s license was already expired at the time of the JCGC, why was no issue made of this back then? Should Curlin have been able to enter that race under the circumstances?

By: Bank Check

Bank Check — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:14:52 +0000

Licensing reciprocity? I was always told owners had to be licensed in every state they wanted to race. At least that’s what the shady operator of a partnership I unfortunately got invloved recently added to the monthly statement.

What’s the correct answer?

By: Fayette Fox

Fayette Fox — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:38:42 +0000

I agree that New York is a disaster case. Interesting — and perhaps only a coincidence (but you have to wonder) — that the horse that won the race on the Belmont undercard (for which Einstein was banned from running) was owned by the Phipps.