JOCKEY CLUB COP-OUT
By Ray Paulick
A number of people expressed outrage over the recent story of the 12-year-old mare Grand Forks and the owner who tried to run her at Churchill Downs after she had been away from the races for nine years. (Click here for the details of the story.)
Grand Forks had changed hands earlier this year after an unsuccessful career as a broodmare, her previous owner saying that he felt there was an understanding with the new owner that the mare would be used in horse shows and eventing and not for racing purposes. But the new owner of Grand Forks received the Jockey Club registration papers and those papers do not specify how a Thoroughbred is to be used.
This incident is not the first time an owner allegedly gave away or sold a Thoroughbred to someone with the understanding that the horse would not race again, only to see its name show up in the entry box at a racetrack.
A Paulick Report reader recently suggested a solution that might put an end to this kind of problem. “We have seen horses resurface at racetracks post-retirement such as this one,” this individual wrote. “Or, just as bad, we have seen horses re-bred. The solution would seem to be that horses should be separated from their papers at the time of retirement/donation. However, we have seen that this action stifles the adoption process. A horse with papers is significantly more likely to be adopted than a horse without papers or without ability to acquire papers.
“This has been experienced over and over again by racehorse rescue/retirement professionals.
“Has the industry ever considered issuing ‘retirement papers’? ‘Retirement papers’ would be issued for free or a nominal fee to cover costs by the Jockey Club. They would be a different color and would have clear notation of ‘not for breeding’ and/or ‘not for racing.’ These papers would be defined by the industry as unacceptable for purposes of race entry or breeding. I am sure there are other considerations that would go along with this concept that could be flushed out with some discussion. I do not know that this is a best solution but on the surface it seems reasonable and achievable. And I KNOW it makes a difference to racehorse adoption.”
I discussed this seemingly common-sense solution with Matt Iuliano, who for eight years has served as vice president of registration services for the Jockey Club and this week was named executive director of the Thoroughbred’s breed registry. Iuliano said there have been discussions at the Club about how to prevent incidents similar to the Grand Forks saga, and that the Club’s recommendation is that the horses in question be “sold without pedigree.” That, in fact, is covered by Rule No. 18 in the American Stud Book’s Principal Rules and Requirements. Rule 18 specifically states that writing something along the lines of “not to be raced” on the registration papers can be considered as “defacing” the foal registration certificate and may result in corrected papers being issues—thus, defeating the purpose.
Iuliano, not surprisingly, said Jockey Club lawyers recommended the Club not make determinations on how a Thoroughbred may or may not be used when it changes hands. “It became a matter of inserting the Jockey Club into a private transaction,” Iuliano told the Paulick Report. “We’ve elected not to entangle ourselves.”
He did say the Jockey Club has worked with other breeds and disciplines to verify or satisfy questions about pedigrees that have come up when horses are “sold without pedigree.” In addition, earlier this year, the Club announced a free lip tattoo service to help owners of Thoroughbreds without registration papers identify the names or parentage of the horses they acquired.
While those are good, positive steps, I’m afraid incidents such as the alleged one involving Grand Forks will continue. Acquiring a horse without pedigree is going to be a deal-breaker in many cases, and unscrupulous individuals are going to say whatever is necessary to get the registration papers of a Thoroughbred if it serves their own purpose.
The Jockey Club should continue to examine this matter and put its lawyers back to work on a more satisfactory solution to the problem.To blame the lawyers for inaction on this matter is nothing less than a cop-out.
Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report
Savvy businesses recognize value. Advertise in the Paulick Report.
Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick
Tags: American Stud Book, broodmare, churchill downs, Grand Forks, Jockey Club, Matt Iuliano, Paulick Report, Ray Paulick, thoroughbred
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Another failure of racing & breeding to salvage its image….
Rather despicable that the 12 year old mare was entered, yet no support from the leading institutions to prevent similar circumstances.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Ray,
This is a really important issue, and there is no getting around the fact that for many Thoroughbreds, especially mares, having registrations papers is their ONLY lifeline to a decent home.
While I would not encourage anyone to race a 12-year-old, the fact that the mare is receiving adequate care, is in good health, and has a number of people around her who are monitoring her well-being is immensely better than the situation all too many horses find themselves in.
Keep up the good work,
Frank
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
“Iuliano … said Jockey Club lawyers recommended the Club not make determinations on how a Thoroughbred may or may not be used when it changes hands. ‘It became a matter of inserting the Jockey Club into a private transaction,’ Iuliano told the Paulick Report. ‘We’ve elected not to entangle ourselves.’”
This is a logic problem - what am I missing? If I, the seller, do not want my racer to be bred or raced, how is my request that the Jockey Club issue “retirement papers” (while I keep the original papers) that include all of the information the buyer often wants, such as pedigree, race results, etc., “inserting the Jockey Club into a private transaction”?? I am the owner of the horse - I prove my ownership to the JC and ask/direct the JC to issue retirement papers which I then give to the adopter/buyer. The JC didn’t insert itself; I, the owner, did.
This is so easy. Why does the industry sometimes make the easy stuff so damn difficult?
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Probably won’t be a popular opinion here, but I agree with the Jockey Club on this one. The donor/seller of a Thoroughbred has options to prevent the horse from being bred or raced after retirement. One option is to include a no-breeding and/or no-racing clause in the adoption contract or bill of sale.
In the Grand Forks situation, I believe I read that the former owner DID include a no breeding clause in the bill of sale but failed to include a no racing clause.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
This industry is doomed due to the ongoing criminal treatment of the equine athlete. Peeling back the layers from the PR blitz around the Triple Crown and Breeders’ Cup, one finds such arrogance and disregard on a daily basis to facilitate real and commonsense reform. The time is coming soon where one cannot defend the indefensible and the sport will collapse under the weight of its own corruption…which starts at the top and trickles downward into every facet of its operation.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Excellent post Mary Overman!!!!
I can’t believe The Jockey Club would be against issuing “retirement papers” and they there for the protection and welfare of the Horse aren’t they???
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
The Jockey Club has taken the no position on more than one issue..the MAIN being cutting off these books that Stallions get…limiting them to the say first 120 foals…but they are not going down that road
I ask..why would Rick Tronz even consider that person putting that mare back in training..he was giving the damn mare away..lets don’t drag him into this..
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Tranquility Farm has adopted out hundreds of former race horses and has only suffered through one occasion of a horse being returned to the racetrack. A letter from our attorney was sufficient to have the horse removed from training and it was subsequently resold to a responsible party. Although a signed agreement between buyer and seller is usually binding, this system will break down if the horse in question is transferred to a second party that does not have a binding, signed agreement with the original seller.
Given this is probably true in all states it would be extremely helpful for the Jockey Club to take this matter into consideration and assist owners who want to insure that their horse remains retired. Frank Mitchell stated correctly that the lifeline for many mares is their Jockey Club papers. Even in the case of geldings, many adopters take great pride in owning and showing a registered Thoroughbred. The clause below is from Tranquility Farm’s Transfer of Ownership Agreement. Until the Jockey Club takes action to create an “ineligible for racing” status great caution needs to be taken in transfers of ownership.
4. Limitations: The horse is transferred to __________________________-solely for use as a pleasure or show horse. Purchaser understands that the horse cannot be used for racing of any kind. Entry into any race, or the publication of any recorded pre-racing workout by the horse ________________________, will automatically void this agreement and Tranquility Farm shall take possession of the horse. Return of any horse in violation of this agreement, and any legal costs that shall arise, will be at the sole expense of the purchaser.
Purchaser______________________ Date:______________________
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Over the years I have given away a number of thoroughbred mares and geldings to be riding horses. I have always withheld registration certificates and reported to the Jockey Club what has transpired. Never has a recipient balked at this arrangement let alone have it be a deal breaker.
I am now the ower of a gelding retired from the race track that I use for pleasure riding. I don not have his registration certificate nor do I need it or want it.
I am curious to hear from others how often with holding registration certificates has been an issue, a deal breaker, and why?
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I don’t know what the problem is here.Did the mare not have timed works prior to running?Was she inspected by a track veterinarian?Just who has the right of saying what you can or can’t do with a horse weather you sell it,give it away or donate it.
You can bet if I’m footing the bill for the daily care,farrier,vet,ect.,ect.,I’m going to do with that horse what I wish to.As long as the ability is there that is.
Some of the best barrel racing horses in the country are in their late teens and I’ve seen horses win World Championships in their twenties.I just visited a farm with 4 aging bucking horses that still love to throw off riders.Yet,in the pasture they are the kindest of horses begging you for apples and carrots.If their taken care of,who cares.I thought that was the problem,to much neglect in this industry.Then when somebody does go out and take care of them their condemned too.What a joke.
I actually know of a farm that gives away several thoroughbreds,well bred thoroughbreds without papers.But it has absolutely nothing to do with donating them to forever homes.What it does have to do with them is somebody else going out with them and making them into something—weather as a racehorse or breeding purposes..They’re afraid that someone is going to show their ineptness and stupidity by taking the time and money to make them into something.
I’ve bred mares for clients before that have put them right back onto the racetrack in foal.I don’t advise it,but hey,it’s their dime,not mine.And every one has gone on to produce live foals the next year.What,a female jockey can ride if she’s pregnant but a horse can’t run if she is?
I’m glad The Jockey Club lawyers took the stance they did.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Several years ago I emailed the Jockey Club on a slightly different matter–that of inquiring whether they would be willing to produce a sticker which one would have the option of affixing (or not) to the registration papers stating that the breeder of the horse,in the case of the horse being unfit for racing, would take the horse back and find a good home for it; a line for contact information to be filled in would be included. The Jockey Club replied that other breeders had contacted them with the same idea and that, while they had no plans to produce such a sticker, nothing precluded me from hand writing a notation on the papers to that effect. I really never did get a straight answer from them as to why they, as the national registration body, wouldn’t take this simple step. Interestingly, no one alerted me to Rule 18, either. My impression at the time was that The Jockey Club was just too stultified and hidebound to do anything which might possibly be construed as controversial.
I find it interesting that they’re using a legal excuse as a reason for not implementing “retirement” papers. Unless I’m much mistaken, The Jockey Club is and always has been a private breed organization (much like the AKC). It can do whatever it wants to transactionally.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I think this situation exposed a terrible hypocrisy. Why was this mare not allowed to race? It wasn’t her “condition”, but her age.
I am far more concerned for “older” horses which are 7,8, 9, 10, 11 etc. that have run up to and over 100 starts!!! Where is someone standing up for them and telling an owner or trainer ENOUGH!! To me, that is the real issue, not this one mare, which apparantly had nothing “physically” wrong with her. This situation obviously highlights the lack of any real rules governing this sport….just one of many.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
The horse has earned a right to it’s pedigree AND papers. The devil is in the details to whom the horse is transferred to and ultimately, the purpose. Contractual limitations must be made as Ms. Clark states. But who becomes responsible for enforcement? The JC could and should do a better job of follow through, whatever that status may be. The withholding of papers is unfair to the horse. If you don’t want the horse bred, then geld or sterilize it. If you want the horse to live a decent life, keep it or euthanize it.
As to the racing end, the Grand Forks issue is not so unusual. 12 is old in US flat oval racing and it appears the horse got scratched for not being fit (which I must trust the track vets with determination). Is that correct? If it is, there are some very special horses that ran fit into their early teens. Is the outrage that the horse was 12 or not fit for racing?
The bigger problem is that we have an industry that breeds and employs horses only as long as they are “productive” with a species/ breed that can live well cared for into it’s 30’s with very little constructive organized, effective support from that very same industry. In fact, last I checked, NTRA is still neutral on horse slaughter for human consumption debate. The more specific question therefore must be why the system that brings these animals into being in the first place has absolutely no intention of seeing that life through to a humane end of life. Address that situation and the “Grand Forks” question will neither need discussion or resolution.
The JC sounds like an over-glorified AKC breed member with the same problem solving skills as the local county shelter/pound with a similar death rate and committment to life.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
The question of what to do with retired racehorses that are not suitable for breeding is one that has caused me nightmares and headaches for years. No matter how hard I have tried, or those charged with the responsibility have tried to successfully place finished racehorses in a new and positive environment, invariably the horses wind up in the wrong hands.
I have placed or had placed by reputable horsemen animals in what appeared to be good homes with people that were checked up. Too many of these horses later had to be rescued by me or others from killers and irresponsible people.
I know that what I am about to write is not politically correct, but in more instances than one would want to realize, euthanasia is the kindest method of dealing with some horses, because based on my experience, horses that wind up in the wrong hands suffer a fate much worse than death.
Part of the problem stems from The Jockey Club, no doubt about it, because their inaction had given value to Thoroughbreds that have registration papers. Without these papers, the value of the commodity would evaporate in many instances.
But a large part stems from the worst side of human nature.
An industry has grown up around retired racehorses. Some very well intentioned people have made a valuable contribution in saving the lives of former racehorses and placing them in a position to have a good life.
But a cottage industry also has been created by people that cannot do anything else and have motives other than what is best for the horses.
Figuring out which of these organizations or entrepreneurs is legit is very confusing.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
BULL to the bleeding hearts!! If any older horse is fit and sound, and proves competitve speed to the race commission, why should it not race? It was bred to race and has been conditioned and trained to race. Too many owners think that it is only a racehorse while they own it. As soon as they discard the animal, they think it is a pet. B.S., if it can race, let it race. Too many horses are retired before they need be. Many are retired due to expenses or time constraints, not race ability or soundness. Call to Post and Let em race. Any support for this view?
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
I bought my thoroughbred a few years ago without any papers. It was never an issue with me. However, I do not think itis the duty of the Jockey Club to be our policeman on this issue. It is unfortunate that the seller did not put in writing that the horse could not be used for racing. This is similar to selling a horse with the stipulation that the horse could not be resold for slaughter. Just put it in writing.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Registration papers are not required in order to breed a mare. Revoking or keeping papers cannot prevent the mare from being bred. Turning the papers in to the Jockey Club only prevents foals from the mare being registered as Thoroughbreds. Other breed registries might require a mare’s papers - the AQHA, for example, for a foal from a TB mare bred to a QH to be Appendix registered. But mares can be bred for unregistered sporthorses, or used as embryo transplant recipients.
I believe that Iuliano is very right - the Jockey Club has no position inserting itself into the control of an animal it does not own, nor have an interest in.
I retrain OTTB’s for sporthorses and occasionally I will have a buyer who just simply WANTS the original papers, complete with the races won and previous owners, since it is a complete part of the horse’s history. Most of them actually seem to think racing is quite cruel and they would never dream of trying to take the horse back to the track. I am VERY careful to whom I sell and I follow up on my placements, to the extent that I will walk away from the deal if I am uncomfortable, in the least tiny bit, with the buyer.
In my opinion, the only way to ensure the future of a horse is to keep that horse. Once you give away, sell, adopt, or whatever you want to call it, a horse, you lose control, and the de facto RIGHT to control.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:16 pm
i agree with Barry Irwin….what comes to be when a household has a dog that is really part of the family that could be 5 yrs old or 15 yrs old.. ——–
they take their loyal pet to the vet to be put to sleep….
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Lets call a spade a spade. Greed is the underlying issue here and breeders, owners, sales companies, trainers and vets are guilty. The horse for them is a commodity and once its’ useful or should I say profitable life is done, these groups rely on others to take charge of their culls. Syndicates are some of the worst at this as they see horses for investment purposes only and a return on the dollar. Euthanasia as mentioned proves my point. The problem is multifaceted from overbreeding and overracing to doping, sponging, and discarding. I personally have accepted responsibility for every horse I have purchased, bred or raced. I have bought a farm to care for their full life and I have no guilt about the way I have to live. Do the rest of you sleep that well at night.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
I am simply confused as to why having the papers is such a big deal to people if you are not going to race or breed the animal. Sorry, that’s totally lost on me. Maybe that’s because I grew up owning horses of unknown parentage beyond “daddy was a Quarter Horse and mama was a mustang paint.” Who cares? And as far as defacing the papers goes, then deface them if someone wants to have them so bad. That way, if someone DOES try to race the horse, well, it’s right there on the papers and the papers are usless for racing purposes as they have been defaced. Yes, people can get duplicate certificates, but you have to show proof of ownership, generally by providing a Bill of Sale, which SHOULD state that the horse is not to be used for racing or breeding. And the Jockey Club, as usual, needs to back off its standard Pontius Pilate position on EVERYTHING.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Also, Madelyn makes a very solid point - if you want full right of control of any animal, then you best keep it. And Barry’s point keeps getting lost on too many whose hearts are in the right place but their grip on reality is not: sometimes the best thing you can do is put them down, and there needs to be some sort of way vets can get a credit or SOMETHING for doing this for free or cheaper than normal where rescue animals are concerned. One reason people have sent horses to slaughter instead of putting them down is one puts money in their pocket and the other takes money out. It’s cold, it’s hard, it’s reality. And another poltically incorrect thing to say is this - if the horse is broken up that bad, or that much of an intense and constant care situation, put it down. Save the time, the money, the effort for the horses that have a chance to be adopted.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:58 pm
It is time to go completely electronic, transparent and “vertically integrated” with horse names, papers, tattoo numbers, racing, breeding, retirement/adoption status in other word a safety net!
Red Horses
All horses sold, given or adopted under the condition that they never be raced in the future would pop-up in red letters everywhere including at all racing offices. Red horses would automatically be blocked from racing, if not refused stalls to begin with. Such system would be best if honored internationally.
Green Horses
All horses whose papers include a Re-Run type sticker or contacts offering them a home upon retirement would be flagged in green letters at all tracks including racing and stable offices. Green horses would always be flagged with a heart-shaped * next to their names. These horses would no longer be able to leave racetracks and training centers without a trace and without their willing adopters having been contacted because unwanted horses vanish fast even those with a home offer written on their JC papers. Several horses with a safe home to go to have been found at feedlots and kill auctions just in the past few years because no one cared to check their JC papers before their being tossed into the slaughter pipeline.
Green horses could include those with a home offer and those whose fans have built a savings account worth of at least a few month of care, feed and rehab at a retirement facility. That is unless/until the industry chooses to become responsible for the humane treatment of all its spent horses. The heart-shaped * next to names always printed in the DRF, programs and articles would draw constant attention to the cause and encourage adoptions, donations and most of all responsibility from breeders, previous and current owners and others who may have profited from or were entertained by particular horses.
Red Mares & Stallions
Though it couldn’t prevent backyard breeding, with not-to-be-bred-or-raced broodmares and stallions, the JC and other registries which issue papers to Appendix and other Thoroughbred crosses, could also flag in red letters, for life, all horses whose ownership was previously transferred for non-breeding and racing purposes.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Even if you document the horse is not to be raced again and is retired there are those who want to override that and will go through the courts to do so. Look at the case of Sam P
http://www.dailygazette.com/weblogs/janack/2009/jul/17/starlight-nixes-comeback/
Excerpt from the above: ‘The sales contract provided that the parties agreed Sam P. was being sold “solely for breeding purposes.” In April of this year, Starlight learned that Sam P. was being trained at Churchill Downs …’
Those who want him back on the track have appealed the initial court ruling that retired means no racing.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Why not just have a rule that if a horse has over 1000 days between races, it isn’t allowed to race anymore?
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
It would nice if the Jockey Club were to list horses blood types and which blood types are incompatible since some people are ignorant of the fact that the foal will likely die if he/she has incompatible blood type with the mother. That could be why Grand Forks had dead foals every time. If people knew the blood types of their horses and which were incompatible they could avoid this problem. If she is sound and fit and likes to run I do not see why people are against her racing. My mare loved to race her daughter. They really loved running up and down the hills together as fast as they could go. Miss her.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:22 pm
As far as limiting the number of foals registered per stallion, it would be safer for mares and foals –and to help control the unwanted TB situation though it is nothing like the monster the AQHA has created– would be to limit the number of mares bred if possible, in order to prevent the registration of the best foals and the discarding or killing of the rest. Foal meat and hide are in high demand overseas.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Great idea, Joe! And doable, for sure - if the will is there.
For those that have posted that the JC would be acting like a policeman - no; the JC would have nothing to do with the transaction, before, during or after. If I, the seller, gave JC-issued “retirement papers” to the buyer who then, surreptitiously, was able to race the horse against my, the seller’s, wishes, the lawsuit would be beteween me and the buyer. The JC would have nothing to do with it. I still don’t see where the JC would be on the line for anything - unless it mistakenly re-issued racing papers for a retirement-papered horse. And in that case, it should take the heat for its own errror.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Thehorses, you can’t compare the racing of an ex-broodmare under the whip and a broodmare galloping with her foal solely for pleasure up and down the hills with the option to stop when it is no longer fun.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Mary Overman, thank you. I believe that the JC could play the role of controller, not policeman.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Beth Kinnane - you wrote: “One reason people have sent horses to slaughter instead of putting them down is one puts money in their pocket and the other takes money out.”
What are the other reasons?
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Here is a “for instance” anecdote, true story, by the way… I once acquired a mare which had been listed property in a long and convoluted series of legal proceedings including a divorce and subsequent bankruptcy… at nine years of age, she had never been saddled or ridden, but was halter broke and familiar with loading in a trailer… to make a long story short, she was the soundest horse I ever ran, I won 5 races with her and she was claimed back and forth several times… she ran on the fair circuits until she was 14, then went on to be a very good 4-H horse for the family that bought her. All my colleagues who thought I was crazy for even starting her soon had the problem of having to outrun her…
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Can’t burn the candle at both ends. You want to blame the Jockey Club for unfair monopolistic practices and controls, but when they decide a ruling is better dealt with “hands-off” you want to take them to task? Ya can’t pin this one on the Jockey Club. Sorry, the ONWER should sell the horse with an accompanying contract, signed by the NEW owner. Its simple, binding.
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
On the other hand you have the fatal return of the broodmare Planting Time, 13, killed for 2K claiming.
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:12 pm
My my, they say that close only means something in the game of horseshoes and this bunch is not even close. The Jockey Club is the wrong culprit in this mess. Didn’t we read only a few months ago that the stewards in Kentucky wanted to enact the ruling that NO foal papers would be used in the determination of identification because lost, stolen or misplace papers punished horsemen by not allowing paperless horses not to race and placed the onus on the Jockey Club for identity. We have perfect case here for reconsideration and why “on course” foal certificates DO serve a purpose. However, the culprit in this mess is the Churchill Downs racing department. Obviously they do not have control of their inventory or their stall space. No wonder Mr. Evans stated that his competition was Indiana, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. He was right and that’s what’s wrong! The Jockey Club has no dog in this fight !
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:24 pm
While we haven’t seen lack of papers as deal-breakers in adopting out a horse, and we do applaud the JC for providing free tattoo research, the JC should try to resolve some inconsistencies in their rules AND take action to provide more protection for our TBs when their racing careers are over. At the bottom of every foal certificate it states: “Certificate to be preserved and transferred gratis to purchaser if horse is sold.” This is obviously never enforced, and the JC does not even track changes of ownership. In this day and age at least the historical info on ownership could kept on record, and many former owners would be able to track down their horses if desired. The papers further state “Possession and presentation of this certificate is a requirement to race or breed the horse it identifies.” Not exactly- when you breed a mare and register the foal, you are not required to submit the mare’s foal papers. It doesn’t matter if you have them or not– unless you are trying to register a sporthorse with one of the many warmblood registries–THEY require papers, tattoos and blood testing are not good enough.
I realize the legal implications if the JC attempts to “get involved in a private transaction”-but issuing a set of retirement or breeding papers upon the original papers being relinquished by the seller would go a long way towards clearing up this mess. If the original papers were relinquished by the seller BEFORE THE SALE and new papers for retirement or breeding only were provided, they would not be involved in a private transaction. They simply would be reclassifying the horse BEFORE any transaction. There could be one type for “not to race only” and another type for “not to be raced or bred.” When the horse is then sold, the owners would present these modified papers as part of the sale- both parties would clearly understand the terms of the sale. Sellers would not have to worry about withholding papers only to have a duplicate set issued down the road. Buyers would have their papers and a clear understanding that there would be no way around lack of registration papers.
Tracking ownership and issuing restricted papers would require more manpower and careful forethought in the design and maintenance of such a system- but it would be another step in the right direction in ensuring the well being of our horses…..
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Thank you Ray for bringing attention to this issue, because I think it has the potential to mushroom into a huge black eye for the entire industry.
Let’s be conservative and say that a half a dozen tracks will close over the next five years. How many horses will that make redundant? OK, some will go to other tracks, but a low level track could push 1,000 to 1,500 horses out there for ‘adoption.’ We already have an overproduction problem. It is only going to get worse, exponentially worse. And I agree with Barry and John G. that people with all the right intentions and very big hearts may have to re-think their non-slaughter stance because many of these horses will not find homes. Many will face painful deaths, starving in a field away from the public eye. Some adoption outfits do a terrific job (Canter etc.), but they can only do so much. Others seem to exist only to provide salaries for their founders, relatives and friends.
There are going to be many more cases where people sell or give away their horses stipulating that they don’t race or breed, although why one would want want to control the latter in a mare or filly just off the track escapes me. Mary and others have given some terrific ideas here, and really, despite what the JC might say, the JC is going to be involved one way or another so it might as well map out a strategy now. Different colored reg. papers is a great idea. This need not be a financial burden on the JC. If an owner wants new papers issued then he/she pays the fee to have the new (red) papers issued. If he/she is not willing to pay the fee, then they can’t complain later when the horse turns up on the track.
As for the general inaction by the JC and others on this and other pressing issues such as medication and break-downs, I find it amazing that so many caring, intelligent, experienced folks in positions of power in this imploding industry are just willing to shrug and walk away when problems like this arise. I do have sympathy for the JC’s position. (I am one of those nitwits who can barely tell a whirl from a chestnut when it comes to registering a foal.) But at some point some organization, whether it be the JC, the RCI, the NTRA, the BC, the TOBA, the HBPA, etc etc will have to stand up and take some decisive action or this industry truly is going to go the way of professional boxing: Essentially banned from the public eye because it is has become too ugly to watch.
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
I am, at some point planning to adopt a retired racehorse, and yes, I want the papers. I’m not planning on doing anything untoward with the horse and yeah, it’s kind of nice sometimes to say, “check it out, I have a son or daughter of “insert horse’s name here”. 4H also requests that you attach registration papers for project horses, if they have them, and this is most likely what I will be doing with the OTTB in my daughter’s 4H program. I have no problem with the Jockey Club issuing retirement papers, although I do see the side of the issue with not telling a new owner what they can and cannot do with their new property. Contracts are always up for interpretation, as in the case of Sam P., so don’t just assume that putting it in writing is going to prevent the horse doing what you don’t want it to do after it leaves your possession.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:20 pm
I thought that was the point of TJC’s forming the PHR in ‘94. When you give a thoroughbred away, eat the $75 and apply for PHR papers and give those to the new owner. Problem solved.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Gotta hand it to you Ray, you sure know how to bring the crazies, loonies and zanies out of the woodwork. Ole’ Willie said it best. “Much Ado About Nothing”
While you were all getting your blood pressure up about one old 12 year old mare, someplace else, 50,000 horses were starving due to the poor economy.
Sorry, didn’t mean to let reality distract you all from the narrow focus of this issue.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:30 pm
what happened to the yesteryear>> BOOK CLOSED AT 40…
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Absolutely, much ado about nothing. Healthy, sound, well cared for horses can race. Let buyers and sellers be responsible for their own contracts. Mr. Paulick, are you aware that you are cheered on and quoted by animal rights activists who want to end racing? People who send you info, tips, and even get links on this page to their “we just want to help the horses” campaigns? Stop being a useful idiot. When you’ve helped them move the racing community into “horses first, owners last”, then they’ll take over the reins and finish riding our sport into another of their “the American people have decided that the horse is a sign of freedom and want horse racing stopped” scenarios. Maybe you can tell that to Congress the next time you go to cover another exploited breakdown.
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:33 am
I am the founder of Remember Me Racehorse Rescue in Texas. When I adopt a horse to a new family I put a big ugly stamp accross the front of the pedigree on the papers that says
REMEMBER ME RACEHORSE RESCUE
NOT INTENDED FOR RACING OR SLAUGHTER
And I do not change the ownership to a new owner but leave it in the name of Remember Me Racehorse Rescue as we stay the legal owner.
What do you think of that?
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:26 am
Brilliant Discussion. Re-posted with linkback at the online equine rescue network: http://www.equineconnection.org
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:35 am
Graeme Beaton -
Wondering how you can believe “We already have an overproduction problem. It is only going to get worse, exponentially worse. ”
and then go on to say in the very next paragraph “…people sell or give away their horses stipulating that they don’t race or breed, although why one would want want to control the latter in a mare or filly just off the track escapes me.”
Also I have to say, I didn’t see John G mention slaughter, and Barry said “euthanasia is the kindest method of dealing with some horses…horses that wind up in the wrong hands suffer a fate much worse than death [slaughter].” Not advocating, as you say, that some “may have to re-think their non-slaughter stance.”
How anyone who cares at all about this sport could advocate for an inhumane ending to a racehorse’s life is beyond me. Especially when it’s a difference of spending, rather than making, ~$250.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:05 am
Euthanasia means “good death”. As stated previously, mass production human consumption horse slaughter is not a good death…don’t believe me? Go check out the last Guidelines for Humane Euthanasia by the AVMA/AAEP. At no point does the group say CBG in a mass production situation is guaranteed “humane” for equines(they don’t even address it and the CBG in production application is extrapolated, not specified). Their CBG reference re: equines is in an emergency situation…not a meat for profit one and to be administered by a vet.
To remind all, horse slaughter still exists in the US in US facilities. Difference? You have to pay for it and it can’t be used for direct to for human consumption. HCHS also still exists…we just don’t butcher them here (and equines always went overseas live to butcher when we did have it here)
The JC needs to do more, period. I don’t have a problem with a 12yo racing. I have a problem with an unfit 12yo racing or a 2 yo for that matter.
Don’t want that horse anymore? Then euthanize it humanely…peddling your lack of commitment on to the next owner is disloyalty to that horse. They deserve the right to their papers…human involvement included. And no, starving is never worse than a vicious, cruel quick death. They both stink. But the starving horse has a chance at another life; a sluahgtered one has none, not to mention medication issues for humans eating the meat.
What a mess!
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Erin,
I am not a semanticist, so, I will admit, I should not have used the word ’slaughter’ because that, Webster’s tells me, connotates ‘butchering for food.’ It was not my intention to suggest that horse meat would be consumed. So let’s use the word ‘euthanasia’ instead, which, Webster’s informs me, means ‘mercy killing.’ Either way, we are talking about the death of animals, potentially many, many animals, and if there is not an accepted, legal ‘euthanasia’ policy in place, who is going to take care of them? Will this be determined on an owner by owner basis? By the way, how does one lawfully dispose of the remains of a euthanized equine? These are questions I know I have and I wonder if other owners have the same concerns.
As to my comment about fillies/mares off the track: The scale of the potentially massive ‘reduandancy’ we are facing seems daunting to me. There would be enough buyers out there to absorb all these mares labeled ‘not to be bred?’
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Keep the kooks out of the racing process. After they got Thoroughbred racing behind anti-slaughter they took it to the next level. Now they are saying that racing itself is just another form of horse slaughter.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Graeme, the big semantic distinction that is often lost on newcomers to the topic (not saying you are one) is that slaughter = inhumane death, euthanasia = humane death.
You may or may not know that many in the anti-slaughter camp, myself included, are pro-euthanasia. I can see, as many do, that there are a limited number of resources (homes or money) to support these horses, and clearly supply outweighs demand. What I and many others propose is a humane death. To this end, rescues like NorCal Equine Rescue are offering euthanasia clinics. http://www.norcalequinerescue.com/clinics.php
Regarding your question about disposal, lawful practices vary by state, but most people live in areas where there is a professional service for disposal. In most rural areas it is lawful to bury the horse on property. Rendering services sometimes do not charge at all as there is a good demand from zoos for meat. If the horse is hauled to a veterinary hospital they will usually dispose of the body for a fee. Cremation, removal or hiring a backhoe average about $200-300, although I’ve heard of a lot of regional variance.
Regarding the breeding of fillies and mares off the track, if each one produces just two foals then we have, yes, gotten one (the mare) safe perhaps, but there are now double as many whose future is not secured and will require a lifetime of resources to support. Most broodmares produce more than two offspring. If we choose to see the forest for the trees it just doesn’t make mathematical sense to get one mare safe if it means she makes six or eight more who will end up in the position she was in. In my opinion.
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Although it would be lovely to have the Jockey Club create some way of tracking when a horse is retired, it is not their responsibility to enforce agreements when horses change hands. If an owner sells or gives a horse away with conditions, there should be a written contract clearly specifying the restrictions. It is also up to that owner to take legal action if that agreement is violated.
This whole situation has gotten way out of hand. In the world of three day eventing, it is not unusual to see horses competing in their late teens and early twenties. Yes, this mare has had a long layoff, but if she is sound and properly conditioned, there is no reason she can’t run.
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:06 pm
retire a horse early, they criticise. race ‘em to old age, same. to me all fans are entitled to their opinions, and opinions should matter provided they are grounded in reality. The reality is that horses love to race. I’ve trained ‘em for 20 years. I have one sound 14 year old that would still be added except he’s barred. Nor do I see any reason to avoid bringing back a sound horse with appropriate training. Can a former broodmare be competitive, probably in the negative. But, that she could race and love it, with appropriate training, certainly.
the problem we’re dealing with, instead of the young lady that wanted to race the horse, is our entry standards. the sport needs entry/training standards way beyond the two breezes and your in. The 12 year old mare in question, prior to entry should have been subjected to regulations as to minimum breezing and galloping based on sound exercise physiology before she was permitted entry. if racing had such standards, what problem if she races, and what is her future otherwise? could add–how many horse injuries prevented, and former owners that would have stayed in the game.
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:42 pm
I first want to commend the Jockey Club on their free tattoo and help in looking up the identity of unidentified Thoroughbreds. This was a long time coming, but is greatly appreciated by many.
The J.C. attorneys may state that they do not want to get involved in private transactions between parties, however, by not having a methodology in place to protect these horses and knowing the pitfalls and risks they expose these horses to as a result, they are ultimately becoming involved. They are in effect prohibiting the Thoroughbred owner from protecting any horse, not just rescues. Transferring the horse without registration papers does not guarantee that those papers will not be reissued by the Jockey Club, since the current owner could simply provide a falsified bill of sale. I guarantee you that at some point, some owner/organization is going to file a lawsuit naming the Jockey Club as a defendant when a horse has been properly transferred with an original Bill of Sale that states the horse is not to be raced, bred, or sent to slaughter, and the J.C. reissues those papers. As the JC is well aware, most contracts are not worth the paper they are printed on. An individual lawsuit for breach of contract will do nothing for the horse and it is unrealistic to expect an owner of a give a way horse to spend thousands of dollars to enforce a worthless contract while the horse suffers or disappears.
The industry as a whole is becoming more aware of horse welfare issues and their impact on our survival. The Jockey Club is at the top of our organizational tree and needs to take a leadership role in advocating for the Thoroughbred horses, without which it would fail to exist. Not only is it the right corporate decision to make, it is the right moral decision to make. We can have all the safety alliance programs in the world, but until we take an active stand on behalf of our horses, our credibility suffers. .
Current technology gives us the ability to make changes whereby, a horse could be permanently retired from racing but still remain valuable as a Thoroughbred with access to its heritage. A very simple, cost effective way, to update the retirement status of the horse could be done electronically. The JC would simply need to create an electronic web page for both retirement and ownership tracking. Owners, not the JC, could enter transfer information and check a box that would allow the restrictions: 1) Not to Race, 2) Not to Breed, or 3) Not to Race or Breed. The retirement status of the horse could not be revoked, although additional boxes could be checked later on. Additionally, those breeders/former owners who would wish to be contacted if the horse was ever in need could provide their contact information, in an area provided, creating a trail for tracking a horse.
An added benefit is that the JC papers and the ability to trace a horse’s ancestry, create an interest by the new owners and their family/friends in the dying Thoroughbred industry. Many of these people will find their way to the racetrack and consequently into further Thoroughbred ownership, a benefit to all of us.
Susan
Notes below, not posted
I am sickened by the individuals and organizations who depend on the Thoroughbred for their very existence and who will not take a stand for horse welfare or against slaughter.
My family has been involved in the business for over 40 years. We are not wealthy, but we have been responsible breeders and owners in all of that time. Does that mean we keep every horse? No, we have retained the ones that had serious injuries requiring retirement and provided them with great care during their lifetimes and humane euthanasia when we could no longer maintain their comfort. There were horses we stopped on when we realized they would not hold up to the rigors of racing prior to their suffering career ending injuries. Those horses were retrained into sound, useful, athletes which were sold into good homes. They were all sold through the same trainer, who we have known for over 20 years who provides top notch care. The horses were also to be kept in training in her barn at least until it was demonstrated that the horses and riders would be compatible over the long hall. In addition, we were dedicated to finding them homes where the new owners would keep us up to date on the horses, we are able to find owners who place a higher value on them. Fortunately, they are all really good people and we have not lost track of a single horse. Many of them have come to the racetrack to visit our horses and are really surprised at how good a life they lead. These are people from the sport horse industry and their perception is that the racetrack is a cruel place and we are able to show them otherwise.
I agree with you that the registration papers provide a lifeline to Thoroughbred horses! The papers themselves may be worthless but the perception on the part of the new owner is that they have a valuable horse whose ancestry can be traced to great ancestors of the past. Additionally, by having the JC papers, the new owners and his/her family/friends have an opportunity to become exposed to racing Thoroughbreds. This interest has the potential to provide much needed new blood and owners in our industry.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
If racing wants a shot at survival, it needs to change the public perception that far too many horses are raced and discarded. Horses have another 25-30 years of good life expectancy after their young racing careers. If they work to make money for us, and we breed them, we owe them that life. Simple as that.
Fortunately, things are changes and that’s a good thing. They are changing too slow, and that’s not so good.
First and foremost - Alex Waldrop and the NTRA need to reverse their -pro-slaughter stance. The NTRA’s “neutral” stance, a turnaround from before, is the same as being for the pro-slaughter status quo. The public, the fans really don’t like slaughter. 30-50% of TBs wind up on dinner plates - banned drugs and all - in Europe and Japan. Slaughtering TBS is socially unacceptable, selfish and really bad for business.
As to the papers… one idea … the American Kennel Club offers “limited registration” papers, at the option of the seller. My dog has them and it’s worked out great. You can’t show the dog in the breed ring, or register puppies in the breed registry. We could show in obedience or field trials, or agility for fun. The sellers - at their option - can reverse the limited registration if the dog shows promise. Limited registration helps keep pups from suffering in puppy mills, lets responsible breeders stop worrying about that, and reduces the incentive for back-yard breeders to add unsound pups to the over-population problem.
With the Ernie Paragallo puppy mill style TB breeding farm, and his highly publicized arrest this year for animal cruelty, these are models the horse industry might learn from.
Right now, the public is getting impatient waiting for better planning for the future of race horses. It’s time the industy stopped relying on the private rescue community to pick up - and pay for - overbreeding. It’s time for the drama to end - the emotional blackmail - of trainers giving rescues or non kill-buyers three days to buy a horse “or else.”
The game is the most beautiful sport on earth, for many of us. It needs to do better for the horse. We celebrate the beauty of these animals as working athletes, continue into second careers, third careers, and compassionate, safe environments for their natural life spans. If racing can’t plan for the horses beyond 3 years, the game is in trouble.
If you breed a horse, you take on the responsibility, simple as that. It’s a living being that wishes to avoid suffering, just like us. Anything short of that is disrespectful to the horse, and bad for an industry that’s facing an uphill battle for its survival; it doesn’t involve animals to gamble at the racino.