MISSING: COMMON SENSE
An article here last week on how probable North American 2-year-old male champion Lookin at Lucky was overlooked at the 2008 Keeneland September yearling sale because his radiographs were less than perfect brought an interesting response from a former California-based trainer now plying his trade in the bloodstock world of Argentina. If you didn’t see it, the article, one in a series on American Graded Stakes Standings Brought to You by Keeneland, can be viewed here.
Lookin at Lucky was a $35,000 RNA at the Keeneland sale, then was put in training by his breeders, Lance Robinson and veterinarian Jerry Bailey, and sold at Keeneland’s 2009 April sale of 2-year-olds in training for $475,000. He’s gone on to win three Grade 1 races for trainer Bob Baffert.
John Fulton, pictured, left, cut his teeth working for the Hall of Famer Horatio Luro, a native of Argentina who trained Northern Dancer and dozens of other stakes winners during a long and colorful career. Fulton went out on his own in 1973, won the 1977 Hollywood Derby with George Steinbrenner’s Steve’s Friend (fifth to Seattle Slew in that year’s Kentucky Derby) and a few years later won the inaugural Japan Cup in 1981 with Mairzy Doates.
Fulton began visiting South America in 1983—first Chile and later Argentina—to purchase horses for clients, and in 1988 gave up training to concentrate on bloodstock work full time. He eventually moved to Buenos Aires, where he spends the majority of his time these days, except for occasional trips to sales in Kentucky and at Saratoga, where he also enjoys a racing holiday.
Fulton emailed to tell me the tale of a talented 2-year-colt named Vamos Pagando, who was an impressive eight-length winner in his recent career debut at Club Hipico in Santiago, Chile. Like Lookin at Lucky, Vamos Pagando (by the Storm Cat stallion Tumblebrutus) had some imperfections when he sold as a yearling. His original buyer turned the colt back because of a small chip in a hind ankle detected in radiographs, and Fulton’s good friend and partner Andres Vial, who was the auction underbidder, bought him at a reduced price. Vial’s trainer, Patricio Baeza, had his veterinarian son, Juan Pablo, look at the X-rays, and he determined the chip would have no effect on his racing soundness.
“He could be very special,.” Fulton said of Vamos Pagando.
Though Fulton’s partners benefited in this instance (much to the chagrin, no doubt, of the original buyer who turned the colt back), the retired trainer said the vetting process of both yearlings and horses in training often lacks common sense.
“This is an issue that is very important to me,” said Fulton, “as I export a number of horses from South America to other parts of the world, including the U.S. and Dubai, and at least one-third of the horses that we make a deal on fail the vetting.”
Earlier this decade, Fulton bought another South American horse, Avanzado, for Michael Cooper of Tiznow fame. “He had OCD in one of his hocks, but my vet in Argentina felt that it was insignificant,” Fulton said, “so we went ahead with the purchase, at a very reasonable price I might add.”
Avanzado went on to win the Grade 1 Ancient Title Handicap and ran second in the Group 1 Dubai Golden Shaheen.
“If it wasn’t for the fact that we had a vet who is a horseman, who wasn’t afraid to take a chance, we would not have made the purchase,” he said. “I see horses all of the time who are running well, come out of their races in good shape but are turned down by paranoid vets. It just requires common sense.”
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: andres vial, avanzado, bloodstock agent, club hipico, horatio luro, Horse Racing, jerry bailey, john fulton, juan pablo baeza, Keeneland, Lance Robinson, lookin at lucky, michael cooper, ocd, patricio baeza, Paulick Report, Ray Paulick, vamos pagando
December 30th, 2009 at 7:43 am
Amen to common sense, if only we could package it and sell it to some of the people in this industry and some veterinarians!
December 30th, 2009 at 8:10 am
Premium Tap, also a champion, suffered a similar fate as a weanling ($4k) & yearling ($9k) due to some issues from injuries sustained as a foal. A $60k 2 year old in training…..we all know how that turned out:: Upset Woodward winner, 3rd place finisher in the Breeders’ Cup Classic, 2nd in Dubai Wprld Cup behind Invasor & a host of major wins in Saudi.
It takes a vet with horsemen sense, for sure.
December 30th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Too many people in this sport need to realize that the veterinarians are there to help us make decisions, not make the decisions for us.
Unfortunately, the latter seems to be the case these days.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:21 am
The problem is the same in the Eventing and most other major performance horse areas. So many deals for really good horses have gone south because of some small issue that just about ANY athlete would have- including people! We use many off track thouroughbreds for eventing (who go on to become stars at the top levels such as Rolex) and most would fail the kind of vet exams done at the sales. Bruce Davidson, a legend in the eventing world, said it best- the race track is the best vetting in the world. If they can make it off the track sound, you have a sound horse.
Good for the horsemen and horsewomen who can see through the stupidity some of the vets and their clients have, They get some great horses at great prices. Good for the breeders of Lookn at Lucy- THEY made a great profit! These people at least have the common sense that is so lacking in the world today.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Ray,
I wrote an article on Vamos Pagando the day he won his debut in Chile at Hipico de Santiago and included a photo and video of the race. The colt is by Tumblebrutus, a full brother to Giant’s Causeway. You can access the video of Vamos Pagando and the post here:
http://sidfernando.wordpress.com/2009/12/25/ex-walmac-sire-tumblebrutus-another-good-storm-cat-in-sa/
December 30th, 2009 at 11:04 am
The CBA deserves a lot of credit for trying to turn the argument 180 degrees in their direction. I don’t agree with their stance, because I am a consumer and what they would like people to believe is against the best interests of consumers.
The CBA would like to ban vet reports at yearling and 2yo sales in North America.
The CBA has one job and that is to help their members, by and large those people charged with the job of selling yearlings, to be able to sell more of them and for higher prices. This is certainly a legitimate goal.
There are two lines of defense between the consumer and the consignors: trainers/agents and vets.
Buying any unraced horse is a gamble. Trainers/agents and vets can increase the odds of the consumers in their efforts to find the best and soundest prospects.
Vets are needed to analyze the physical aspects of the horse unseen by the naked eye.
This is even more important in the current era because of the enhanced tricks of the trade employed by the consignors, which include cosmetic techniques.
It is the very use of these tricks of the trade and the latest methods of preparing yearlings for public auction that highlight the relative positions of the two main characters in this drama, namely the consignors and the vets.
On the one hand, consignors by and large, will do anything necessary to make an ugly duckling look like a swan. On the other hand, it is up to the vets to find out what has happened in the past, what is going on in the present and what will happen in the future.
Consignors are not selling horses on behalf of clients to aid consumers. They represent sellers.
Vets represent consumers.
Consignors, frustrated with vet reports that prevent sales of their horses, would have consumers believe that vets are the problem, when in fact it is the CBA that is the problem.
The CBA someday will go down with the ship or come to the conclusion that their best chance for survival is to give the consumer the fairest shake possible, instead of promoting questionable practices and portraying the policemen (vets) as the robbers.
The CBA has highjacked the debate.
Let me re-frame it: A talented horse can overcome some minor physical deficiences and go on to a successful career. By taking a somewhat greater risk, a buyer can still come up with a Champion that began with some physical problems.
This does not mean that all of the vet work done by all of the vets at sales is thereby negated and rendered worthless.
Vets don’t generally “fail” horses. They point out the risks. It is then up to the consumer to make the best decision.
Horses with physical problems are less likely to overcome them.
Anybody that does not believe this or would like others to ignore this concept is taking a position that is not in the best interests of consumers.
For the yearling and 2yo markets to grow and prosper, the best interests of the consumers, and not the sellers, must be the uppermost concern.
But in the bluegrass, where most of these sellers are concentrated, pulling the wool over consumers’ eyes has for decades trumped transparency.
Now, under the leadership of the CBA, the consignors and sellers are aggressively going after the consumers’ best line of defense.
Not clever in the long run.
December 30th, 2009 at 11:31 am
good post barry
December 30th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Is it not fundamental in all rational analysis (something often lacking in the horse business where emotion often overrides) to consider the source of the opinions and underlying factual information provided, question it’s value in the selection process and consider the potential upside/downside of the information one may choose to rely upon in making decisions? Put all the information available on the table and let the buyer make an informed decision. That will build confidence in the marketplace.
December 30th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
I agree with Mr. Irwin, vet exams provide facts about the horse that buyers can use as they see fit.
I’m all for transparency for ALL existing vet records from day 1, plus a continuous chain of ownership.
I’ve purchased dogs from Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Czech Republic, all over Europe…along with a current medical exam the dog comes complete with his registration papers with his Hip/Elbow X-Ray Certification noted right on the papers, the reverse side has a complete chain of ownership record with signatures. The dog has a medical book that MUST follow him his entire life and a performance book that MUST follow him his entire life.
That’s what horse buyers need.
Sometimes knowing who’s hands an animal has passed through can tell you volumes.
December 30th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I am nearly always the first to defend veterinarians against the many charges thrown at them. In this discussion, it appears the heart of the matter is that rare commodity: common sense.
It is true, vets do not literally “fail” a horse. If the report is phrased in purely medical terminology without oral translation to English, unless the prospective buyer gets an interpreter, the horse “fails”.
Nobody should expect a vet to be infallible. Yet it is fear of that expectation which causes most vets to report every thing they see (or think they see - remember they are fallible) even if it may be of little consequence or risk to soundness.
Vets could adequately protect themselves by: 1) Reporting in plain English and by offering an opinion as to possible risks or consequences of a finding; 2) adding, in writing, a disclaimer - “This is my opinion and is not a guarantee of any kind. Client accepts this report in full understanding of the fact”.
Barry Irwin will surely disagree, but the Repository is a major part of the problem. It makes it too easy for veterinarians to rush through 32 shots each horse on scores of horses. Even @ $100 or more per horse, vets cannot write extensive reports. It is the consequential absense of professional opinion that is the root of the problem - not the aim of consignors to cheat buyers.
Without a repository, prospective buyers could limit their examinations to just those horses which they will try to buy. They, not the consignor, would pay for the Xrays. That eliminates the lingering idea that the stuff in the Respository may be shaded by the vet chosen by the consignor. Also, a Condition of Sale would allow the buyer to examine the purchase post-sale and return it if not satisfied.
I think it is also fair to remind everybody of the thousands of horses that “pass” the vet but subsquently breakdown or cannot run a lick. A vet can’t be expected to forecast that outcome. Otherwise they would spend most of their time defending against negligence claims.
December 30th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
MRI’s can detect osteoporosis in people and horses and every horse should have one. Bone strength is a very important part of soundness. There are 2 ways to find out if a person or horse has fragile bone, a broken bone or an MRI. Steps can be taken to strengthen bone before it is too late.
December 30th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I am in total agreement that thorough examinations by veterinarians are absolutely necessary and they will, often times, reveal problems that cannot be forgiven. The point that I am trying to make is that the paranoia on the part of the vet and buying agents has gotten to such a high level that they often turn down horses that can have a productive racing career. There is a fear of legal action on the part of the buyer that is more prevalent than in times past. A smart owner should work with vets and agents that they trust and assure them that they are free to make judgement calls in the case of finding issues in the vetting process. I have been in the business for almost forty years, sixteen of those years as a trainer, and I have been involved with very few top horses that didn’t have some sort of issue to comment on. It has gotten to the point now where it is easier for the connections to walk away if the report is not 100% clean instead of using horsemanship to evaluate the issue and decide if it will be a factor or not. By doing this we often miss the opportunity to purchase a good athlete. A good example: Curlin
December 30th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
In his comments above, Barry Irwin exhibits a tone of umbrage and level of misinformation that is quite surprising for someone with his experience. For instance, in his second paragraph, Irwin declares, “The CBA would like to ban vet reports at yearling and 2yo sales in North America.”
That is simply not true.
I recognize this as a gross misunderstanding by Irwin even before researching the details of the accusation, because I wrote the first two educational booklets published by the CBA on scoping and OCDs. In those works, some of the most eminent veterinarians, researchers, trainers, and horsemen in the country assisted me, and they are quoted at length and acknowledged by name in the publications.
And naturally, having worked so hard to educate buyers, agents, and owners about what we can and cannot learn of a horse’s prospects from scoping and OCDs, the CBA is not at all inclined to get rid of vet reports. That’s where most agents and buyers can check a horse’s status on veterinary issues at a glance, and the CBA is committed to promoting an efficient marketplace that works for everyone.
In fact, after speaking with officers of the CBA who had several meetings over the course of this year with members of the AAEP to encourage standardizing vet reports and to make them more useful.
CBA president Mark Taylor said that “in no way would the CBA discourage buyers from doing their due diligence in evaluating horses, but we do encourage all parties to learn more about veterinary issues and recognize that conventional wisdom regarding these issues has been proven wrong.” Informative booklets on these issues can be found here.
Both from the commonplace evidence of the racetrack (Unbridled’s Song, Farda Amiga, Lookin at Lucky, and hundreds of other top horses) and from large scientific studies, horses that were returned or rejected at the sales because of what were believed to be “problems” actually went on to perform at a very high level.
Taylor summarized the situation by saying that “the CBA’s view is that vets, buyers, breeders, consignors and sales companies will all benefit by sharing information. We do not blame vets for the lack of education or understanding that exists among buyers in regard to scope and X-ray issues at the sales. Our long term goal is to have all these stakeholders come together and conduct meaningful research studies related to racing success that will eventually help buyers make more informed decisions. Shining light on the horses which run at very high levels despite imperfections is just the first step toward reaching our long term goal.”
December 30th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
The CBA booklets about scoping, OCDs, and other issues can be found at http://www.consignorsandbreeders.com/
December 30th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Frank:
1) I did not make up the comment that the CBA wanted to ban vet reports from the sales grounds. Send me an e mail at valorific@aol.com and I will return the evidence to you.
2) You are a paid hack, hired to write those pamphlets, so you are not a credible voice in this discussion. You are like a political speech writer sticking up for your party. Sorry, but this is the sad fact.
3) Those pamphlets are patronizing and condescending to consumers and do nothing to elevate the discussion.
December 30th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
John:
All agents that sell horses have the same problem: vets are the bane of their existence, because they quash sales!
Of course you pont out that common sense should prevail and most times it does.
The buyers that have the savvy to tell which risks are worth taking are the ones that are the most successful.
But what about the riskaverse among the buying populace?
Who are they going to trust? An agent? A consignor? A seller? Or a vet?
Answer: the vet, because he is working strictly on their behalf. The others are on the opposite side of the fence.
When it comes to taking risks, I know a thing or two about it, having bought with both eyes wide open a horse with a bowed tendon that went on to miss winning the Derby and Preakness in photo finishes.
My vets told me the risks, I evaluated them and made my decision.
But I also failed to take a risk on Victory Gallop and Da Hoss, both of which had issues I could not live with. The same guy bought both of them and campaigned them to glory. He had a better feeling and a greater tolerance for risk than me.
Buyers need the best information they can get. They are entitled to it.
Pointing out odd instances of horses that failed the vet and went on to glory does not chance the policy that buying horses horses with potential problems is good idea.
December 30th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Barry–You make some very good points and I respect that. We have both been in this business for a long time and realize the risks, but I want to point out that, as an agent, I represent the buyer and will always do the best that I can for his interest. I’m not trying to just make a sale. I stay in business by making good decisions for my clients and just want to make them realize that, at times, we have to take a chance to get what we are looking for. It requires good judgement and horsemanship on my part and also on the part of the vet. I would not have bought Avanzado if it were not for the horsemanship of the vet, Marcelo Canonico, in Argentina. At some point there has to be some trust between the owner, vet and agent. That is the point about paranoia being a disadvantage in this business. Every time we buy a horse we are taking a risk. It is up to us to evaluate whether or not we should take the chance and it is up to the buyer to give us the support to make those decisions. I mentioned Curlin earlier and i give credit to Kenny Mcpeek for making that purchase when there was an issue to consider.
December 30th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
John, the owners that exhibit the best judgment have the best results.
But what the CBA is trying to do is cloud the integrity of the vets. That’s just not right.
December 30th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
I agree about the good judgement. It is a matter of putting together a team where trust exist and, if all are trying to do their best, it gives the investor the best opportunity for good results. If the team has to hold back due to fear, they will never realize the full potential of their efforts.
December 31st, 2009 at 2:57 am
The interesting thing about this argument is that it proves yet again that horses will make liars out of all of us. The list of horses who have overcome physical faults to become champions is, indeed, long, but the list of horses stymied by physical problems is even longer. Any intelligent buyer in the horse market needs to do all he or she can to limit the risk. We all know that you can buy a “perfect” horse and it won’t gallop a lick, while the one with a leg growing out of his forehead wins races. Baffert and everyone else can pat themselves on the back for being an astute horseman for buying the overlooked champion. But how many hundreds of others did he buy that didn’t see a track? Everyone in the market should be entitled to all the information available. The horse will prove them wrong - or right - at the end of the day, anyway.
December 31st, 2009 at 4:51 am
We all know the risks involved with buying any horse whether “clean” or with “issues”. I was involved, years ago, with the sale of Love Smitten to Sheikh Mohammed. She vetted very clean but within a couple of weeks fractured a coffin bone and never raced for him. Fortunately, as a broodmare she produced Swain for him. The point is that there are issues that can be irrelevant to whether or not a horse stays sound but we have gotten to the point where we walk away from any issue and I feel that is a mistake. It all boils down to the title of this article: Missing, Common Sense. Of course we should accumulate all of the information that we have the ability to put together to help us in making a purchase decision, but then use horsemanship and that “common sense” to make an educated decision.
December 31st, 2009 at 4:53 am
The main consideration should be that you are buying an athlete and then evaluate what they have as to whether or not you feel that they can fulfill their potential. I would rather have a horse that has ability with some acceptable issues than a clean one who is not athletic.
December 31st, 2009 at 10:51 am
It’s a percentage game. Take all the yearlings that had similar vet issues and profile to Lookin’ At Lucky as a yearling. How many were profitable investments? How many of them turned out to be money pits? Answer that question, and you would be helping buyers make an educated decision with their money.
When racehorse ownership in general becomes a more attractive proposition, the market for horses with perceived issues will improve.
But to those who say do away with the repository, I say decreasing the amount of information available will not help the auction industry grow.
December 31st, 2009 at 10:56 am
The ability and willingness to race horses with powerful pain-numbing and anti-bleeding drugs in the U.S. are important factors in the national and international horse trade. Some profit by masking and over riding soundness issues with chemicals even though they contribute to the decay of horses, the breed and the industry.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Race horse ownership is a more attractive proposition in South America where the entry level is low, maintenance cost are very low and the purses are reasonable especially in relation to the costs. I also favor the procedure for vetting sale horses which is done after the sale with the right to return the individual if you find problems. This avoids multiple scoping of popular yearlings and and weanlings and will encourage the sellers to be more up front. I totally agree that we need all of the information that we can get to better evaluate our purchases and in no way want to eliminate anything, including the repository, but it just makes me cringe when I see a weanling scoped multiple times.
December 31st, 2009 at 3:08 pm
The sales company could have an independent vet or vets that would scope,x-ray,MRI,etc all the weanlings,yearlings,etc at the sale and mandate that they be scoped,xrayed,MRI,etc just one time and the cost would be split between buyer and seller if the horse sold or if he did not sell then the consignor would pay.
December 31st, 2009 at 7:06 pm
The sales industry has continued to put out information that is based on the experience of the vet/agent. Why does the CBA not use their vast resources to do some ligitimate research with a very large group of horses over a number of years to determine if there is any statistical difference in the performance of horses that have vetting problems and their results on the track. This is a study that needs to include thousands of horses, not the typical few hundred that most researchers use.
The large vet clinics have vast amounts of information on the yearling crops in KY especially since the digital revolution. Lets use this information to put an end to the argument and have some difinitive answers to radiographic and endoscope questions.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Aside of studying the physical condition of sales horses vs. racing performance, medical information needs to be kept from birth and complete electronic medical records should follow horses for life but the industry would need to want transparency.
Extensive data should be kept in order to discover beneficial and dangerous practices and improve safety and quality: homebreds vs. sales horses, safety records of owners, trainers, jockeys. Drugs, vets, farriers. Breeze and race records, tracks, racing distances, breeding, etc.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:42 pm
I stand with John Fulton in cringing when young horses are scoped dozens of times. Ultimately the repeated process causes a form of panic in the horse when yet another vet approaches. It does not bother a horse if a thousand vets look at it’s Xrays in the Repository. Dozens of scopes, conducted with varying degrees of competence, do hurt the horse. The practice should be limited to one scope by a competent veterinarian appointed by the sales company. Why not take pictures of the horses throat and nail them up at the stall for all the experts to study?
The MRI suggestion. If it is not already the case, add on a few more super-expensive procedures and veterinary medicine will soon pass human medicine in the costs of unnecessary procedures. As if horse breeders are not already going broke fast enough.