Debate-Should a specific amount of the take out go to horses

[Trackmomma]

I can tell you from my point of view having owned quite a few horses and not being among the so-called "rich owners", I feel it is my responsibility when my racehorses career is over, to find him/her a home. Not using a horse placement group to do it, but to go out and find the home for my horse. I have found homes for them as a show horse or a riding/pleasure horse, and always do my due dilligence (by keeping the papers and looking up prospective people/places on the internet) as to where to place them...However, once I have found an adequate home where the horse can can be useful enough to have a second career and/or live out his/her years in a good environment, my responsibility ends there.

I totally agree that is where your responsibility ends. However, after years of placing horses on my own I have learned that it never hurts to use the resources available such as re-training and re-homing organizations. I do, however, contribute to my horses' upkeep until they are placed, unlike most owners/trainers who use these organizations. They have the network and resources in place to monitor the situation. I don't.
BTW, holding on to your papers is no guarantee that the new owner can't get them. The Jockey Club is very lax in this area. About 10 years ago I placed a three year old colt by Artax with a H/J lady who signed a contract stating she would have him gelded since my partner and I did not want him used for breeding. She has since sent hair samples to the JC and obtained his papers in her name (they never contacted us to see if her ownership claims were legit. She could have stolen the dang horse for all they knew), bred him, and put one of his offspring in race training. My partner called me up completely irate when this horse's son came up on the work tab at HP last year. I could take this lady to court, but the damage is done and it would just spend my money.

[Claimboxx]

I can tell you from my point of view having owned quite a few horses and not being among the so-called "rich owners", I feel it is my responsibility when my racehorses career is over, to find him/her a home. Not using a horse placement group to do it, but to go out and find the home for my horse. I have found homes for them as a show horse or a riding/pleasure horse, and always do my due dilligence (by keeping the papers and looking up prospective people/places on the internet) as to where to place them...However, once I have found an adequate home where the horse can can be useful enough to have a second career and/or live out his/her years in a good environment, my responsibility ends there.

BTW, holding on to your papers is no guarantee that the new owner can't get them. The Jockey Club is very lax in this area. About 10 years ago I placed a three year old colt by Artax with a H/J lady who signed a contract stating she would have him gelded since my partner and I did not want him used for breeding. She has since sent hair samples to the JC and obtained his papers in her name (they never contacted us to see if her ownership claims were legit. She could have stolen the dang horse for all they knew), bred him, and put one of his offspring in race training. My partner called me up completely irate when this horse's son came up on the work tab at HP last year. I could take this lady to court, but the damage is done and it would just spend my money.

I realize that, but keeping the papers or releasing the papers with NOT FOR RACING PURPOSES on the back alleviates nearly any chance a giveaway can ever race again. In addition, it is possible to make the Jockey Club aware of the situation and they will refuse to send out new papers..

[Igeteven]

TM

This has nothing to do with the race tracks, the horse racing board has to do it with authorized farms and ranches that will take care of the horse.

[Trackmomma]

TM

This has nothing to do with the race tracks, the horse racing board has to do it with authorized farms and ranches that will take care of the horse.

And who gets authorized? What are the qualifications? Who makes the final decision and how are you going to implement and maintain over-site? You have no idea the amount of money that would have to go in to something like what you are proposing. And how many horses do they care for? What criteria do you use to decide what horses go to these places? There are not unlimited resources available to house them let alone feed them. If theses farms only have room for so many horses (as will be the case) how do you decide which of the 20+ horses needing shelter get the one spot available? This is a headache the CHRB does not want or need.
Then there is the fact that many of these horses would be happier and healthier doing something other than just sitting on a farm. Responsible owners and trainers utilize the resources available right now to place their horses in new homes after their racing careers are over. The irresponsible ones do what they do and no one can really stop them since the horses belong to them. Setting up these farms you are talking about will not make these people stop running these horses. Elimination of pre-race and race day medications and requiring all tracks, by law, to have pre-race vet exams by well qualified individuals will.
The CHRB would be better served to take the money you are talking about and increasing salaries for state vets throughout the state. The ones at the big meets are well paid (sort of) but those at other tracks are not. At places like up north, the fair meets and Los Al the state vets are whoever they could get to take the job for the money. The law does not require every horse to be checked prior to racing. This is something required for certification by the National Thoroughbred Racing Association. Certification, and all the regulations that come with it, is an expense that many tracks have decided to forgo. If you make it a requirement of receiving a racing license, it will happen. This is a much better use of the CHRB's time and resources.

[Andyc]

You are completely wrong. Most of the "rich owners" these days know absolutely nothing about horses. They get into this sport because they have watched on TV or gone to the races and it looks like fun. Or because they see owning racehorses as a status symbol. They don’t understand why they have expenses while the horses are laid up and they don’t care about why horses can't just run every time they want to come out and watch. Long gone are the days when most of the “rich owners” are generational horsemen or even horsemen at all. Reality is the facts I stated are not well known to most “rich owners” and, more importantly, many of them wouldn’t care if they did know.
The analogy of a burger and your wrapper that is not at all comparable. When you buy your Double-Double, you finish it. It is all used up. But, the majority of retired racehorses aren’t used up. They have years of useful life left in them, just in other careers. Why shouldn’t a person who bought the horse at some point for racing be able to sell it or give it to someone who will use it for another purpose? And then who is responsible? In any other business, one would feel that the most recent purchaser of the horse is now responsible. Correct? So why, when a horse ends up at slaughter 10 owners down the road, is the person who bought the horse for racing vilified?
And I don’t expect the bettors to pay for it. That was Lester’s bright idea.

What am I wrong about? Who cares what owners know about horses? That has nothing to do with being responsible for what you own."Rich" owners aren't stupid. It would take 5 minutes to explain the economics of owning a horse.

[Trackmomma]

I realize that, but keeping the papers or releasing the papers with NOT FOR RACING PURPOSES on the back alleviates nearly any chance a giveaway can ever race again. In addition, it is possible to make the Jockey Club aware of the situation and they will refuse to send out new papers..

We did notify the JC. They still sent her the papers and registered the colt, no problem. And if they want to race them they just take them up to Bakersfield or down to Mexico and match them or do point to points. No papers needed.
My point is, there are no such thing as guarantees, but once an owner has made every effort to place the horse in a good home, used all the resources and done their due diligence, they should no longer be held responsible for what someone down the road does with the horse. And it is just wrong of people to think they should be. The majority of racehorse owners are people like you and I who do the best we can to make sure the horses are cared for after racing. If they get sold or given away down the road to someone who mistreats, neglects, or sends them to auction we are not responsible, they are. But fanatics have riled up the general public into believing we are the big bad racing industry for whom these majestic animals are disposable. We didn't throw them away. Someone else did. But the perception is, it's our fault. Well, I don't agree that I should be held responsible for another person's actions. Do you?

[Trackmomma]

What am I wrong about? Who cares what owners know about horses? That has nothing to do with being responsible for what you own."Rich" owners aren't stupid. It would take 5 minutes to explain the economics of owning a horse.

If you think the economics of owning a horse can be explained in five minutes, you don't know very much about the economics of owning a horse. And people hear what they want to hear. That's human nature. You can explain it to them and it goes in one ear and out the other. Sure they hear about the shoes and the day rate and "potential" vet expenses, teeth floating, stuff like that. But that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the expenses involved in owning a horse and caring for it properly.
Then there is the fact that most trainers who get a rich owner who knows nothing about horses isn't going to take the chance of talking them out of getting into racing by explaining all the things that can cost you money when things don't go the way we all hope they go. Ask any of Baffert's owners if he explained the cost of nuclear scans, x-rays, ultra-sounds, medications, and that's when he is telling them things are going well, before they bought horses for him to train? Not to mention if something goes wrong like severe colic, a twisted gut, tying up so bad they need to be given Valium and IV fluids for days or they just take a bad step and break down. Since I know several of his former owners, I can tell you that he does not.
So you are wrong. The economics of owning a horse is not common knowledge.

[Andyc]

Deleted

[Andyc]

If you think the economics of owning a horse can be explained in five minutes, you don't know very much about the economics of owning a horse. And people hear what they want to hear. That's human nature. You can explain it to them and it goes in one ear and out the other. Sure they hear about the shoes and the day rate and "potential" vet expenses, teeth floating, stuff like that. But that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the expenses involved in owning a horse and caring for it properly.
Then there is the fact that most trainers who get a rich owner who knows nothing about horses isn't going to take the chance of talking them out of getting into racing by explaining all the things that can cost you money when things don't go the way we all hope they go. Ask any of Baffert's owners if he explained the cost of nuclear scans, x-rays, ultra-sounds, medications, and that's when he is telling them things are going well, before they bought horses for him to train? Not to mention if something goes wrong like severe colic, a twisted gut, tying up so bad they need to be given Valium and IV fluids for days or they just take a bad step and break down. Since I know several of his former owners, I can tell you that he does not.
So you are wrong. The economics of owning a horse is not common knowledge.

Actually I was wrong, it would only take 2 minutes. Besides most owners have owned horses previously so they should know the costs involved. But my point isn't about what is or what isn't common knowledge about costs it is about responsibility. Why should horse owners get a pass for not doing their due diligence of horse ownership? That's absurd. I am not the least bit concerned about losing owners because they find out about the reality of the costs of owning a horse.

[Trackmomma]

Actually I was wrong, it would only take 2 minutes. Besides most owners have owned horses previously so they should know the costs involved. But my point isn't about what is or what isn't common knowledge about costs it is about responsibility. Why should horse owners get a pass for not doing their due diligence of horse ownership? That's absurd. I am not the least bit concerned about losing owners because they find out about the reality of the costs of owning a horse.

So now you want to change it to "most owners?" I thought we were talking about new ones and the fact that what you are proposing will keep new owners away. Or did you forget the subject? You remind me of something my father used to say:
"People that make their own facts can never be convinced that they are wrong."
Anyway, I'm not saying owners should not be held responsible for the horses they own. Not sure where you got that idea (but then you are so busy being right, it must be hard to keep track of what is being said). While They Own Them. I am saying it is unreasonable to expect someone who buys a horse to be responsible for it for the rest of it's life, no matter what, as your earlier post suggested. Being responsible for finding placement for it once its is done racing, yes. But once that is done the responsibility ends. Requiring owners to do otherwise as a condition of ownership, as your post suggested, will drive away prospective owners and many of the ones that are already involved in the sport.
Buying a horse, any horse, at any point in it's life does not make you responsible for anything that may happen to that horse once it leaves your ownership. It makes you responsible for it while it is yours and it makes you responsible for finding it a good home when it is time for it not to be yours any longer. Horsemen on the track, as a rule, do everything they can to find homes for horses once their racing days are done. Be it at a retirement facility, through re-training, "adopting", and selling them. Once they have done that, the horse is no longer their responsibility. According to your earlier post, you believe, that once a person buys a horse, they are responsible for it for the rest of its life. That is just unreasonable.