Great Idea. ‘Aftercare Grade’ to Be New Component of HANA Track Ratings

[Andy Asaro]

Excellent idea. Tip of the cap to HANA
We never quit,
A


https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/1037368748502470657

[Fred Mertz]

I agree that this is an excellent idea.



I was in a small partnership some years ago with a filly and a colt. Finding both of them a good home wasn't easy or necessarily cheap, but we did and I'm happy about that.

[MadVindication]

That's exactly what I want to know. I don't want to knowingly support mistreatment of thoroughbreds financially, not even with a 2$ bet. When I consider betting a track, how the horses are treated after (and before) their racing career is over is something on my mind. A program like this can help hold accountability and makes it easier to abstain from tracks for personal beliefs and/or send letters of protest.

[AndyC]

Why is this a track issue and not a horse owner issue?

[cj]

Why is this a track issue and not a horse owner issue?

And definitely not a horseplayer issue IMO. We pay enough. I'm certainly not against anyone donating and do so myself when I can, but that is a personal choice and shouldn't be something people are guilted into IMO.

[MadVindication]

Why is this a track issue and not a horse owner issue?

How do you define a horse owner? What if a horse is owned by 100 plus people.

[AndyC]

How do you define a horse owner? What if a horse is owned by 100 plus people.

Horse owner = person or persons that own a horse

Usually a 100 plus people owning a horse would be done through a partnership. Responsibility should not be diminished by the number of owners or form of ownership.

[ultracapper]

The tracks would have to weigh their need for horses on just how much influence they could exert on the owners, on any issue.

[AndyC]

And definitely not a horseplayer issue IMO. We pay enough. I'm certainly not against anyone donating and do so myself when I can, but that is a personal choice and shouldn't be something people are guilted into IMO.

I agree. It is absurd that someone is allowed to participate in the "sport of kings" as an owner then allowed to summarily drop all responsibility for a horse once the racing has finished.

[MadVindication]

Horse owner = person or persons that own a horse

Usually a 100 plus people owning a horse would be done through a partnership. Responsibility should not be diminished by the number of owners or form of ownership.

No it shouldn't. So there would be primary owners of a partnership to hold responsible?

I think that track ratings also put pressure on owners/trainers just as well. Not sure how it can hinder gamblers. I think that the right to know, without having to be an insider or horseman, is important.

[MadVindication]

On the flipside, it could also cause a lot of bad publicity if media zealots start sensationalising "50% of race tracks get poor grades in aftercare." Defining and upholding the standards of what good aftercare is could prove a tough business. What if too many tracks don't make the grade? Lower the standards to help industry and clear names?

[AndyC]

No it shouldn't. So there would be primary owners of a partnership to hold responsible?

I think that track ratings also put pressure on owners/trainers just as well. Not sure how it can hinder gamblers. I think that the right to know, without having to be an insider or horseman, is important.

A track doesn't own the horses and their rating should not be dependent on the aftercare of horses.

[MadVindication]

A track doesn't own the horses and their rating should not be dependent on the aftercare of horses.

The tracks get the take-outs. They profit just as much if not more on more horses being churned and discarded.

[AndyC]

The tracks get the take-outs. They profit just as much if not more on more horses being churned and discarded.

The tracks don't profit from a discarded horse. The one who profits is the deadbeat owner who relieves him/herself from supporting the horse.

In my view there should be a database of discarded horses along with the last owner's name. Any owner not taking financial responsibility should be forbidden from racing horses by the tracks. tracks that allow such owners to run should be boycotted. Anybody suggesting that horseplayers should pay the freight should be gelded.

[thaskalos]

The tracks don't profit from a discarded horse. The one who profits is the deadbeat owner who relieves him/herself from supporting the horse.

In my view there should be a database of discarded horses along with the last owner's name. Any owner not taking financial responsibility should be forbidden from racing horses by the tracks. tracks that allow such owners to run should be boycotted. Anybody suggesting that horseplayers should pay the freight should be gelded.

Is it against the racing rules to publicize the names of the last owners of the horses who end up neglected or surrendered to the slaughterhouses? Why haven't I ever seen such a list made public? Are these deadbeat owners worthy of the anonymity that the game protects them with?

[Mulerider]

In my view there should be a database of discarded horses along with the last owner's name. Any owner not taking financial responsibility should be forbidden from racing horses by the tracks. tracks that allow such owners to run should be boycotted. Anybody suggesting that horseplayers should pay the freight should be gelded.

I proposed a simple variation of the database solution to both Boyd Gaming and the Louisiana Racing Commission that would identify discarded horses and the last owner (usually a backstretch meat buyer). The proposal would essentially name and blacklist that last owner, and prohibit connections from selling (or giving) a horse to that person once identified. Neither seemed interested.

I welcome HANA's inclusion of this category, although I appreciate the difficulty of gathering the data necessary to assign a fair ranking. IMO, a good starting point would be to look at each track's written no-slaughter policy. If the language prohibits an owner from "directly or indirectly" selling a horse to slaughter, as Tampa Bay's does, that's a good indication that the track is serious about its policy and understands how the policy can be gamed. If a track's language merely says "directly," or "knowingly" (Boyd Gaming) that's a red flag. it creates a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, and sends a not-so-subtle message to connections: if you're going to dump a horse, do it through a third party.

[MadVindication]

The tracks don't profit from a discarded horse. The one who profits is the deadbeat owner who relieves him/herself from supporting the horse.

In my view there should be a database of discarded horses along with the last owner's name. Any owner not taking financial responsibility should be forbidden from racing horses by the tracks. tracks that allow such owners to run should be boycotted. Anybody suggesting that horseplayers should pay the freight should be gelded.

I think there should be moves to make both tracks and owners responsible and not just the tracks, yes.

If tracks have no accountability then they essentially "house" the problem.

[Fager Fan]

I proposed a simple variation of the database solution to both Boyd Gaming and the Louisiana Racing Commission that would identify discarded horses and the last owner (usually a backstretch meat buyer). The proposal would essentially name and blacklist that last owner, and prohibit connections from selling (or giving) a horse to that person once identified. Neither seemed interested.

I welcome HANA's inclusion of this category, although I appreciate the difficulty of gathering the data necessary to assign a fair ranking. IMO, a good starting point would be to look at each track's written no-slaughter policy. If the language prohibits an owner from "directly or indirectly" selling a horse to slaughter, as Tampa Bay's does, that's a good indication that the track is serious about its policy and understands how the policy can be gamed. If a track's language merely says "directly," or "knowingly" (Boyd Gaming) that's a red flag. it creates a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, and sends a not-so-subtle message to connections: if you're going to dump a horse, do it through a third party.

I disagree. How would you like your livelihood taken away for unknowingly doing something wrong?

You’ve been really quiet on Dina. I expected you’d have a lot to say as one of her supporters. What gives?

As to this HANA grade, I think it’s a good idea. Get input from people in rescue because I’ve found few understand the real issues. For example, having an official rescue, one that takes in or places horses, is far more impactful than handing over to the TAA $5/start.

[AndyC]

I think there should be moves to make both tracks and owners responsible and not just the tracks, yes.

If tracks have no accountability then they essentially "house" the problem.

Attempts to make others responsible for the irresponsible acts of horse owners is ridiculous. This is not a complex issue.

[Mulerider]

I disagree. How would you like your livelihood taken away for unknowingly doing something wrong?

You’ve been really quiet on Dina. I expected you’d have a lot to say as one of her supporters. What gives?

As to this HANA grade, I think it’s a good idea. Get input from people in rescue because I’ve found few understand the real issues. For example, having an official rescue, one that takes in or places horses, is far more impactful than handing over to the TAA $5/start.

My limited support for Alborano was not unconditional, and I believe I've told you that privately. My focus is, and always has been, to attack the slaughter issue in Louisiana at the root of the problem, which is the negligence of the LRC and Boyd in addressing the issue in a serious way. My work with Alborano's group (specifically, Anna Haber who was featured in the article) was aimed at lobbying the Commission to enforce one specific rule on its books, and to try to convince Boyd to strengthen the language of its no-slaughter policy.

And as I've told a few people here privately, including PA and CJ, I completely disassociated myself back in July. After hearing credible reports of a lack of maintenance funding, I personally advised Alborano to approach NTWO with a request to step in and acquire the horses. When that was summarily rejected, I said adios. As did Anna Haber.

As far as livelihoods go, my plan does not jeopardize anyone's livelihood for unknowingly selling to a meat buyer. It is designed to identify and blacklist the meat buyer, and remove the "unknowingly" excuse.

[TonyK@HSH]

My limited support for Alborano was not unconditional, and I believe I've told you that privately. My focus is, and always has been, to attack the slaughter issue in Louisiana at the root of the problem, which is the negligence of the LRC and Boyd in addressing the issue in a serious way. My work with Alborano's group (specifically, Anna Haber who was featured in the article) was aimed at lobbying the Commission to enforce one specific rule on its books, and to try to convince Boyd to strengthen the language of its no-slaughter policy.

And as I've told a few people here privately, including PA and CJ, I completely disassociated myself back in July. After hearing credible reports of a lack of maintenance funding, I personally advised Alborano to approach NTWO with a request to step in and acquire the horses. When that was summarily rejected, I said adios. As did Anna Haber.

As far as livelihoods go, my plan does not jeopardize anyone's livelihood for unknowingly selling to a meat buyer. It is designed to identify and blacklist the meat buyer, and remove the "unknowingly" excuse.

Many tracks impose 'anti-slaughter' policies. If an owner knowingly violates this policy they are punished accordingly.

The scenario I see playing out more often is an owner retires and re-homes their horse. This could be through a horseman's retirement program. The new owner, at some point, finds this horse dos not meet his needs and sends the horse to a sale.

If rescuers attempt to save the horse from slaughter, they check the tattoo and identify the last owner in the racing records. They may contact the 'old' owner or the racetrack where they participates. The burden is on the 'old' owner to prove that they were not responsible for this horse ending up at the sale.


I'm not going to pretend that there are not owners that knowingly violate these policies but in my experience most retirements are handled appropriately.

[Mulerider]

Many tracks impose 'anti-slaughter' policies. If an owner knowingly violates this policy they are punished accordingly.

The scenario I see playing out more often is an owner retires and re-homes their horse. This could be through a horseman's retirement program. The new owner, at some point, finds this horse dos not meet his needs and sends the horse to a sale.

If rescuers attempt to save the horse from slaughter, they check the tattoo and identify the last owner in the racing records. They may contact the 'old' owner or the racetrack where they participates. The burden is on the 'old' owner to prove that they were not responsible for this horse ending up at the sale.


I'm not going to pretend that there are not owners that knowingly violate these policies but in my experience most retirements are handled appropriately.

Yes, this is probably true in most jurisdictions. I'm afraid Louisiana is...different. Like clockwork, dozens of horses begin showing up at kill lots as soon as the meets end at Delta and EVD. And unfortunately, it is not uncommon to find a horse pulled from Thompson's with a lip tattoo that has been burned or otherwise mutilated to avoid identification. And for the horses that are able to be identified, it seems that the names of certain trainers and owners keep appearing time and time again. Boyd Gaming knows this.

[clicknow]

How is HANNA going to grade tracks on aftercare unless we are all very clear about what exactly "aftercare" involves?

Anyone can disappear a horse off the backside and claim it went on to a 2nd career, a good adoption, etc. There is even paperwork (legit) that shows this happening.


Then, years later, horse is found behind a dumpster somewhere, or walking alongside a county road somewhere, skin and bones, etc.

Aftercare to me, implies AFTER CARE. That means for the life of the horse. Is money set aside to accomplish this, are arrangements made for horse's aftercare BEFORE track allows them to race, etc.?

THere's got to be a dependable way to "sign seal deliver" on such promises. If anyone cared, that is.

Should breeders have any liability ? Owners? Trainers?

Where are we going to put them all? Perhaps "aftercare" can also include the owner just opting for humane euthanization.......and pay for it, just like any other vet bill. They should have to make such a "deposit" before ever racing the horse.