How should we raise more money for thoroughbred retirement? Let's raise the takeout.

[macguy]

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2011/03/23/new-york-trf-reactions.aspx

“That way everybody that participates in racing—handicappers, tracks, jockeys, trainers, owners—would be giving something,” he said. “Yes, it means an increase in takeout. But I can’t think of a better reason for a takeout increase than the protection of our race horses.”

[FenceBored]

Let's say the average cost of maintaining a retiree were to average only $10/day for everything (feed, groom, vet care). That's $3,650,000 per year for every 1k retirees. Somebody want to do the math based on the 30-40k/year TB foal crops and equine mortality actuarial tables?

[pandy]

Raising the takeout is not the way to go, it won't work.

If they want to take care of these horses they have to do it through charitable donations, most of which will come from wealthy individuals or corporations.

[andymays]

http://jessicachapel.com/2011/03/24/save-horses-mug-horseplayers/

Save Horses! Mug Horseplayers!

Let’s stop this idea in its tracks now:

Violette said there has been discussion about dedicating one-tenth of one percent of New York’s handle to retirement programs, which would need legislative approval. This would generate about $2.2-million per year.

“That way everybody that participates in racing — handicappers, tracks, jockeys, trainers, owners — would be giving something,” he said. “Yes, it means an increase in takeout. But I can’t think of a better reason for a takeout increase than the protection of our race horses.”

Raise takeout? An unfortunate necessity. Mandate that everyone who registers a foal pay $25 toward racehorse retirement? An impossible dream.

I’ve given money to the Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation and other retirement groups in the past; I’ll surely do so in the future, because horses deserve a decent quality of life after the racetrack. But like most horseplayers, I don’t breed horses. I don’t own horses. And until those who do breed and own horses levy a similar burden on themselves to help cover thoroughbred retirement costs through registration, sales, or earnings — all possible sources of funds — then I’m not going to see a takeout increase, for the horses, as anything other than what it is — a politically palatable passing of the buck.

For the rest of Jessica Chapel Blog click on the link!

http://jessicachapel.com/2011/03/24/save-horses-mug-horseplayers/

[MaTH716]

Could they take, say 1% off the top of every race purse and put it towards the retirement funds?

[DeanT]

Interview with C Betts

http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2011/01/interview-with-caroline-betts-phd-on.html

7) Back to horse retirement: If you could wave a magic wand and do one thing to help retired horses live their days out in dignity, what would you do?

I think my “nirvana” is for all industry stakeholders – state and local governments, owners, breeders, trainers, private owners of racetracks, and fans/gamblers – to agree that a 401K should exist for every thoroughbred racehorse prospect, with the funds contributed by all and centrally managed and dispersed. How large should it be per horse? Just large enough to ensure that if that horse cannot or can no longer race or breed, there is a reputable, approved non-profit specializing in the retirement and/or transitioning of racehorses that is willing to take it in at the time of the horse’s retirement.




That does not mean that the fund should cover expenses for the lifetime of the horse; for many young, relatively healthy horses there is an active adoption and sale market which will absorb them as non-racing prospects relatively quickly, while horses genuinely in need of retirement can be subsidized from that turnover. There are some owners that literally keep their racehorses for their lifetimes, and some good private markets, as well, for off track thoroughbreds that will absorb some that can be transitioned. I don’t think a central fund will need to finance the transitioning and retirement of them all – but it should be there to secure a place in the non-profit sector of those that have no good alternative.


Is it feasible? I think so – and more, I think it will enormously benefit the industry to develop a reputation for altruism and uniformly caring for its equine athletes when they are no longer athletic. The trend of social conscience in favor of humane treatment of animals is unlikely to reverse, so you have to take account of that in any plan to build or even maintain public and political support. I’m not naïve about the costs – they would run in the tens of millions of dollars a year, although I’d note that is dwarfed by what is spent on thoroughbred racehorse and breeding prospects each year at public auction.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

A $25 transaction fee (tax deductible) that goes to a national fund for retired horses every time a horse is sold paid by the buyer, whether the horse is sold privately, at auction or claimed.

Also, $25 paid on top of the stud fee (those breeding the horses are the ones bringing the horse into the world).

Look for corporate race sponsors who are willing to contribute to a good cause.

It makes no sense to have Horseplayers pay for it out of takeout. Especially when donations to retirement farms are generally tax deductible.

[FenceBored]

Could they take, say 1% off the top of every race and put it towards the retirement funds?

Total purses in the US during 2010 were $1,031,300,000 (http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=7). One percent of that would be $10,313,000. In my earlier post I come up with the figure of $3,650,000 per year to keep 1,000 horses. Using 1% of all purses in the US would cover the costs of maintaining less than 3,000 horses every year (~2,825).

[RXB]

Could they take, say 1% off the top of every race purse and put it towards the retirement funds?

Take it out of the NY-bred slush fund.

[BIG49010]

Take 1% out of every purse, before you pay the jock, trainer and owner.

[MaTH716]

Total purses in the US during 2010 were $1,031,300,000 (http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=7). One percent of that would be $10,313,000. In my earlier post I come up with the figure of $3,650,000 per year to keep 1,000 horses. Using 1% of all purses in the US would cover the costs of maintaining less than 3,000 horses every year (~2,825).
It would still be a step in the right direction.

[CryingForTheHorses]

Take 1% out of every purse, before you pay the jock, trainer and owner.

I think this is a great idea but you need to also take 1% of all tickets cashed from the horseplayers. We all have to pay to play.

[thaskalos]

Millions of dollars worth of winning tickets go unclaimed every year because of horseplayer negligence. It is unconscionable that this money is left in the hands of horsemen, track owners and politicians.

If the industry officials really are sympathetic to the plight of these retired horses...then they should do everything in their power to make sure that these monies are used in a fairer way than they are currently.

This unclaimed money is not theirs...and it has never been.

[cj]

I think this is a great idea but you need to also take 1% of all tickets cashed from the horseplayers. We all have to pay to play.

Yeah, because we don't pay enough already. Get real Tom.

[andymays]

What if PA started a program where we each pay 1 cent per word towards a retirement fund.

(I'm laughing)

I don't know what the answer is. :confused:

[macguy]

What if PA started a program where we each pay 1 cent per word towards a retirement fund.

(I'm laughing)

I don't know what the answer is. :confused:

Perhaps 25 cents a post...
Where is 46 these days anyway?

[CryingForTheHorses]

Yeah, because we don't pay enough already. Get real Tom.

I dont understand CJ..You only pay what you lose.Anything you win minus your takeout from the track is found money in my eyes.

[thaskalos]

I dont understand CJ..You only pay what you lose.Anything you win minus your takeout from the track is found money in my eyes. Yeah...that's right.

Only the horsemen are entitled to a profit in this game...

The horseplayers are lucky to get anything at all...

[cj]

I dont understand CJ..You only pay what you lose.Anything you win minus your takeout from the track is found money in my eyes.

Stick to training horses Tom. You are good at it. You are over your head in this discussion. You are just following the company line.

[andymays]

How about 50 cents to get in the bathroom? Then 5 cents a square for TP.

Again, I don't know what the answer is.

[cj]

How about 50 cents to get in the bathroom? Then 5 cents a square for TP.

Again, I don't know what the answer is.

Whatever the answer is, it should not include bettors. We pay enough already. The truth is it should be the owner. He OWNS the horse.

[Relwob Owner]

Stick to training horses Tom. You are good at it. You are over your head in this discussion. You are just following the company line.


CJ,

How is he over his head? That would imply that he doesnt have enough knowledge to form an opinion, which I think he does......That being said, I totally disagree with him and agree with you. I think owners should always be responsible for their horses after they retire(how they did this is up for debate) and having the bettors pay makes no sense at all to me.

[andymays]

Taking money from the people who bet is easy and we don't have a voice (until lately). That's what's happening in California. They are asking Horseplayers to suck it up so they can maintain their lifestyles. It aint happening this time.

I do want to see the horses cared for after they race but I'm not the one to ask how to do it.

[Stillriledup]

The difference between bettors and everyone else (jocks, trainers, etc) is that if a bettor retired, the game suffers. The game loses money. If a jock, trainer or owner retired, the game stays the same. The game doesnt suffer financially if any jock, trainer or owner retired from the sport.

As far as bettors providing a small percentage of their money to help retired horses, i think that's a joke of a discussion. If you bet on an NFL game in Vegas they don't raise the vig to pay for retired players healthcare, so why are horseplayers different?

[andymays]

I got it. It just came to me.

They sell Z horse poop. It'll be a "hot" item. :lol:

Then we know its' the end of the world.

[andymays]

Edit time is too short. I'm all effed up. I can't correct my punctuation. Maybe I should donate for the right to edit. I don't know. :confused:

[Relwob Owner]

[QUOTE=Stillriledup]The difference between bettors and everyone else (jocks, trainers, etc) is that if a bettor retired, the game suffers. The game loses money. If a jock, trainer or owner retired, the game stays the same. The game doesnt suffer financially if any jock, trainer or owner retired from the sport.


This just isnt true IMO.....I am someone who sees both sides of this as an owner and bettor. When an owner "retires", where is the guarantee that he/she will be replaced? There is none and as more and more owners retire or just get tired of trying and competing against "supertrainer" types, the numbers of horses owned will go down(it is already happening, I think), fields may shrink(already happening) , bettors are adversely affected and bet less and the game DEFINITELY suffers financially, contrary to what you said above.

From where I sit, bettors need horsemen and horsemen need bettors.

[cj]

CJ,

How is he over his head? That would imply that he doesnt have enough knowledge to form an opinion, which I think he does......That being said, I totally disagree with him and agree with you. I think owners should always be responsible for their horses after they retire(how they did this is up for debate) and having the bettors pay makes no sense at all to me.

Saying I only pay what I lose is just a silly comment. Even if I win, if they take 1% more, I win less. That is still paying. Tom comments as though none of us are entitled to one cent. That is ridiculous.

[cj]

The difference between bettors and everyone else (jocks, trainers, etc) is that if a bettor retired, the game suffers. The game loses money. If a jock, trainer or owner retired, the game stays the same. The game doesnt suffer financially if any jock, trainer or owner retired from the sport.

As far as bettors providing a small percentage of their money to help retired horses, i think that's a joke of a discussion. If you bet on an NFL game in Vegas they don't raise the vig to pay for retired players healthcare, so why are horseplayers different?

Trainers and jocks, sure, but owners, no way. We've lost tons of them and that is surely a reason the game is in the state. Not THE readson, but A reason.

[Relwob Owner]

Saying I only pay what I lose is just a silly comment. Even if I win, if they take 1% more, I win less. That is still paying. Tom comments as though none of us are entitled to one cent. That is ridiculous.


Re-read my post....I totally agreed with your point and totally thought it made no sense to label him as being "over his head".....that was a "silly" thing to say on your part IMO.

You disagree with him but he isnt close to being "over his head"-he is just disagreeing with you and as I said, I think he is wrong and you are right.

[Relwob Owner]

Trainers and jocks, sure, but owners, no way. We've lost tons of them and that is surely a reason the game is in the state. Not THE readson, but A reason.


Now, that isnt silly at all(I have boycotted emoticons and referenced my last post to ya).....great point and one that isnt stressed enough.....one day tracks will realize that watching trainers win at 35-40 percent clips and doing nothing about it will kill them in the long run because owners get tired of competing against.

[Stillriledup]

Trainers and jocks, sure, but owners, no way. We've lost tons of them and that is surely a reason the game is in the state. Not THE readson, but A reason.

To CJ and RO,

What i mean is this. If an owner with a few dozen horses just decides to disband his stable overnight, the betting pools from that owners main track don't go down. If a bettor retires, the pools suffer on day 1 of his retirement.

Lets say on March 26, 2011 there are 10,000 horses and 5,000 owners in the country (totally making up numbers just for this example) and one owner retires leaving 4,999 owners. There's STILL 10,000 horses and the ones who are in racing shape will find a new home and continue racing.

I do understand what you're saying that if owners leave the game that there are less horses bred and smaller fields and whatnut, but this is a progression that doesnt happen overnight. If an owner leaves the game it might take a couple years to see the effects of his or her departure. With a bettor, the affects of his departure take place immediately, in the very next race.

[Relwob Owner]

To CJ and RO,

What i mean is this. If an owner with a few dozen horses just decides to disband his stable overnight, the betting pools from that owners main track don't go down. If a bettor retires, the pools suffer on day 1 of his retirement.

Lets say on March 26, 2011 there are 10,000 horses and 5,000 owners in the country (totally making up numbers just for this example) and one owner retires leaving 4,999 owners. There's STILL 10,000 horses and the ones who are in racing shape will find a new home and continue racing.

I do understand what you're saying that if owners leave the game that there are less horses bred and smaller fields and whatnut, but this is a progression that doesnt happen overnight. If an owner leaves the game it might take a couple years to see the effects of his or her departure. With a bettor, the affects of his departure take place immediately, in the very next race.

Right, but your initial thought had nothing about timeframes-it was a blanket statement. The "over time" caeat makes sense.

I frankly find it amazing that anyone would consider retired horse care to be the responsibility of the bettor but that is typical of how bettors are treated much of the time. There are three options IMO

1.Tracks pay out of their profits-hard to do because horses run at different tracks so it is hard to say what tracks pay for what horses.

2. Owners take care of their horses after they retors and find them homes. No way to track this and the "honor system" wont work, as many owners have shown they wont do this.

3. There is a fee for owners(and maybe trainers) that goes to a fund to take care of them. This is ther best IMO but relies on the fund to effectively manage the care and as we have seen, that isnt always done.

Tough one....

[Tom]

I think this is a great idea but you need to also take 1% of all tickets cashed from the horseplayers. We all have to pay to play.

I don't mind kicking some of my winnings back, but YOU guys run the show and it is your responsibility (owners) to take care of them when they can no longer run. YOU guys get the purse money from them it should come out of that. Do you kick in to your local diner for their trash pick up?
Perhaps you are not aware, but we pay for the game already. Try racing your horses without us betting on them. WE PAY the purses, you cash them. What do YOU pay to play?

[cj]

Re-read my post....I totally agreed with your point and totally thought it made no sense to label him as being "over his head".....that was a "silly" thing to say on your part IMO.

You disagree with him but he isnt close to being "over his head"-he is just disagreeing with you and as I said, I think he is wrong and you are right.

It isn't because we disagree that I said that, it is because he doesn't seem to understand the point of view of the bettor. Maybe I was a bit harsh.

[Relwob Owner]

I don't mind kicking some of my winnings back, but YOU guys run the show and it is your responsibility (owners) to take care of them when they can no longer run. YOU guys get the purse money from them it should come out of that. Do you kick in to your local diner for their trash pick up?
Perhaps you are not aware, but we pay for the game already. Try racing your horses without us betting on them. WE PAY the purses, you cash them. What do YOU pay to play?


Come on, Tom. Your statement was spot on and it ended with this.....are you implying that there is no front end expense for trainers? You try providing the inventory for a service and then billing for it, assuming the owner will pay.....if that statement applies to owners, try stroking a check to claim a horse, knowing that if the horse breaks down, your money is gone

Is that enough paying to play?????

[Relwob Owner]

It isn't because we disagree that I said that, it is because he doesn't seem to understand the point of view of the bettor. Maybe I was a bit harsh.


Got it......I simply cant understand why a Thunder fan would ever be harsh with anyone, considering how much you should be thankful for sportswise....have a good one.

[cj]

Got it......I simply cant understand why a Thunder fan would ever be harsh with anyone, considering how much you should be thankful for sportswise....have a good one.

Thunder rock...I predicted 55 wins before the season, might come up one short. It is a long way from 2009! Anyway, I digress, I'll start a Thunder thread one of these days soon, don't want to jinx them.

[Robert Goren]

If I own a cat or dog it is my responsibility to take care of it in its old age. I don't see why owning a horse is any different. If you don't want to it, don't buy the horse in the first place.

[Relwob Owner]

If I own a cat or dog it is my responsibility to take care of it in its old age. I don't see why owning a horse is any different. If you don't want to it, don't buy the horse in the first place.


Could not agree more......too bad more owners dont think like this.

Asking the bettors to finance horse care is just absurd.

[BIG49010]

Use the breakage that the tracks and the states steal from the bettors, if you don't want to take it from the purse money.

[JustRalph]

Use the breakage that the tracks and the states steal from the bettors, if you don't want to take it from the purse money.

now that's a good idea. I could go for that one. And BTW, you used the right term "Steal"

[Stillriledup]

I wonder how this game would change if owners were legally responsible for the care of their horse for the rest of his life, quite a few of these horses live to over 20 years old.

Imagine claiming a 5k claimer and he breaks down in the race you claim him and you have to legally pay bills on that horse for the rest of his life.

If this was the case, i think we would have many less owners wanting to get into this game.

[CryingForTheHorses]

I don't mind kicking some of my winnings back, but YOU guys run the show and it is your responsibility (owners) to take care of them when they can no longer run. YOU guys get the purse money from them it should come out of that. Do you kick in to your local diner for their trash pick up?
Perhaps you are not aware, but we pay for the game already. Try racing your horses without us betting on them. WE PAY the purses, you cash them. What do YOU pay to play?

I pay dearly Tom,I pay my vet, feed bills,Help and yes I have claimed many that I do find good homes for.Your statment is out of line for what I do for the horse.Maybe I dont understand all about betting but I do know how to care for horse and pay my bills.Maybe the tracks should give 1% of each days handle

[macguy]

I wonder how this game would change if owners were legally responsible for the care of their horse for the rest of his life, quite a few of these horses live to over 20 years old.

Imagine claiming a 5k claimer and he breaks down in the race you claim him and you have to legally pay bills on that horse for the rest of his life.

If this was the case, i think we would have many less owners wanting to get into this game.


Which owner? Most racehorses will change hands multiple times throughout their career, be it through sales or claims. Which owner is the one that is responsible for the horse for the rest of it's life?

I think you'll find that often times it will be the last owner that can least provide for the horse in it's old age. When horses work their way down the claiming scale, they often will end up in the hands of connections with the least amount of disposable income.

Now the owner that bought the horse 6 years ago at a 2 year old in training sale for $500 000 isn't on the hook for anything, but the guy who claimed the horse for $2500, got 2 starts made $80 in purse money (6 years later) is responsible for caring for the horse for the next 20 years?

How does that make any sense, doing that would cripple the game at the lower levels.

What happens when the guy who claimed the horse for $2500 sells it for $500 to someone to have as a pleasure horse, is he now no longer responsible? Or does it come back to him when the person who bought it for $500 decides they no longer want the horse?

If it's legislated or made a rule that the owner is responsible to make sure the horse retires properly, at what point has the owner done his or her job?

If it is only just the last owner who raced the horse, what about the 6 other owners that owned and raced it throughout it's career?

[illinoisbred]

Since the cost of retirement is really an issue with cheaper stock,why not consider putting a slight fee/surcharge on all claims? Fee could vary in cost depending on the claiming price. Another thought is tacking on a small fee on all auction sales. This could be kept small by having both the consignor/breeder and buyer paying a little on each end.

[Tom]

Maybe the tracks should give 1% of each days handle

Try 18% and get back to me. :rolleyes:
No one comes close to putting into the game like the bettors do.
Maybe you find homes for your horses, but ALL of them, and do ALL trainers?

The idea of hitting the bettors yet again is repulsive and WAY out of line.

[andymays]

They should make it easy for people to donate if they want to. Nothing should be mandatory.

[cj]

Which owner? Most racehorses will change hands multiple times throughout their career, be it through sales or claims. Which owner is the one that is responsible for the horse for the rest of it's life?



Simple, the one that owns it last. If that owner can't afford to care for the horse, I'm guessing he shouldn't have bought it in the first place.

[Relwob Owner]

Simple, the one that owns it last. If that owner can't afford to care for the horse, I'm guessing he shouldn't have bought it in the first place.


Exactly what he said...........

[cj]

Exactly what he said...........

I read it to mean it shouldn't only be the last owner. But, I think it should.

[Relwob Owner]

I read it to mean it shouldn't only be the last owner. But, I think it should.

I am 100% in agreement with you-sorry for the confusion. If someone cant afford to take care of a horse post retirement, dont buy it.

[macguy]

Simple, the one that owns it last. If that owner can't afford to care for the horse, I'm guessing he shouldn't have bought it in the first place.

So you're saying the last owner that races the thoroughbred is required to look after the horse for the rest of it's life?

Do you have any idea how impractical that is?

With horses living 20+ years, if horse owners at the bottom rung have to look after the horse for the rest of it's life you would quickly have ZERO horse owners, and therefore ZERO racing in no time.

It's an expense that's completely unrealistic to impose upon an owner simply because they are the last person to run the horse competitively.

I suppose it would be a good idea if you wanted to completely kill the game in North America.

[Relwob Owner]

So you're saying the last owner that races the thoroughbred is required to look after the horse for the rest of it's life?

Do you have any idea how impractical that is?

With horses living 20+ years, if horse owners at the bottom rung have to look after the horse for the rest of it's life you would quickly have ZERO horse owners, and therefore ZERO racing in no time.

It's an expense that's completely unrealistic to impose upon an owner simply because they are the last person to run the horse competitively.

I suppose it would be a good idea if you wanted to completely kill the game in North America.



I have owned claiming horses for 6 years. Before I claim a horse, I have options for each one after they are done racing and havent had an issue yet. Your claim that CJ's thought is impractical is not correct. I know plenty of owners that do the same thing I do. It isnt impractical at all and is something that should simply be handled by owners before they get in the game.

[Spiderman]

A $25 transaction fee (tax deductible) that goes to a national fund for retired horses every time a horse is sold paid by the buyer, whether the horse is sold privately, at auction or claimed.

Also, $25 paid on top of the stud fee (those breeding the horses are the ones bringing the horse into the world).

Look for corporate race sponsors who are willing to contribute to a good cause.

It makes no sense to have Horseplayers pay for it out of takeout. Especially when donations to retirement farms are generally tax deductible.

Make it $50 transaction fee and $50 stud fee. I contribute to thoroughbred retirement funds and will not play any track that increases takeout, though it will be for a good cause.

[macguy]

I have owned claiming horses for 6 years. Before I claim a horse, I have options for each one after they are done racing and havent had an issue yet. Your claim that CJ's thought is impractical is not correct. I know plenty of owners that do the same thing I do. It isnt impractical at all and is something that should simply be handled by owners before they get in the game.


I understand what you're saying and agree. You sell the horse to someone else and it goes on to a second career. You're not paying to board the horse for the rest of it's life.

When CJ said:
If that owner can't afford to care for the horse, I'm guessing he shouldn't have bought it in the first place.

He makes it sound that every owner that owns a horse after it's last start is on the hook for paying for it's retirement for the rest of it's life. And that is what I'm saying is completely impractical.

[cj]

I understand what you're saying and agree. You sell the horse to someone else and it goes on to a second career. You're not paying to board the horse for the rest of it's life.

When CJ said:


He makes it sound that every owner that owns a horse after it's last start is on the hook for paying for it's retirement for the rest of it's life. And that is what I'm saying is completely impractical.

I'm not saying that at all. But they should be responsible.

[macguy]

I'm not saying that at all. But they should be responsible.

Well then I agree with you.

[Hanover1]

Out on a limb here, but I suspect most trainers agree that the final owner should be ready to assume ALL resposibility regarding this issue. Sadly, at lower levels, what appears to be a difficult situation, given lack of funds for the 5k claimer, used as the example here, some of these trainers should be held responsible for allowing insolvent owners to participate. If it is the "sport of kings" act accordingly, or watch from the sidelines.......

[Relwob Owner]

Well then I agree with you.


Easier to reply to this one than the others....I think we are all kind of saying the same thing. Owners should have a plan for horses after they retire. Seems like they should persoanlly have a system to sell or give away the horse to a place that they know is reputable, or there should be a(properly managed) place for the retired horses to go subsidized by owners......how this is done is up for debate but the simplest would seem to be a simple fee upon license renewal

[Stillriledup]

I think the game is breeding too many horses. If you own a stallion and your horse is siring hundreds of horses that nobody really wants, i think that the breeder needs to have some responsibility here.

[macguy]

Easier to reply to this one than the others....I think we are all kind of saying the same thing. Owners should have a plan for horses after they retire. Seems like they should persoanlly have a system to sell or give away the horse to a place that they know is reputable, or there should be a(properly managed) place for the retired horses to go subsidized by owners......how this is done is up for debate but the simplest would seem to be a simple fee upon license renewal


Perhaps a more "standardized" transition to retirement.

There were lots of owners/trainers that seemed to think the SugerCreek auction in West Virgina was an "adequate" retirement.

[Relwob Owner]

Perhaps a more "standardized" transition to retirement.

There were lots of owners/trainers that seemed to think the SugerCreek auction in West Virgina was an "adequate" retirement.


The auction you referred to and anything like that is deplorable and is a part of the sport which could eventually lead to me leaving it......

You can make the argument that there would be no racing without owners, no sport without bettors, etc. etc but what is not debatable is that there would be no racing without horses and their care post racing obviously needs a comlete overhaul.