Great Idea. ‘Aftercare Grade’ to Be New Component of HANA Track Ratings - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Andy Asaro · 09-05-2018, 12:02 PM

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

Fred Mertz · 09-05-2018, 12:11 PM

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 · 09-05-2018, 01:43 PM

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 · 09-05-2018, 02:41 PM

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

cj · 09-05-2018, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyC

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 · 09-05-2018, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyC

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 · 09-05-2018, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadVindication

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 · 09-05-2018, 05:27 PM

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 · 09-05-2018, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj

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 · 09-05-2018, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyC

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 · 09-05-2018, 05:36 PM

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 · 09-05-2018, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadVindication

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 · 09-05-2018, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyC

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 · 09-05-2018, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadVindication

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 · 09-05-2018, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyC

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?