Letter To The Editor: Move By The Jockeys’ Guild At Monmouth Dangerous, Unfair To Riders

The Jockeys' Guild decision to cancel insurance for jockeys who ride in races at Monmouth Park is vindictive and dangerous.

To proclaim Monmouth's new whip policy “extremely dangerous and is creating an even greater risk to both the equine and human athletes, including the potential for injury and/or loss of life to the jockeys and the horses” is in my opinion an extreme over-dramatization. But to characterize the jockeys' situation as “extremely dangerous” and at the same time refuse to insure them is a new level of histrionics and reveals the Jockeys' Guild to be an organization of bad faith.

As a long-time fan of Thoroughbred racing, I frankly fail to see how not being allowed to whip a horse to make it perform is “dangerous.” The rule does not prohibit the use of the whip if needed to avoid a dangerous situation within a race.

It comes down to an unwillingness on the part of the Jockeys' Guild to adapt to the new realities of public perception of animal welfare. Their punitive and backward approach will cause harm to the very group whose interests they claim to represent.

Holly Brunner, Thoroughbred owner and fan

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, please write to info at paulickreport.com and include contact information where you may be reached if editorial staff have any questions.

The post Letter To The Editor: Move By The Jockeys’ Guild At Monmouth Dangerous, Unfair To Riders appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Op/Ed: Guild Members: You Should Not Be Proud

Perhaps no collection of companies makes decisions based more on hard data, charts, statistics and actuarial tables then those that make up the insurance industry.

Non-smokers get better rates on health insurance.

Middle-aged drivers pay lower premiums than do those a generation or two younger.

Those driving in Los Angeles traffic pay more than those who live in rural areas of the country.

Apply for a term policy and the insurance company can list your premiums for the rest of your life. They know what the statistics show, based on your place of residence, family history, gender, age, health condition, etc.

Interested in long-term health care? Be ready for a question asking if you participate in such activities as bungee jumping, sky diving and/or, my favorite–heli skiing, which for the uninformed is off-trail, downhill skiing or snowboarding reached by helicopter instead of a ski lift.

One thing probably even riskier than heli skiing is being a Thoroughbred jockey. Every time a jockey gets a leg up on a mount, he or she knows the inherent risk involved in the vocation they have chosen.

Imagine being a jockey and speaking with an insurance agent about binding health or long-term coverage.

Which is why for years, members of the Jockeys' Guild have been provided access to policies for life insurance, temporary disability and accident, death and disability.

Yet, as reported by Bill Finley in the June 15 TDN, the Guild recently informed its members currently riding at Monmouth Park they would no longer be covered by the organization's policies.

Monmouth, as has been widely reported, is the first track, because of a directive from its state racing commission, whose jockey colony may carry a whip but not encourage its mounts with the stick.

As Finley noted, Guild management says it believes races at the New Jersey track are more dangerous with the new policy in effect.

“The increase of risk is thereby creating a greater exposure for the Jockeys' Guild and the benefits that we provide to our members who are riding under such regulation,” Guild president and CEO Terry Meyocks said in a letter sent to members.

Frankly, that is a bunch of crap. Bull crap, not horse crap.

The Guild has not seen the policy rates increase, nor has it been informed the rates will go up because of the new rule at Monmouth Park.

The track is only a few weeks into the meeting, as yet with no apparent increased risk to jockeys.

When respected trainer Jerry Hollendorfer was ridiculously singled out in California a few years ago for having a higher incidence of breakdowns, could the Guild have said any jockey who rides the horses he trains (at any track) would not be covered?

According to Meyocks' quote, riding those horses would cause an “increase of risk” and therefore “greater exposure for the Jockeys' Guild.”

Suppose over time we find a greater incidence of accidents in races where Lasix is not allowed. Would the Guild cover a rider should he be injured in an allowance race but not in a graded stakes–at the same track on the same day?

What if New Jersey is just the first state to enact regulations saying riders can carry a crop but not use it except in cases of extreme emergent circumstances?

Jockeys and their agents must constantly decide at which tracks they will accept mounts. Some riders, unhappy with the new policy at Monmouth, have elected not to spend their summer at the track. Others have accepted mounts and ridden without incident.

The Jockeys' Guild may certainly take a hard stance on its belief the riding crop aids riders and keeps them safer. But by playing politics the organization is forcing members riding at Monmouth to either bind their own coverage or ride without it.

Often the Guild steps in to lobby on behalf of members riding at a specific track or in a certain state.

In this case, however, the Guild is turning its back on members that have consciously decided to ply their trade at Monmouth Park.

At the conclusion of the Monmouth meeting, should the Guild's insurance carrier raise its rates based on “evidence” of an increased risk to jockeys, there may be reason for the organization to consider a discussion with its members.

It goes without saying that jockeys require insurance and the Guild's binding of coverage for members is an important, if not the most important, benefit of membership.

But if you are a jockey riding at Monmouth Park, we don't know yet if you are at an increased risk. Well not from the commission's policy. You are, however, from your brethren at the Guild.

Ride they say, but we won't cover your ass. We don't have your back.

If the Jockeys' Guild wants to file injunctions and/or lawsuits, testify before committees, threaten boycotts–go ahead. But pulling the rug out from members at Monmouth Park? Well on the litmus test for class, it doesn't go any lower.

If you are a jockey riding in another state, and a member of the Guild, are you proud of how your organization is treating the Monmouth jocks?

You shouldn't be.

The post Op/Ed: Guild Members: You Should Not Be Proud appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Letter to the Editor from James McIngvale: Where You Bet Matters

As handicappers and racing enthusiasts across America prepare to dive into this week's sensational Belmont Stakes Racing Festival, keep this in mind: Where you bet matters.

It took 25-plus years of horse ownership and a $2.4-million wager for me to fully appreciate the huge difference it makes where a bet is placed. It was a wake-up call for me, and it should be for you. Everyone in horse racing whenever possible should put their money through the windows or self-bet machines at the racetrack.

If you're like I was, you've never really thought about how each dollar gets chopped up. A bet is a bet, you probably think. You get the same payoff if you bet on-track, through simulcasting or online. Even at a casino that is booking the bets, you get track odds, albeit with caps.

But the return to the industry–for the owners whose horses put on the show and for the track that provides the venue–wildly varies depending on where a bet is made. For the long-term viability of the sport, those who work in and/or love horse racing should learn where the money goes and take seriously betting where it maximizes purses.

I was committed to placing at least $2 million on Essential Quality in the Kentucky Derby in order to cover my Gallery Furniture promotion where customers would get their money back if the Derby favorite won. The casinos worked hard to get my action, which they had received for promotions tied to the outcome of the World Series and Super Bowl. It was an eye-opener to learn what it meant in additional dollars to horse owners if I made the largest Kentucky Derby bet in history at the home of the Derby instead of a casino or online.

I lost my $2.4-million total in win bets when Essential Quality finished fourth but sold a boatload of mattresses and had a lot of customers snapping their fingers during the Run for the Roses. But a big winner was Churchill Downs' purse account for horsemen, which accrued $240,000 from my bets alone.

Purses are the lifeblood of American racing–it's what makes our racing unique and is vital to its sustainability. There's a substantial difference in the money that goes to horse owners if a bet is placed onsite at the track or if it's bet through an online platform, simulcasting, a casino or offshore. It also makes a big difference to the track staging the races, with the significant costs entailed in building, maintaining and staffing the facility.

Had I made my wager in Las Vegas, where the casinos do not have a contract with Churchill Downs and therefore could not bet into the parimutuel pools, no money would have flowed back to Kentucky horsemen. If bet anywhere but on track, at best the funding to purses would have been about half. At worst, zero.

If we care about the industry, the last place we should bet is offshore or with casinos that book the bets and don't contribute anything to our mutuel pools or purse account. Offshore sites might offer lucrative rebates–but they can do that because they have no outlay for the cost of putting on the product.

I'm not bashing reputable online betting operations or simulcasting. The pandemic proved how vital ADW operations are to racing, how we were able to stay in business with spectator-less racing while other sports were shut down.

Millennials' and Generation Z's office is their phone, so ADWs are expanding our reach but at the same time should pay an equitable rate to racetracks and horsemen. Kudos to ADWs that have worked with various tracks and horsemen's groups in California, Kentucky and elsewhere to make sure ADW betting on-site returns the same amount to purses as if the bet were placed with a mutuel clerk or self-bet machine.

Of course, if we're asking horseplayers and racing participants to bet at the track where possible, tracks likewise must make their facilities and the experience inviting for fans. Every day, and not just on select days.

Horse racing has a great opportunity to step up our game and attract new fans. The Kentucky Derby and Preakness ratings showed people are interested in horse racing. Heck, my Gallery Furniture promotion shows that the Kentucky Derby and racing resonate with the guy and gal on the street.

We've got to attract younger people. We need to attract the followers of Barstool Sports, Bleacher Report, Action Network. We need to embrace sports-betting content.

There is no easy fix. It takes commitment, effort and ingenuity. But our sport and industry are worth it. Excluding football games, the Kentucky Derby was the third-most watched sporting event since the pandemic hit in March 2020, trailing only the NCAA men's basketball championship game won by Baylor and Gonzaga's semifinal victory over UCLA, according to Sports Media Watch. That's impressive.

The Kentucky Derby, Triple Crown and horse racing are still relevant. But you've got to flame the fire–and also be smart about where we bet. Cumulatively, it makes a huge difference.

Jim McIngvale, also known as Mattress Mack, is an entrepreneur, furniture mogul, philanthropist and horse owner based in Houston. McIngvale campaigned 2015 GI Breeders' Cup Sprint winner and Eclipse Award champion male sprinter Runhappy and has become a major racing sponsor while promoting his horse as a stallion at Claiborne Farm. McIngvale can be reached at (281) 844-1963 or mack@galleryfurniture.com.

The post Letter to the Editor from James McIngvale: Where You Bet Matters appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Letter to the Editor: Shipping Horses by Cargo

I am Shelley Blodgett, co-founder of Caribbean Thoroughbred Aftercare Inc. (CTA), a non-profit (501c3) that helps Thoroughbreds racing in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. I live on the U.S. mainland and have also worked here to help Thoroughbreds and other horse breeds in need. I wrote a letter to the editor published in TDN in September, 2017, asking for help following Hurricane Maria's devastation of Puerto Rico and its racetrack, Hipodromo Camarero. The response was swift and impactful. So many individuals and industry entities were moved to help, I believe, because of the love and respect of our racing athletes. That generosity and timely action saved many horses' lives.

I am writing again to ask for support and help from your readers. Thoroughbreds are being shipped from Florida to Puerto Rico, a 1,200-mile distance, in an unsafe and inhumane manner: a days-long journey on a cargo ship on the open Atlantic Ocean in a metal container. It is my hope that your readers, including the good people of the racing industry, will speak out and, perhaps, use their considerable leverage to help end this cruel transport method for good. Thousands of people have added their names in support to end this cruel practice, including some in the industry both in the Caribbean and on the U.S. mainland.

There has already been one tragedy and it's important to avoid another. Eric Mitchell wrote a powerful investigative article detailing the April, 2019 deaths of nine Thoroughbreds, ranging in age from two to five. Eight of the horses died inside their 40-foot metal cargo container that was retrofitted into a 12-stall horse shipping system. The horses died from catastrophic injury: they trampled each other to death while sailing across the Atlantic Ocean. A ninth horse was so badly injured that it was euthanized shortly after arrival in Puerto Rico. Only six horses survived that voyage. And, yes, 15 horses were squeezed into the 12-stall system.

Following this terrible accident, the Saltchuk company and their subsidiaries, TOTE Maritime Puerto Rico and Lagos Transport, implemented what was described as a moratorium on shipping horses on cargo ships on their vessels. It is understood that they intended to implement changes to prevent future accidents. Only two known changes were made: adhering to one stall per horse (i.e., maximum of 12 horses at a time) and altering pre-departure practices so horses sitting on the dock would have more access to water while waiting to be loaded onto the sailing vessel. Despite these changes, it is apparent that the perils remain for this mode of transport. Since resumption, some horses have sustained injuries and/or become very ill, and some have had to be euthanized as a consequence. It is hard to get a full picture of the number of horses, number of injuries, and number of deaths as those involved aren't forthcoming or transparent. Still, cargo ship transport appears to be a growing practice for importing horses to Puerto Rico, likely because of cost savings compared to cost of flying horses. In fact, the sentiment of sending the “cheap horses” via cargo ship while flying those horses viewed as more valuable implies that those who ship their horses via the former mode of transport know it is riskier and inhumane.

Why is this inhumane?

Equines are highly sensitive prey animals with a strong flight-or-flight response, have acute hearing, and are always highly attuned to and responsive of their surroundings. The shipping containers they are confined to for the duration of their journey aren't meant for living beings. Imagine a 40-foot metal cargo container that has been retrofitted into a 12-stall system. It has windows cut out, affixed hay racks, and small plywood dividers separating the horses. A single fan “helps” to circulate air. The horses have just about three feet of space each and cannot turn around or lie down for the duration of their journey. Further, there is no immediate, safe access to horses while under way. Horses can become motion sick (seasick), yet they cannot vomit, which also poses some risk. Throughout, access to food and water is purportedly little to non-existent. Horses wind up standing in their own excrement and urine as well in as any ocean or rainwater that accumulates in the container. By the end of the journey, the horses are standing in wetness and muck.

Horses sent via cargo ship often arrive in Puerto Rico severely dehydrated, and many lose 50-75 pounds during the voyage, are traumatized, and sleep deprived. Some horses sustain injuries and/or become ill (e.g., colic, respiratory infections). Dr. Jose Garcia Blanco, V.M.D., a leading equine veterinarian in Puerto Rico who has long worked with Thoroughbreds and the racing industry both in the Caribbean and on the U.S. mainland, was compelled to write a letter outlining why he views ocean cargo transport of horses to be unsafe and inhumane.

Shipping horses always involves some risk, whether on the U.S. mainland or across an ocean. However, there are safer and more humane methods available. Standard practice for shipping horses long distance on the mainland via tractor trailer (e.g., from Kentucky to California, a straight 44-hour trip), is often accomplished with horses placed in box stalls with, perhaps, a layover at a barn along the way so the horses can stretch their legs more and eat and drink. On such trips, hay and water are available and an attendant is present for the entire trip. Another example is when horses are air shipped from Miami to Puerto Rico. At the airport, horses are loaded in three-stall shipping containers or walked onto the plane via a ramp and placed in stalls. They are then flown 2.5 hours with an attendant available to them during the flight and are then unloaded at the airport and put on a trailer, with hay and water offered, for their final destination.

There is a more humane method to transport horses

As outlined above, a 2.5-hour plane flight, also operated by a Saltchuk company, Northern Air Cargo, is a much faster, safer, and humane method to transporting on and off the island of Puerto Rico. It appears that the owners who opt to transport horses via cargo ship are enticed by saving approximately $1,100 per horse. Regardless of the rationale, the savings in money does not warrant the increased risk for horses suffering and possibly dying. Every one of our equine athletes deserve better!

I ask that readers and the horse racing industry take a stand against cargo ship transport of U.S. Thoroughbreds between the U.S. mainland and the Caribbean. Below are some ways to do that. Thank you.

How do we stop this?

  •              Sign and share the petition.
  •              Ask the Saltchuk group, and their subsidiary TOTE Maritime, to no longer ship equines because it is unsafe and inhumane. Saltchuk already has more humane way of shipping horses as Saltchuk also owns the air cargo plane that ships horses in/out of Puerto Rico. Use Saltchuk's Ethics Hotline to let them know how you feel.
  •              These shipments are being approved by Dr. Alejandro E. Pérez Ramírez, Director Interino, Laboratorio de Diagnóstico Veterinario, via an import certificate. Dr. Perez can simply decide not to issue import licenses to horses traveling via cargo ship. Make a request to aperez@agricultura.pr.gov.
  •              The government of Puerto Rico can implement a ban on this type of shipping of horses. Contact them here.

 

 

The post Letter to the Editor: Shipping Horses by Cargo appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights