For The Love Of Horses: Racing Industry Unites To Showcase Racehorse Welfare

Over the past several days, a disturbing photograph of trainer Gordon Elliott and footage involving amateur jockey Rob James have brought the racing industry under global scrutiny once again.

The industry has responded with a grassroots social media campaign designed to showcase the love and care with which racehorses are treated, via the hashtags #ForTheLoveOfHorses and #RacehorseWelfare.

Following is a selection of some of the top posts:

 

In the last 24 hours the racing industry has been under hard scrutiny over the welfare of horses in training. …

Posted by Ben Delong on Monday, March 1, 2021

In the last 24 hours the racing industry has been under hard scrutiny over the welfare of horses in training.

We would…

Posted by Harry Whittington Racing on Tuesday, March 2, 2021

In the last 24 hours the racing industry has been under hard scrutiny over the welfare of the horses in training.

I'd…

Posted by Kelly Balfour on Monday, March 1, 2021

The post For The Love Of Horses: Racing Industry Unites To Showcase Racehorse Welfare appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Phillips: TAA Isn’t There Just To Care For Horses, But To Protect Racing’s Future

“I take care of my own,” responded the prominent owner who declined to make a commitment of financial support to the Thoroughbred Aftercare Alliance.

In that response is a lack of understanding about the purpose of the TAA. While the “goal” of the TAA is to assure that Thoroughbreds exiting racing receive a soft landing with a new owner who promises to assume responsibility of care, thereby relieving the racing industry of its responsibility. The “purpose” of the TAA is to protect the sport of horse racing and thereby assure its future. The goal and purpose are very different things.

It makes little difference to the TAA if you believe that horses are just livestock or that horses are a revered companion animal worthy of better treatment. These are individual values, a debate about which the TAA need not engage. What is incontestable, however, is that if we want Thoroughbred horse racing to survive, all of us must commit to a broad scope of aftercare, more than just “taking care of my own.”

Racing participants understand that Thoroughbred racing is essentially a pyramid with graded stakes at the top, descending through a myriad of classes to a very broad base of claiming ranks at the lowest end of performance. While owners and breeders of every ilk aspire to the pyramid's peak, the reality is that everyone who has owned, trained or bred horses for very long has had their share of disappointments. These disappointments work through the system and generally depart the sport through these bottom claiming ranks. All know this and rely upon the broad base to hold up the value of those special horses at the top of the pyramid. Without this base the economics of the sport will not function.

It is wonderful that so many top breeders, trainers and owners have special outlets or their own field of equine pensioners that they take care of post racing. But not all Thoroughbreds are so lucky and with the mobility and breath of our sport, keeping track of a horse you bred, raced or trained is an effort. And besides, people say, isn't that someone else's responsibility once ownership of the horse was transferred?

In a perfect world, it is the transferees' responsibility, but this is not a perfect world. Those “special equines” who earn private pensioner status rely on a healthy sport with its broad base of the less talented through which they rise to earn that “special” pensioned treatment. To be clear, the TAA vigorously pursues all sectors and all levels, including the most modest of our sport, to help finance their on-the-ground partners who do the work of retraining, rehoming and sanctuary. These efforts most certainly include education and fundraising at the very base of the pyramid. But efforts at the base of the pyramid, while financially helpful, burn a lot of oxygen and are more long-term approaches at a time when the public demands immediate results.

John Phillips

This sport is a privilege. Those of us who have enjoyed its thrills and love its culture, however experienced, must do more than just “take care of our own.” We must take care of the future of the sport and if that means we must do more than our share of aftercare, then so be it. To whom much is given, much is also required.

The TAA, with an ever-increasing number of partners (the total is now estimated to be at 83) with 175 retraining, rehoming or retirement facilities, is desperately trying to defend the sport by answering the public's clear demand for a soft landing of our athletes as they exit racing competition. TAA is a well thought-out, practical and effective answer to the public's concern. Our “first exit from racing” philosophy is getting closer every year to assuring that all horses exiting racing get this soft landing from the sport.

Whether you're an owner, breeder, buyer or seller, a stallion farm or trainer, when the TAA seeks your support, keep in mind that our “purpose” is to protect the sport. And now with COVID-19 negatively impacting TAA's income, we need those who “take care of their own” for which the TAA is most appreciative, to take one further step and help the TAA take care of the sport.

John Phillips is a third-generation horseman, owner of Darby Dan Farm near Lexington, Ky., and manager of Phillips Racing Partnership. Phillips has served on a number of board positions in the racing industry and has previously been a director of the board of the Bluegrass Conservancy, Thoroughbred Club of America, and Breeders' Cup, and is currently a director of The Jockey Club Information Systems and is on TOBA's executive committee. Phillips also served two terms as a racing commissioner in Kentucky. He is the immediate past president of the Thoroughbred Aftercare Alliance and serves on its board and executive committee.

The post Phillips: TAA Isn’t There Just To Care For Horses, But To Protect Racing’s Future appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Is Florida Clenbuterol Positive An Open Or Shut Case?

Another real-life story from the pages of “Only In Florida.”

On Aug. 11, 2020, the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (DPMW) filed a complaint against trainer Peter R. Walder after the state's testing laboratory at the University of Florida detected 74.5 picograms of clenbuterol in the post-race blood sample of Crea's Bklyn Law, winner of the 11th race at Gulfstream Park in Hallandale Beach, Fla., on July 11.

The lab notified DPMW director Louis Trombetta on July 28. Typically, a case will then get assigned to an attorney within the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, a complaint is filed and a state investigator is directed to serve the trainer with the complaint.

Under Florida law, the state has 90 days from the date the alleged violation occurred to begin prosecution. If the state has not begun to prosecute the case within 90 days, it's dropped. According to Florida Statute 550.2415 (4), “Service of an administrative complaint marks the commencement of administrative action.”

Walder said he was never served with the complaint because he was out of state when process servers began to visit his stable at Gulfstream Park last summer.

“A detective came to my barn a few times and my assistant told them, 'He's in Saratoga.'” Walder said. “They called and said they need to see me, that they need to give me some papers.”

Officials could have hired a process server in New York to serve Walder with the complaint, but apparently never did.

“They knew where I was,” Walder said. “I was at my barn every day in Saratoga, barn 15. Do you think I'm going to go running to them so they can serve me?”

At one point, Walder said, an investigator “tried handing something to my assistant (at Gulfstream Park), but that wasn't me.”

As the clock starting winding down to the 90-day cutoff, Walder added, officials became more agitated. “One guy cursed out my assistant, calling him a liar and saying I was hiding somewhere in the barn. They couldn't find me because I wasn't there, but it's not like I was hiding.”

On Oct. 8, Walder said, while at Monmouth Park in New Jersey, he contacted a state official in Florida and said he would be returning to Gulfstream Park that weekend. The following day, Friday, Oct 9, was the 90th day after the alleged July 11 violation. By Saturday, Oct. 10, the case would have to be closed.

Or would it?

Patrick R. Fargason, deputy communications director for the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, said the Crea's Bklyn Law case remains open, despite Walder's insistence that he has not been served with the complaint.

“The administrative complaint in this case was effectively served,” Fargason wrote in an email, without further explanation.

That's news to Walder.

“I've never signed anything,” he said. “The law states that they have to give (the complaint) to the trainer. By their letter of the law, the 90 days is up.”

Walder has another clenbuterol complaint, this one filed on Feb. 5 for Resident, who was found to have 246 picograms of the bronchodilator in a urine sample taken after the horse won the seventh race on Dec. 27, 2020, at Gulfstream Park.

Attorney Bradford Beilly is handling that case for Walder and said he has requested a split sample after the complaint was served within 90 days of the alleged violation.

Walder, who's won the last seven races at Gulfstream Park in which he's had a runner, said he stopped using clenbuterol at the end of 2020. Gulfstream instituted house rules prior to the championship meet that began Dec. 2 requiring a prescription for its use and a negative drug test prior to being entered to race for any horse administered the drug.

“I don't use it anymore,” Walder said. “You can't get it from the manufacturer anymore and I refuse to use the compounded stuff.”

Walder said some will try to connect his win streak with clenbuterol. He insists that is not the case, that he's always been a streaky trainer and has gone through both long slumps and hot spells. Walder said he's one of a handful of trainers who “aggressively” play the claiming game. “I'm getting good rides and have patient owners and great help,” he said. “You can't do anything without good help.”

The post Is Florida Clenbuterol Positive An Open Or Shut Case? appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Making Claims: Let The Courts Strengthen What It Means To Be A Thoroughbred

In “Making Claims,” Paulick Report bloodstock editor Joe Nevills shares his opinions on the Thoroughbred industry from the breeding and sales arenas to the racing world and beyond.

It came as no surprise when The Jockey Club's Stud Book cap on foals born in 2020 or later was formally taken to the courts on Tuesday. The only question was who would be the one to throw the gauntlet down, and when they'd do it.

Now that the bell has officially been rung, there's potentially a lot more on the line than just how many mares a stallion can breed in a year. The very nature of what a Thoroughbred is, and how one is made, could hang in the balance.

In the complaint filed by Spendthrift Farm, Ashford Stud, and Three Chimneys on Tuesday, one of the demands from the plaintiffs reads as follows:

“For an injunction requiring the [Kentucky Horse Racing Commission], through its Chairman and Executive Director, to permit Thoroughbreds to race in Kentucky regardless of their inclusion in the Jockey Club Registry.”

Taken at face value, this reads like a simple request to allow stud farms to continue breeding as many mares to its stallions as they want, beyond the 140-mare cap. For all we know, that might be the only thing the plaintiffs had in mind when the document was written up.

However, the open-ended nature of its language could potentially prop open the door to sidestep other longstanding rules that define what a Thoroughbred is anywhere in the world – namely, that they must be conceived on a live cover.

A horse of Thoroughbred blood conceived via artificial insemination, embryo transfer, cloning, or any other means besides the only one that's allowed, is not a true “Thoroughbred” by The Jockey Club's definition, and it would not be included in the registry. This is one of the building-block rules of the breed.

If Thoroughbreds are allowed to race in Kentucky regardless of their inclusion in the Jockey Club registry, the lock to Pandora's Box would seemingly be left unfastened for whatever interpretation one would want to use.

The live cover issue is one that's being debated and litigated on a global scale, and blowing open the American Stud Book would be a huge precedent with potentially vast ripple effects. The plaintiffs are aware of that global balance, noting in their filing that foals conceived after a stallion's 140th mating of the season would not be eligible for registration in any reputable jurisdiction in the world once it's deemed unable to be registered domestically.

This is a court case that could change the process of Thoroughbred breeding worldwide. It's also an incredible opportunity to reinforce the legal standing of the Stud Book cap and, in turn, the very definition of a Thoroughbred, assuming The Jockey Club and its fellow defendants prevail.

If this conflict was inevitable, which it was as soon as the cap was announced, it's best to get it over with.

Speaking with some prominent figures in Kentucky's stallion industry, I wasn't alone in this thought process.

“I think everybody thought it would come to some kind of challenge, be it stallion farms or an individual breeder who couldn't breed to the horse they wanted to because he was over 140,” said John G. Sikura of Hill 'n' Dale Farms. “While it's frustrating and takes a long time, I think the legal challenge is a good one to answer the question. When something's legally held, whether you like it or don't like it, the future is defined. It's better than being muddled or uncertain.”

The question of whose job it is to regulate Thoroughbred breeding, The Jockey Club or the individual state commissions, is one of the core issues of the lawsuit. Settling the matter in the courts would not only firm up the legal standing of the Stud Book cap, a win for The Jockey Club would also better establish its authority to set and enforce rules in an industry where so many other guidelines vary from state to state.

There are enough drums beating for a central national authority in horse racing, so I won't add my mallet to it here, but it's hard to argue that the industry would be helped in any way by a weakened Jockey Club – arguably the closest thing we have to that central office.

Duncan Taylor of Taylor Made Farm said he understood the reasoning behind the suit, specifically noting the cap's restriction on the idea of free-market capitalism, but he also noted that hardly any industry goes completely unregulated. Any form of regulation is ultimately a man-made restriction to the marketplace, and if man-made rules are created in any venue, they tend to be challenged.

Even if the lawsuit's demand language did explicitly state that it only wanted to overturn the Stud Book cap, Taylor said a defeat of that magnitude in court could make it easier to pull apart other pillars of The Jockey Club's rulebook.

“I would say that I could file today and say we should have artificial insemination, and if their case wins, then the AI case ought to definitely win,” he said.

This case could be seen as a potentially helpful one for proponents of the cap, immunizing it from future legal challenges, but it's only helpful if The Jockey Club and the other defendants win. Otherwise, there will be a lot of open-ended questions suddenly needing answers.

If you're looking for past performance, there is a bit of precedence in this matter, and it looks good for the cap staying in place.

When the United States Trotting Association worked toward instituting its own stud book cap for Standardbreds in the mid-2000s, and ultimately implemented it in 2009 (Spoiler alert: Everything was fine), there were several legal challenges that the measure had to overcome from parties claiming it violated antitrust laws.

I wanted to get some perspective on what to expect from the legal challenges, so I spoke with USTA president Russell Williams, who was a board member at the time the Standardbred rule was implemented. He was one of the cap's most vocal supporters, despite running top breeding operation Hanover Shoe Farms, which took one of the biggest hits from the new rule.

Williams, himself a lawyer, said the rule was created with the expectation that it would have to prove itself out in court, so steps were taken ahead of time to make sure it would stand up to the barrage. An intensive study by the University of Kentucky's Dr. Gus Cothran was commissioned to establish scientifically that there was a looming issue with genetic diversity. Then, the language was given the green light by one of the country's leading law firms specializing in antitrust.

Williams said he expected The Jockey Club would come out on top in the end, even if the case and the argument aren't quite apples-to-apples with what the USTA faced. The burden of proof in the scientific backing will rest harder with The Jockey Club, given it hasn't publicly produced a similar go-to study to hold up against the claims that the science isn't there, as accused by the plaintiffs.

With that being said, the diminishing variety in the Thoroughbred gene pool doesn't take a PhD to deduce in the annual Report of Mares Bred.

The foal crop is at its lowest point in decades, fewer stallions are standing at stud, and the number of stallions covering 140-plus mares per season has exploded since the turn of the century. These trends have been a part of The Jockey Club's platform for the cap since it first went public with a proposed rule change in the summer of 2019.

Putting names behind the numbers further shows just how compounded the top of the Thoroughbred market could become if the trend continues. Of the 42 stallions that covered 141 or more mares last year, 15 were by one of five sires: Curlin, Into Mischief, Uncle Mo, Speightstown, and Tapit. Of those five stallions, all but Tapit were also in the group themselves.

Though the odds appear to tilt toward the defendants, one can't expect this will be resolved quickly, or even necessarily in the defendants' favor. If it goes before a jury, as the plaintiffs requested, juries have done crazier things. Either way, this won't be settled as quickly and neatly as a one-hour episode of Law and Order.

Meanwhile, the first foals affected by the Stud Book cap will go through the sales ring as yearlings this summer and fall. It would be nice for everyone involved if they knew exactly what kind of blue sky they were buying into at that point in the calendar, but we can only venture a guess as to what might happen in the months between then and now.

If all goes as expected, I figure the breed will emerge from this lawsuit better off for it. Now, let's just see if it all goes as expected.

The post Making Claims: Let The Courts Strengthen What It Means To Be A Thoroughbred appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights