I think where the confusion comes in is that horses can’t run as Thoroughbreds without a lip tattoo and Jockey Club papers on file. But the JC is not the one which mandated the requirement. State governments adopted the JC papers with the tattoo as a way of identifying animals that are going to be used as part of a gambling enterprise. It was cheaper and easier than coming up with a governmental DMV for Thoroughbreds. But the JC in no way regulates racing or otherwise determines what horses can or cannot race.
[QUOTE=Linny;4250739]
“Retired” is permenent, like gelding. If you are hoping to buy a cheap horse and maybe send him to some tiny track and squeeze a race out of him, you’ll know BEFORE you buy that he’s retired, just as someone hoping to buy a breeding stallion can see that a horse is a gelding. If a horse has the restriction on his papers, move along and find another horse.
The JC hosts round tables on issues from interstate wagering to medication usage to jockey’s weights. They profess to have the greater good of the sport and the breed at heart but they don’t. Many members of the JC and it’s directors produce hundreds of foals a year and many of them end up “wards” of some rescue with their caretakers begging for assistance all over the internet. Meanwhile the breeder or sire owner is chomping a cigar on the lawn at the Reading Room or one of the top Lexington clubs bragging on how well the first crop by X sold this year. They willingly sell poor quality (but well bred) stallions knowing full well that they should be geldings while claiming how important it is to “improve the breed.”
Last year the JC was all a flutter over PETA et al after the death of Eight Belles. They talked about safety and so forth while never mentioning what happens to many older/slower horses-including those they breed. Those horses breaking down on the track will never make the papers because when it happens it will be at Assiniboia or Arapahoe or Fairmount Park, far from the centers of print and electronic media.[/QUOTE]
Ok, so now you have me confused. You are saying that the people at TJC don’t care about racing because they won’t let you permantently “retire” your horse, but then you mention all of the money they spend on host round table discussions on issues that they have no regulatory authority over??? Not to mention the Jockey Club/Grayson Foundation. I’d say that’s a bit of a contradiction, unless I am not understanding you correctly.
[QUOTE=Pronzini;4251302]
I think where the confusion comes in is that horses can’t run as Thoroughbreds without a lip tattoo and Jockey Club papers on file. But the JC is not the one which mandated the requirement. State governments adopted the JC papers with the tattoo as a way of identifying animals that are going to be used as part of a gambling enterprise. It was cheaper and easier than coming up with a governmental DMV for Thoroughbreds. But the JC in no way regulates racing or otherwise determines what horses can or cannot race.[/QUOTE]
Well said. TJC is just a Stud Book. They have no authority to “retire” a horse even if they wanted too. That’s why they allow owners to surrender the papers, which removes the horse from the Stud Book. Something they do have control over.
MintHill - I do see where you are coming from. Unfortunately, there is not much anyone can do about it without changing the laws re: racing regulation. But, that’s the fault of the racing jurisdictions, not TJC. The easiest way to handle the situation is to do what Startlight did, write it into the sales contract. Since we’ve now seen that it can be upheld in court, then the resposibility falls to them. What Linny doesn’t seem to understand is that TJC can stamp “Retired” in red ink all over the papers and the racing jurisdictions would probably ignore it. Again, they have no authority there.
BTW - this is something that happens on rare occasions. Most horses are retired because they can’t run or are injured. It’s very expensive to train one (I pay $75-85/day, not including expenses), and most people aren’t going to do it unless they think there will be a return. There are always the delusional few, but it’s the exception, not the rule.
Thank you, it makes sense.
I see what your saying…and the agreement should be well drawn up in case the horse is sold again.
[QUOTE=Linny;4250408]
The JC as the registry of the breed can take a stand. If they would recognize “retired” as a status the condition of the breed they profess to care about would be vastly improved.[/QUOTE]
There seems to be a presumption that a horse is better off retired than in training. Which, in fact, is generally the opposite of reality.
Most horses are retired because they can’t run or are injured. It’s very expensive to train one (I pay $75-85/day, not including expenses), and most people aren’t going to do it unless they think there will be a return. There are always the delusional few, but it’s the exception, not the rule.
As Las Olas points out, it is unlikely someone will take on the expenses to bring a horse back unless there is a reason to make them think it will work.
In short, the idea that there are a bunch of greedy souls out there trying to force injured horses back into training to make a few bucks against the wishes of the horses’ former owners is just silly.
In reality, there are a lot of people who want to get a questionable horse out of the feedtub but don’t want to look silly and/or feel like they left money on the table when the new owner gives them time/tries something new and they go on and do well after all. Not saying that is the case with Starlight, but it is, by far, the more common scenario.
I work in racing and I have nothing against a horse being in training but if an owner desires that a horse leave the track forever but cannot take responsibility for him permanently, I’d prefer they have that option.
If an owner could sell or give away a horse not longer able to race, (or who he doesn’t want to see fade down through the ranks) but wants future owners to have official papers it would be nice if it coul happen. For purposes of tracking success of different bloodlines in “sport” horses and just because many eventual owners will want to find out “who” their horse is, it’s nice to be able to transfer with papers without fear that Dobbin will end up at some fair track or third rate venue.
The district court judges can publish their opinions, they just don’t often do so unless it is something that is interesting or popular or complicated. So this opinion might be submitted by the judge so that it can be used for presendent by other federal courts. (I was a fed. lawclerk for the chief US district judge for the SDGA, long ago in the pre-lexis days of slip opinions.)
Yes it is simply interpretation of a contract, but it shows that breach of contract will be dealt with.
Congratulations to the seller who stood up for the horse.
Everyone who agrees with the decision should write a letter on hard copy to the judge and thank him, this will encourage him to publish his decision.
ETA: It is of course as Pronzini said not binding on any cases outside of that particular federal judge’s district, but it can be cited in similar cases in other districts. And if it is appealed, it will be the law for that circuit.
If the district court judge sends it in for publication to westlaw, it will be published in the Federal Supplement (F. Supp.).
The district court judges can publish their opinions, they just don’t often do so unless it is something that is interesting or popular or complicated. So this opinion might be submitted by the judge so that it can be used for precedent (and go up on appeal so that the circuit court of appeals can make it the law of that circuit) by other federal courts. (I was a fed. lawclerk for the chief US district judge for the SDGA, long ago in the pre-lexis days of slip opinions.)
Yes it is simply interpretation of a contract, but it shows that breach of contract will be dealt with.
Congradulations to the seller who stood up for the horse.
Everyone who agrees with the decision should write a letter on hard copy to the judge and thank him, this will encourage him to publish his decision.
[QUOTE=Linny;4261526]
it’s nice to be able to transfer with papers without fear that Dobbin will end up at some fair track or third rate venue.[/QUOTE]
That’s what I don’t understand - this “fear” that a horse will wind up at a fair or third rate venue. A “third rate venue” is worse for a horse than being a riding horse or broodmare or kicked out in a pasture? How?
[QUOTE=SleepyFox;4261622]
That’s what I don’t understand - this “fear” that a horse will wind up at a fair or third rate venue. A “third rate venue” is worse for a horse than being a riding horse or broodmare or kicked out in a pasture? How?[/QUOTE]
I think that there are many good fair-circuit owners /trainers out there…that being said, it is heartbreaking to see horses who were just too damn sore to run at lower claiming levels, still running their eyeballs out for a purse on the fair circuit. Horses who have been used up in racing deserve an easier life, or some turnout to heal, but it seems like when they get sold to stay in racing, they just aren`t getting it. You start to feel like people want to squeeze every last nickle out of a runner before tossing it on a heap - this is why a lot of trainers would rather see a horse become a riding horse or broodmare - in most cases, the demands are a lot lighter.
Dee
Not sure where this whole matter stands, however Sam P the supposedly retired horse continues to put in works:
You guys should check out what is going on with Lava Man…Talk about a horse who deserves retirement…it is unfortuante that people only think of these animals as an engine and a paycheck…
If an owner sells the horse not to race again they should be able to…but if you want to breed you need papers which leaves a lot open for the new owner…
Poor Sam P. The new owner should be banned from racing if the three-panel judge upholds the original verdict. He should be horse-whipped if anything happens to Sam P.
How is it possible that the contract is not crystal clear? What’s wrong with our court system (as if any of us has the time to touch that one)?
I’m as angry about this horse being back in training as I have been about anything lately!
I didn’t see the update from Claire Novak until today …
Claire Novak/NTRA 9-24-09 “Sam P.: The Saga Continues”
excerpted
In a July 9 ruling Kentucky Circuit Court Judge Paul F. Isaacs ordered the farm to take Sam P. off the track.
In his ruling, Isaacs pointed to language in the sales contract that said both parties “agree and acknowledge that the buyer is acquiring the colt solely for breeding purposes only.”
Isaacs wrote, “There is nothing ambiguous in any of the language in this contract cited by the court,” and, “There is nothing in this contract to indicate that the purchaser had the right to ignore the clear language of this contract and put the horse in training.”
In spite of this and the continued legal efforts of Starlight to ensure the contrary, Sam P. is back in training at Churchill Downs once again. …
[his recents works] are courtesy of Kentucky Appeals Court Judge Glenn Acree, who granted a temporary injunction allowing Triton to train and race the horse while the case goes before a State panel of three judges for a final ruling. That assignment to the state panel was made Aug. 20; it is unknown when the panel will be assembled or when a final judgement will be reached in the runner’s case. In the meantime, Sam P. continues to grind it out on a workout regime never intended by his original owners.
According to Wolf, the next case of action - should the panel rule in favor of Triton - is to take the issue to the Kentucky Supreme Court, where only approximately 12 percent of cases are accepted.
Wolf, in a press release issued July 17 by the racing PR firm Equisponse, expressed his organization’s dedication to protecting horses campaigned by Starlight - even into retirement.
“It is of the utmost importance to us that our retired race horses are taken care of properly and their health and best interests are being looked out for,” he said.
So these new owners - in violation of the judge’s ruling - file an appeal and the horse has to continue to training. Triton Farms is an entity controlled by George Hofmeister who is exceptionall well versed with lawsuits, the courts, and working the system.
Crain’s Detroit 7-19-2009 “Industrialist Hofmeister has history of building by buying”
BloodHorse 2002 “Real Quiet Lawsuit Dismissed”
(George Hofmeister’s Highland Stud Farm filed the suit against trainer Bob Baffert, who trained the colt for owner Mike Pegram. )
Herald-Leader 9-2008 “$20 million civil verdict overturned”
(A large car wreck with him serious injured resulted in insurance claims and suits. During the negotiations, Hofmeister sued the insurance company for allegedly handling his claim in bad faith. He was awarded $20 million in 2004.)
I believe his massive stone Highland Farm in Bourbon Co, KY is some 8-years later is still on the market for sale.
I don’t know who’s right or wrong in this instance but I can’t imagine a trial court judge made it part of his ruling that his ruling couldn’t be appealed to a court with superior jurisdiction.
They lost in the trial court level and now they have won–temporarily–at the appellate level. I don’t see how that is working the system any more than the original litigants.
Couldn’t the appeals judge have said yes, it can go to another level, but no, you cannot train the horse while waiting?
From what I’ve seen of the contract, that would clearly have been the best outcome. Not sure what this judge was thinking?
As to whether retirement or racing is better – that’s moot in this thread. If people want to continue that debate, they should start a new thread.
But wouldn’t that decision mean that the plaintiff won even though it didn’t? That’s in part what the plaintiff wanted and the plaintiff lost this round. So it goes back to the status quo pending further decision.
[QUOTE=Pronzini;4400421]
They lost in the trial court level and now they have won–temporarily–at the appellate level. I don’t see how that is working the system any more than the original litigants.[/QUOTE]
So when the case is received at the next level and the outcome upholds the original verdict what then is the compensation for the continued training of the horse that shouldn’t have been worked under the original requirement? This isn’t like a restraining order on construction of a building. The answer would be nothing. There is no compensation despite the fact that it would take a toll on the health of the horse.
My non-legal view of this situation is that the legal system is being played simply because it does not have a mechanism to halt the actions of training until a final ruling is made. It would make far more sense to suspend the training - adhering to the origianl terms of the contarct and adhering the initial legal ruling - however the system is being played to allow for Sam P. to continue to train him along.
This may blow your mind but the fact that an appellate court has ruled the way it has has given me pause. This isn’t just some guy–this is a judge appointed to the Court of Appeals who has actually read the contract none of us have and come to a different conclusion. There’s got to be more to this than was reported by Novak so I’m withholding judgment until the end of the case.
Also, plaintiff is the one asserting that the contract is breached and plaintiff has the burden of proof. If plaintiff is right, there are remedies probably written right into the contract which include costs, attorneys fees etc etc and they will be part of the judgment (if any). Depending on what was sued for, there are probably certain tort and common law remedies available as well.
*&#$%&
Per Equidaily’s catch Sam P has return to racing with him making a start at Churchill Downs on November 24, 2009 (finishing 2nd) and before that Nov 6th in an allowance finishing 7th. With return start number three it was in the Prairie Bayou Stakes at Turfway Park Saturday Dec 12th whereby he finished 7th of 10 starters … however as noted in the ‘Bayou’ race chart: Sam P. was never a factor and was vanned off.
Worth reiterating on the whole mess Sam P., a graded stakes contender, had been retired by Todd Pletcher in November of 2008 after suffering a serious tendon injury. Per a Daily Racing Form article Nov 21st:
Starlight Stable partnership that includes Jack Wolf, who cut a deal last year to sell Sam P., a horse that ran ninth in the 2007 Kentucky Derby under the royal blue and yellow Starlight silks. Wolf claims Sam P. was sold only as a breeding prospect, so when the new connections of the 5-year-old horse put him back in training last summer, Wolf filed suit.
Joel Turner, the attorney representing new owner Nelson Clemmens and other involved parties, said the language involved in the terms of the sale was not sufficiently clear to preclude Sam P. from returning to racing. An appeals court judge ultimately sided with Turner, and although there is further litigation pending, Sam P. will make his second start following a one-year layoff when trainer Buff Bradley saddles him Tuesday.
