Is there some sort of business write off? I can’t think of a reason. Anyone?
https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/238171/trainer-banned-after-euthanized-horse-found-alive
Insurance fraud I would expect.
Or a disagreement with the horse owner.
Insurance fraud. Of course. Thanks.
Then sell the horse as a hunter? It couldn’t race again or breed.
Maybe they loved the horse and wanted to keep it as a pet or riding horse but wanted the insurance too. They could rehome it quietly as a riding horse.
Its better than the trainers that deliberately kill a horse for insurance!
1 Like
I suppose so :yes:. Still, shows a criminal lack of character. Not to mention a horrible lack of empathy if indeed the horse was owned by someone else and truly thought it had been PTS.
I’d think the owner would receive the insurance payment if that were the case and there was no word about the owner being suspended. Come to think of it, it is odd that the article didn’t mention legal charges if insurance fraud was the case.
It seems the trainers owned the horse? Not a very informative article, really.
I imagine a great deal has been left out. I could imagine an owner preferring a badly injured horse to be euthed and insurance collected rather than face a long expensive recovery. Horses die in the racing industry, it’s an accepted fact.
If the owner wasn’t party to the fraud then they wouldn’t mention him and sully his name. Sounds like the story is just based on the official press release from the track.
”‹”‹”‹”‹
Apparently the horse wasn’t so badly injured…
According to the report the only injury stated was a fractured right eye socket. So not a death sentence or horrendous injury…
wonder when/if the full story will be told.
Yes, I read that.
It may have been an injury that was not as bad as it appeared to be. However, It takes a hard knock to fracture a horse’s eye socket so it may have looked a bloody mess and the horse may have been stunned, requiring some time for him to get up and moving.
There must have been some benefit to the trainers to keep the horse alive. It must have been expensive to do so, but maybe less than the insurance payout?
I wonder what treatment the horse was given.
I wonder why the horse’s welfare wasn’t even mentioned in the article.
If you look up the horse, it appears the trainer (or a relative) was also the owner. Same first initial and last name.
That makes a little more sense. Surprised the article didn’t make that clear, but perhaps most people understood.
