-
Available Subscriptions
The Vent
63 topics in this forum
-
- 30 replies
- 2.8k views
-
- 0 replies
- 830 views
-
- 9 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 2 replies
- 912 views
-
- 35 replies
- 4.1k views
-
- 1 reply
- 843 views
-
- 32 replies
- 3.9k views
-
- 10 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 124 replies
- 11.4k views
-
- 10 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 0 replies
- 807 views
-
- 26 replies
- 3.4k views
-
- 168 replies
- 17.7k views
Announcements
-
Posts
-
By Chief Stipe · Posted
Tell me if a Trainer has taken drugs how does it improve the performance of their horses? I realise you have quite a few more clues than @Comic Dog who seems to believe it does. Comparing a Jockey about to ride a horse that same day with a Trainer who on raceday the closest they are likely to get to a horse is saddling it is not an apples with apples comparison. Regardless if the Jockey doesn't present for a test on raceday then he isn't likely to ride that day is he? Then they would be immediately suspended for failing to fulfil their engagements. In either case if charged with failing to present the person concerned is very unlikely to present in the future while under investigation with drugs in their system knowing full well that they can guarantee they will be tested. The other factor too is the zero tolerance for both a Jockey and a Trainer but that's another whole area of discussion about environmental contamination. -
I thought because of the Cropp case, the law was changed such that if a jockey or indeed any licensed person was charged, they could not continue in that role, even though they may be challenging the charge, which is what Cropp did, right through to the Court of Appeal -
Hmmmm... He didn't have a +ve test but failure to appear for testing surely has to be treated as +ve. The primary purpose of D&A testing is H&S. So, you would say that a jockey say with a +ve breath test on race morning should be allowed to continue to ride until they have been charged and undergone due process? -
By Wandering Eyes · Posted
The recent Thoroughbred Daily News piece by Mike Repole and The Jockey Club's response were both timely and important. Regardless of where one stands on the broader debate, Mr. Repole is plainly correct on this point: the Thoroughbred industry still does not do enough to fund aftercare. For decades we relied on good will, volunteerism, and heroic nonprofit work to clean up the back end of an industry that generates enormous revenue at the front end. That model was not sustainable nor was it morally defensible. In 2011, Jack Wolf and other stakeholders recognized what many in racing would not say aloud–that there was little-to-no meaningful industry funding for retirement, rehabilitation, and rehoming. In response, the Thoroughbred Aftercare Alliance (TAA) was established in 2012, supported by an initial $1-million donation funded by Breeders' Cup, The Jockey Club, and Keeneland. The TAA created standards, accountability, accreditation, and a mechanism to direct funding to legitimate aftercare organizations. This was good progress, but let's be honest: aftercare funding has not grown nearly enough since 2012. The industry and the public have tolerated inertia for far too long. As a founding board member of the TAA, I was involved in its funding development and have knowledge of its history. Let's examine three key funding sources where meaningful change is overdue: public auctions, The Jockey Club registry, and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 1). Auctions: a “starter” assessment frozen in time. Early on, the sales companies developed a mechanism whereby 0.05% of public auction sales could support the TAA–paid by sellers, buyers and the sales companies themselves. We intentionally started small (too small for my taste). The goal was to get industry buy-in, prove the concept, and expand overtime. The original structure included an “opt in” by sellers and buyers. The concern was that market participants, particularly international buyers, might resist contributing to a U.S aftercare initiative. Over the next couple of years, sales companies moved toward mandatory deductions on the seller side and buyer mechanisms that allowed opt-out. But here is the problem: we never grew beyond the starter number. Thirteen years later, the contribution is still 0.05%. That means that on a $200,000 horse, aftercare receives roughly $100 from the seller, $100 from the sales company, and $100 from the buyer (unless the buyer opts out). This assessment was never intended to stay permanently at 0.05%. It was supposed to increase within a few years. It didn't and it must. Any buyer who participates in the U.S Thoroughbred marketplace should do so with the expectation that aftercare funding is part of the deal. Aftercare is not optional. 2). The Jockey Club's “$2.5 million donation”: credit, but also clarity. The Jockey Club recently stated it donates $2.5 million annually to the TAA. I don't dispute that number, and we all appreciate support for aftercare, but I do believe it is misleading without clarification, because a meaningful portion of funding is generated through breeder-paid registry transaction fees, effectively a pass-through mechanism. In other words, it is not “The Jockey Club” alone funding aftercare through The Jockey Club. It is actually the breeders. 3). Kentucky's $250,000 contribution is appreciated and a start, but inadequate. The Commonwealth of Kentucky–through Kentucky House Bill 8–provides $250,000 annually to the TAA, starting in 2025. That is progress. But given what Kentucky earns from Thoroughbreds, it is insufficient. Look at stallion-season tax revenue alone. Even using conservative assumptions–an average of $35,000 per season–and a 6% sales tax–Kentucky could conservatively realize around $40 million in state revenue from stallion seasons alone. Add auctions, racing, tourism, payroll, and sales tax on goods and services, and revenue to Kentucky becomes far larger. With that reality, a $250,000 aftercare contribution is not a “solution.” It is a token. Given the economic reality, Kentucky should be funding aftercare at a far higher level, well into the millions. These horses are part of the state's brand, identity, and economic engine. The state can lead the nation in caring for them when their earning years end. The TAA has changed aftercare for the better. But the funding model has stalled, and the industry is still living far too comfortably with the bare minimum. That is no longer acceptable. Additionally, the TAA itself must become more transparent. I spoke with Walt Robertson, the newly elected president of the TAA, who assured me that changes are being explored and he is the right person to help drive them. Boyd Browning is also 100% behind sale increases. That gives me real hope. But hope is not a strategy. We must stop tolerating inertia, complacency, and neglect. The post Letter to the Editor: Aftercare–Hope Is Not a Strategy appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions. View the full article -
Keep trainers winners from your armchair @Chief Stipe
-
-
Topics
-
