Freda

Pretty light I'd have to say, well as far as I could see. However, with the old stand being unavailable [earthquake damage to foundations discovered recently ] there may have been patrons in the upstairs boxes as opposed to milling around at ground level. There did seem to be plenty of noise coming from above! And yes, I may be parochial...Pitty could have been tongue-in-cheek but local horses have definitely improved in recent years.

Ah....that puts a different slant on things, now, doesn't it? So.....when the vendors agent claimed a 'vet check' had been carried out, and subsequently it was found not to have been, does that qualify as 'misleading ' to the extent of nullifying the sale?

Gee you're an unsporting lot....Jack Frost spanks the field and the opposition is poor? And what did Amanda Swartz' hurdler do to his rivals in the first? ?

A verbal assurance only, W. However, that verbal assurance did indicate that a vet check had been undertaken. We now have a stalemate of sorts....vendor is refusing to budge and wants the second instalment of payment, as his his/her right given the detailed T.& C listed earlier. Purchasers are in a no-man's land of being responsible for maintenance costs for an animal they don't own.

Ok, was asked to find out which room had the average meal..I've just re-read the thread and yes, Balmerino seems to be the culprit. Usually it is extremely well received, so will get back to them and confirm. The $80 sign-up fee ? was told it was up to the promotions man, and is done by many other clubs as well. Well, sorry guys, aren't you trying to get people enthused ? instead of turning them off? so passed everyone's opinion about that too. A indication of being completely out-of-touch I feel.

I thought crowd was light too....to be fair, probably just as well with the grand old stand out of commission but the general public wouldn't have known that. Have never had occasion to partake of meal in Balmerino room, but it should be excellent, shame to hear that it was poor. With all the options available, sub-standard food just doesn't cut it. I'll make a few enquiries myself.

You're sad...

Just the best.!

He's not a young horse so I would assume so. I guess no reason, with suitable recovery, why he wouldn't be a good hunter or similar though.

He won't be starting anywhere. He's stuffed.

That is, as always, informative. Thanks Curious. I've now become better informed about buying cars ! Now we have facts in front of us all, I should add that I would have taken a different course in this scenario....but I think the advice given makes correct progress unambiguous.

Thanks, Curious, that's exactly what I was trying to ascertain. Puts it all very clearly I think.

Point 3 for me. There are some very reputable dealers/agents, and of course their livelihood is dependant upon them getting paid a fee and/or a percentage. But there are cowboys who do a great deal of 'clipping' I think...and I do know of situations where dealers - and trainers - can misrepresent the purchase price so that the only one that gets fleeced properly is the original owner. There was a regular poster some years ago who was very vociferous about the need for a 'bloodstock code of conduct ' - not sure if there is one now or not - he got a lot of stick for his opinions but I thought he had a fair point.

In answer to Arsenic - it seems you are not quite clear as to the matter causing the disagreement. And, although I have my own opinions, I am not posting for that reason - rather to get a consensus from others of what, if anything, can be done to resolve matters without too much angst. Horses become unfit for purpose all the time, for many reasons, no-one is disputing that fact. The issue here, I understand, is one of misrepresentation - and good faith. Upon arrival, the area of concern was brought to the attention of the vendor's agent who confirmed a vet check had been performed and the horse passed fit. Why, under those circumstances, would the purchasers spend more money to repeat the process when they trusted the agent? They took said agent's word as being in good faith and this is where the problem has arisen, it seems. On-line auctions are a cheap option to move horses on, and the system can only work well if full disclosure is made when advertising.

Excellent post, Jess, and good advice. A korero with a satisfactory result - for both parties - would be the best resolution for all.

Definitely not 'wet behind the ears' , Jess.

Vendor has had a change of heart and allowed viewing of the vet. report.......but - it transpires there isn't one. The horse was never officially vetted as claimed.

.....and another three yesterday.

Are you Hamish?

Well, we'll never know, 'cos it's a secret. And those horses in behind which should be re-rated following a D.Q...well, that won't happen either..too hard basket.

I knew Son of Zac had met an untimely end, based as I am at the same track as his former trainers.....very sad, a lovely progressive galloper with so much still to offer - and the Hughes stable/staff all looking forward to watching him compete in the bigger arena. But what happened to Survived?

Yup.

The whole thing is a bloody disgrace..and further to my earlier post, keeping the whole biso closeted and confidential only HELPS those who are/may be involved in using the substance. Can't they see that ? or is the whole shebang just that goddamn stupid.

Karen is, certainly.

Not an easy track to get to grips with, he coped pretty well so good on him. Jasmine Fawcett also.