Freda

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.

Sad...terrific spectacle and some great, great horses showcased through the years. Seems only the Poms and the Irish can do it properly.

I can't understand all the secrecy. P is a horrible, insidious scourge on modern society, it is rife, it's everywhere. So a P positive is not necessarily a slur on the trainer concerned, but every effort needs to be made to track down the source of contamination for future avoidance ; and dare I add, maybe to try and get help to those users who may be able to be salvaged?

That is correct I believe.

Thanks for the replies...interesting stuff.

There are the odd one or two that don't actually like being hit....will close up if touched...coaxing and beautiful balance may be hard to watch, but hey, if it works..

update so far : vendor is refusing to supply or allow viewing of the vet report, and is demanding payment of second and final instalment.

...they get far less use year-on-year too......but you are quite right nonetheless...esp. about the 'experts'.

If NZ racing doesn't get a significant re-structuring through the Messara report, it won't matter where they are. They - on their own - won't turn our fortunes around significantly and we won't be able to afford to maintain them.

No, not at all....the funds from the new housing development do NOT go to the CJC, rather to the R.R Trustees who are charged with maintaining reserves for the future and benefit of racing for the people of Canterbury. Interest from those funds will be allowed to go to the CJC but as yet, payment in full is a fair way away.