If we just look at the after racing life of thoroughbred horses, we get a good idea of how poorly the system is set up.
Many owners are thoughtful and caring. They provide a safe retirement for their horses or donate them to facilities that attempt to do that. Others, much like in any other facet of society, just view the horses as a commodity, whose usefulness is over, when the training costs start eclipsing the purse money.
Has anyone discussed the concept of a quasi "social security" for horses?
The funds could come from purse monies at a graduated rate, based on the purse itself and race grade. For example (these are just back of the envelope numbers):
- (Tier 1) GI races and purses over $300,000-5% of winner's share goes to fund. 2% for all other awards.
- (Tier 2) G II/III and purses over $100,000-3% of winner's share and 1% for all other awards.
- (Tier 3) Listed stakes and purses over $60,000- 2% of winner's share and 1% for all others.
- (Tier 4) Purses over $30,000-2% of winner's share.
Have all individual charities that want to receive these funds, meet whatever criteria the umbrella organization determines are important. I would recommend separating the criteria from nepotistic affiliations or country club acquaintances; Jockey Club patronage should not be a factor.
The criteria, set out for public scrutiny, would be a blanket policy. If you meet the criteria, you get the funding, as a factor of how many other groups are eligible for the funds. The backward looking nature of this criteria would, I think, prevent any politics or chicanery.
Say this idea goes into effect this year. All the purse monies collected go into the fund and are to be distributed in FY 2010. This year, all the facilities that want to apply for the funds fill out the application and if they meet whatever criteria are laid out, they qualify. At the end of the year, say 50 retirement groups qualified, those 50 groups split the funds in the pool equally. All the monies get awarded.
Individual retirement foundations are, of course, allowed to seek their own external donations, just as they do now but they could supplement those funds with this network. One of the criteria could be that if your organization gets more than (X) amount of dollars in external donations, you don't qualify for the fund monies.
Maybe stipulate that if a stallion stands in excess of $50,000, 3% of those fees are subject to the charity. Any horse that stands prior to its 5yo season, 20% of those monies are owed to the fund.
The Jockey Club could easily enforce this policy by refusing to give breeders the foal papers, if the stud farm fails to pay its dues.
I'm spitballing here. What are the flaws? What are the suggestions?
Posts
4 comments:
I've blogged about this, as well, and think you're on the right track, but...
The only workable solution, in my opinion, is one that involves a surcharge on every thoroughbred transaction: stud fees, horse sales, and purse moneys. It's not fair, and doesn't make sense, to saddle only the owners of racehorses -- most of whom are losing money in any case -- to carry the freight for a problem that belongs to the entire industry; womb-to-tomb care isn't cheap, and if we want it (which I think we do), then everyone needs to pitch in.
I agree. We have a check-off program in France, a voluntary donation of a percentage of gains. Owners, trainers, jockeys, everyone can contribute, and many have signed on. The minimum check-off is 0.1 percent, and you can increase it to whatever you like. The money is matched by France Galop (our Jockey club) and so far, every horse is guaranteed a retirement. Those needing vet care get it before being placed in a new job. Horses not capable of being placed as riding horses get a retirement, and horses that are just to problematic (either health wise or mentally) are put down. The program is already way over budget, though, so we'll see how long it can last.
At last nights Eclipse Awards Dinner we all heard the comment made it's all about the Horses. They were thanking the Horses. Your idea might need to have the details worked out but the concept is right, and thats what matters. Let's hope they can start this program asap.
At risk of throwing cold water on it, it's just silly. the regrettable reality is that horses are too expensive to keep beyond their useful years. The other fact that seems widely unrecognized is the abuse suffered by most OTBs. This is actually so bad (by my experience with about 10 that I've given away) that I'm considering euthanasia for my next useless horse thinking it would be significantly better off. Shuffling horses off to wide eyed teenagers is NOT a solution to the unwanted horse problem, even assuming there are enough of those to go around (there aren't) There's imo insufficient funds to support all or some race horses for 20 years after their careers. That's the reality, and so, combined with the OTB problem, I'd ask to find another different solution, whatever it might be.
Post a Comment