In this Discussion
- DamienWyer March 2012
- Fastmoney March 2012
- helmet March 2012
- kerrin March 2012
- LuckyLongshots March 2012
- paraletic March 2012
- perfectjet March 2012
- RIO March 2012
- SLIPPERGOLDEN March 2012
- Some March 2012
- TheDiva March 2012
- thefalcon March 2012
- TheFunkster March 2012
- tony March 2012
Who's Online
0 Members & 484 Non Members
john o'shea
East Coast Racing
paraletic
3,750 posts
Comments
Far more lots at this years Sydney Easter Sale will be left without serious bidding competition as a result, as purchasers will be overly cautious staring at adverse Vet reports.
I cannot see why the vets have would be concerned.
the report from the vet said there was a low risk. O'Shea lost the case because he did not pass this information to the owners.
If trainers want to be so quick to advise, recommend or buy horses on behalf of owners then they need adhere to there obligations to whoever is signing the cheque.
Syndicators have strict conditions that they need to comply with (and do), so why should trainers be immune from prosecution for negligence and/or failure to disclose? Same goes for when horses are in training and under their care. No different to a teacher's obligations when your kids are under their care and supervision. Often we are talking about horses that have cost or are worth upwards of 6 figures.
Maybe (as a result of this decision) RWWA need to brief trainers on their disclosure obligations to owners/potential owners?
Really with what is at stake, if I was a trainer I would be entering into an agreement for both purchases and training to indemnify the trainer and limit any claims to the amounts covered by the trainers insurances.
If the owner isn't happy with that then he has the option of not proceeding. Quite simple really.
Sorry, but no sympathy for O'Shea from me. People need to take some responsibility for their actions and obligations.
And like most people in life, jockeys are not immune from claims for negligence either....
Anyone heard how the A.Cummings v Tinkler litigation is going?
The most recent purchase had the Vet say that the horse had some activity on the hind, and a low risk behind a knee for a racing career, but it would be a fail for an Asian ready to run type purchase.
Second Vet called in, said the bloody thing was fabulous and no hesitation in buying him.
So you make up your own mind when you get a Vet report, sometimes a second opinion is quite valuable as well.
Veterinary opinions are varied and numerous yearlings with low risk (and medium and high risk) assessments have gone on to have injury free race careers.
This is another example of the courts making decisions without truly understanding what they are dealing with.
What percentage of the horses performance was a direct result of the injury?
The part I find hard to understand is that the purchaser said if he had of been told about the veterinary report he would still have bought the yearling.
I would think if O`Shea could fund further (or better) legal representation the decision may be overturned.
The Cummings Tinkler case was settled out of court
turned out a bleeder...and that was know to the stable!!
talk about being pi55ed off!! :x
Got another that as a group we have perservered with from yearling up to 3yr old....I have tried to encourage everyone to give up on him...but the one more prep, one more prep brigade have kept him going until now. :) Yeehar!!
Do i get upset and want out and want to sue the vet, trainer or other owners.. No. But the key is i'm in it for the social side of racing and not as a financial activity. If i was in it for financial gain and the horse wasn't performing, i reckon i can understand why they want to blame someone...
Tough call, but trainers just need to fully disclose everything so that the owners have all the information to make an informed decision.
Oh BTW...if your interseted i could do a 2 for 1 deal on a couple of horses with a lot of potential 8)
Where do you draw the line? The summary from the vet is "low rating". How much more information does he need to supply as the trainer?
"had a nick on his near fore, had a funny poo yesterday, had a bit of colic 2 months back, has a bit of a funny looking head.....etc".
The vet is the expert and as such, should be able to be relied upon by the trainer. Just my opinion.
"not in it for social gain just the social aspect..."
have not heard so much bulltwang for a long time....of course we are in it HOPING for a financial gain. thats why we are in it, not to go poncing around in the mouting yard.
if you want the social aspect see paraletic, he's got one to sell you. bet its as sound as a bell but lacking ability. that means you can be social for many years to come and tell all & sundry about "my horse".
seems to me a lot of you guys are spendthrifts with a good sense of humour and social asperations.
now watch me get shot down in flames....you won't hit me, falcons are very swift. :lol:
but i also like to think the horse has got a chance of getting a photo in a frame... i reckon my recent 18 start maiden is proof of that..Enjoy the day, the horse has a go and then try to find the car to get home...
But if i had paid $300k for one of them and the trainer new there was a low chance of it not being quite right, didn't disclose it to me and then it developed into something a bit more....I'd be a bit pissed and looking to blame someone as well...but it'd probably blame myself for not asking the right question, and just make sure i didn't put the next horse through the same trainer.....None of this legal crap...
$300k is an expensive lesson...but someone said it early buyer beware
Let the lying grub sleep in his own bed, he made it.
If you're spending 300k on a racehorse, you aren't in it only for the social aspect!
And I would have thought any and all results from vets should have been forwarded to the owner. At the end of the day, it would have taken a fax or email to let the owner know what was said by the vet - simple really!
benefits...bullyang...what about some poor bugger who becomes a quad because he was in an accident, fell off the roof. what about the poor families that lose a breadwinner thru, say, cancer.
nothing for those poor devils.
o'shea probably had 50k on foxwedge....how do we know otherwise. if i was in his shoes i would have had it on.....even concession..probably 8s.
our so called "benefits" benefit the wrong people.....bet there won't be one for jim stynes....or will there?
so you ponce about the parade ring going ga-ga over a 18 start maiden.
you can talk to all sorts of great characters in racing without owning a hair of a horses tail.
we all speak the same language, remember...
love to the lovely jean.... :wink:
We are not talking about ability, as I've I've owned a lot of expensive ones who run slower than my Nanna, but we are talking about something that can hinder a horse's career. $300k is a lot of money.
It's an expensive lesson for O'Shea, but I reckon he'll never do it again.