Horse Retirement & Horseplayers - Poll
 

Ray Paulick and Caroline Betts were tweeting about horse retirement, and Ray wondered if horseplayers would support something to help. The poll question is simple: If Breeders, Owners and the industry had a plan they were funding to help horses when they retire, are players willing to contribute to it?

It is estimated that 15k to 18k horses are slaughtered each year in the US, which represents half the foal crop. Is this something that irks you? Or is it just another in a long list of problems that lies low on the totem pole for you as a customer/horseplayer?

Note: Interview with Caroline here on some of her retirement stuff as background for the conversation.

http://blog.horseplayersassociation....ts-phd-on.html

I voted support of both of the above...I believe that everyone involved in the sport, in any capacity, should be willing to help.

Note that takeout choice is "one-tenth of a percent" as i dont think it reads clear.

Thanks for voting!

I'd like to see a retirement fund set up for horseplayers.

Or at last a nice retirement home we can all go to that has Dish Network and betting windows.

$500 added to each foal registration fee.

I think $15 million a year in the right hands from that fee should do the trick. That would pretty much end the problem.

Why should bettors be forced/suggested to donate $15 million a year when the breeders would tar and feather anybody who suggested the above registration fee increase.

No takeout increases ever, for anything.

The entire racing community should get the phrase "takeout increase" out of their vocabulary forever.

None of the above for me. I would not support any takeout raise on this issue, i would rather personally just donate money out of my own pocket to help the cause. Also, before any kind of takeout increase is approved for this, i would like to see some sort of data that shows exactly, to the penny, what current owners are doing for this cause. Current owners are more responsible for horses afterlife than bettors are and if owners are 'all in' that would make bettors more likely to want to help out also.

When i make a bet on the NFL in Las Vegas, do they ask me if i want to risk 111 dollars to win 100 (instead of the standard 110 to win 100) with 1 dollar going to retired players? No, if i make a bet on an NFL game the last thing i'm thinking about is paying extra money to the NFLPA to support retired players, i'm not sure how horse race bettors are any different. I'm not sure why people who bet on the races are somehow obligated to pay for things like this...maybe someone can enlighten me as to why horse bettors are different from NFL bettors. (or sports bettors, just using NFL as an example).

Maybe they're different, but i'm just not sure how.

That is about right for me ITP, however I want to contribute to the horses I bet on.

I pay about $200 a month for data. If I could pay $210, knowing Breeders, owners and everyone else was paying to a fund, run professionally by someone like Betts that might help, I would. As a horse owner I would gladly pay $x for a 401k like she has proposed, but I think my horses are my responsibility and I take that seriously anyway.

I chose the second option.

The real problem is when money is earmarked for a specific thing. Those over seeing it think they deserve a large portion of it and those that should benefit only get around 10-25% as the balance is taken in "Administrative Fees".
So anytime I get a call to help X if it's something I'd like to help I just send a donation straight to the end user and bypass all the Take Out.

I believe it should start with those that benefit the most... the Breeder's... Owners... Tracks and betting concerns. I mean if they can pay their CEO's 6+ figures surely they can kick in a % into a retirement fund for the horses. All of those should kick in to the kitty.

As Betters we support the sport at the windows.

How could any horseplayer, at this moment in time, suggest, vote for, or even give credence to a takeout increase that will tax bettors another $15 million each year for a problem that can be solved very easily by the industry with a $500 foal registration fee (which will raise the exact same amount of money) that solves the problem?

I quit!

That sounds good. Maybe racetracks could card 1 race per day where the total takeout goes to provide for the horses.

I voted no because of the questions but I would happily contribute to the welfare of the horses in some way if a system was setup to do it.

Keith Brackpool voted, twice.

I voted the last item. Yes I care about it, but I would feel no different than if I was charged an extra pctg. on a restaurant tab to cover the cooks retirement. It's going to get passed on to the customer anyway (and hopefully some to the owner who is ultimately responsible) but I don't want the industry to get the idea that every time they come up with an expense they can just raise takeout to cover it (it's probably too late for that :bang: ). No other business runs like that.

Of those 15-18,00 horses slaughtered every year, how many are T'breds? How many actually set foot on a track during competition?

If it's true that 25-50% of the annual foal crop ends up in a slaughterhouse, I think that this is a pretty good sign that breeders are breeding too many thoroughbreds. Consequently, if the industry decides to ease the situation by setting up a retirement fund, I believe that fund should be funded by breeders and stallion farms, not handicappers. Perhaps the additional cost to breeders will reduce the supply a bit, which by itself would lessen the problem of thoroughbred slaughter.

I should add that while I am against using the takeout to fund a retirement program, I did contribute $500 to SCTBR last year.

I partially disagree.

I think part of the problem results from the lack of an alternative plan when is was made illegal to send horses to slaughter houses.

The breeders meet a demand. The demand is two-fold: what the racing industry can sustain and what the business requires.