Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sightseek
I thought I read somewhere that the contract had a provision that as long as Ron keeps finishing in the top two in Graded Stakes he is to be kept in training until both parties agree on retirement. If he should fail to do so in two consecutive graded Stakes than Stonewall gets him or somethng to that effect.
Ron, the human, said he was going to Dubai next year as far as he was concerned.
|
Obviously, nobody knows what the contract says, except the people who are a party to it. However, based upon what was reported, it seems to me to be an "interpretation" issue and that's what the dispute was about. Each side was interpreting the actual contract/clause to mean something different.
Regardless, problem solved -- for now. I would expect that each side would look to find an "interpretation" that was favorable to them and their motivations, and I don't see any reason why it couldn't happen again. All one would have to do is to continue to try and find a way to interpret the contract/clause in a way that was favorable and desireable. Litigation is easy -- often foolish, but easy.
As far as his stud fee, the Whitney is an
extremely prestigious race. The Oaklawn Handicap is a GII (I think) and while it doesn't hurt, I don't think it changes anything. He had won graded stakes at 3. The only way the Oaklawn race would add to his value is if that's all he won as a four year old. He came back and was placed in a GII and GIII, but adding the Whitney to his resume enhanced his value very significantly. After that, the Woodward certainly didn't hurt -- it further enhanced as it was his second GI and like the Whitney it was at the Spa. These are the most prestigious races, and the most prestigious track, during the most prestigeous meet, in the world.
At the same time, the attorney for the estate has a fiduciary responsibility. That too could play into this. The other side could throw money at the issue.
Eric