Suffolk Downs Anti-slaughter Policy a Joke

[Danzig]

i wrote them about it. wonder if i'll get a response.

[Monarchos1]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i wrote them about it. wonder if i'll get a response.

I seriously doubt it and, frankly, no explanation they could offer would be acceptable. The New York Times has been all over the Paragallo story so maybe it's worth writing them even though Suffolk is in Boston? Maybe their writers would take an interest in this and give Suffolk the negative publicity it so richly deserves right now.

[SuffolkGirl]

I am so disappointed. Of course, I don't know the whole story (who does?!) but never means never. The timing is just unbelievable. As far as the NY Times goes - they own the Boston Globe and are talking about closing it down (which is another entire story). Maybe a quick note to both the NY Times and The Boston Globe is in order here.

[Cannon Shell]

I am not sure that a policy that bans people for the misdeeds of others (legal misdeeds) is a good policy in the first place. The real villains are still banned. Believe me it is not easy to find homes for these types of horses and someone with a good story and phony brochures can get you. I just dont know how you can blame trainers for actions of others once the horses are out of their control. Despite the obvious distaste for horse slaughter, the legislating of responsibility beyond your immediate care is wrought with problems.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I am not sure that a policy that bans people for the misdeeds of others (legal misdeeds) is a good policy in the first place. The real villains are still banned. Believe me it is not easy to find homes for these types of horses and someone with a good story and phony brochures can get you. I just dont know how you can blame trainers for actions of others once the horses are out of their control. Despite the obvious distaste for horse slaughter, the legislating of responsibility beyond your immediate care is wrought with problems.

i read the story and of course saw that the party they gave/sold the horses to is the one who then sold them to slaughter. but i also saw that it was felt the three really knew exactly where the horses were going to end up. of course felt doesn't = knew....

[Monarchos1]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I am not sure that a policy that bans people for the misdeeds of others (legal misdeeds) is a good policy in the first place. The real villains are still banned. Believe me it is not easy to find homes for these types of horses and someone with a good story and phony brochures can get you. I just dont know how you can blame trainers for actions of others once the horses are out of their control. Despite the obvious distaste for horse slaughter, the legislating of responsibility beyond your immediate care is wrought with problems.

If the track is privately owned, it can establish its own rules, just as those tracks that banned the jockeys a couple of years ago did. As far as the Suffolk trainers, one would think they would thoroughly evaluate any potential "homes" since they were aware of the track's policy. I can't cut them any slack under the circumstances. And the blame here really goes to Suffolk for reneging on the hard stance they took.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Monarchos1

If the track is privately owned, it can establish its own rules, just as those tracks that banned the jockeys a couple of years ago did. As far as the Suffolk trainers, one would think they would thoroughly evaluate any potential "homes" since they were aware of the track's policy. I can't cut them any slack under the circumstances. And the blame here really goes to Suffolk for reneging on the hard stance they took.

No one said that Suffolk cant set whatever rules it wants. but the rule was poorly constructed and fraught with trouble. If you cant see beyond your rage against horse slaughter to see that this zero tolerance rule is really flawed you are part of the problem, not the solution. How exactly do you throughly evaluate a potential home? I have never sent a horse to slaughter nor will I however I could wind up in a similar situation to these guys simply by being misled. Does that mean I deserve to get banned too? Try actually finding someone to take an unwanted horse, especially one that may not be sound or able to be retrained. The track should put up the money to take the unwanted horses off the trainers and owners hands if they want to do something constructive not put in place flawed, PR fueled rules.

[sumitas]

I agree Monarchos . The trainers need to be accountable and the life time ban reinstated . Pathetic back tracking by that track .

[Cannon Shell]

The defense rests its case...

[reese]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I am not sure that a policy that bans people for the misdeeds of others (legal misdeeds) is a good policy in the first place. The real villains are still banned. Believe me it is not easy to find homes for these types of horses and someone with a good story and phony brochures can get you. I just dont know how you can blame trainers for actions of others once the horses are out of their control. Despite the obvious distaste for horse slaughter, the legislating of responsibility beyond your immediate care is wrought with problems.

I believe the issue with Suffolk is that the trainers in question "claim they had "NO inkling" that they were giving horses to a killer buyer. That is a big lie to swallow.

Most on the backstretch know who is who...especially like a third rate track like Suffolk with a limited horse population. Canter is very active in NE, especially Suffolk so these trainers go the Paragallo school of deny,deny,deny.

No question. Too many unwanted horses is a big problem especially breeders like Paragallo running a puppy mill for "horses"

Controlled euthanasia is a better alternative than the "torture trip" from track to slaughter.
A bullet in the head is better than the torture these unwanted horses face getting to the slaughter facility. They "know" where they are going...and would probably opt for a quick, "painless" death.

[Suffolk Shippers]

All in all, I'm pretty disappointed with Suffolk on this. As a local, I have been following Richard Fields and his "new regime" operate here and they have done a lot of good for the whole operation. Going there on a nice afternoon for a day is now enjoyable, where as a few years ago it was close to unbearable. They should all be commended for bringing the track out of the toilet.

I'm all for anti-slaughter. I don't have an issue saying that. However, there is no denying there is an over-abundance in the population and something has to be done. It just cannot be cut and dry, as anti-slaughter being the answer. The game needs creative ideas to try and lower the overall population. Inhumane slaughter should not be part of the answer, however, Suffolk Downs chose to make it their main centerpiece of their platform. I think that's great, if that's what you want to do. But, you need to back that up.

If you say you're banning folks who partake in the sale of stock that ends up in kill pens then you need to stick to that. If you are going to give leeway to some, like Chip Tuttle has done, then clearly your policy is not what it was pumped up to be. Suffolk should be commended for their anti-slaughter stance, but they deserve condemnation in it's lousy execution. Looks like it's already time to clarify what the policy actually is.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by reese

I believe the issue with Suffolk is that the trainers in question "claim they had "NO inkling" that they were giving horses to a killer buyer. That is a big lie to swallow.

That is the problem. Trying to determine who is "lying" and who isn't does not solve the issue. If the tracks want to take a stand, fine. Then they can fund a solution that coincides with that stand. This is not a question of legalities, it is a question of morality. And regardless of whether a track is privately held or not, legislating morality is a slippery slope. Singling out the last link on the responsibility chain is easy for the tracks and its supporters. Yet the root of the problem is still being ignored.