Reddam and Ramsey... what's your take?
 

Caveat Emptor.

You might want to think twice before opening your checkbook after picking up the phone and hearing, "have I got a horse for you".

Ramsey just gives me the creeps to start with. But I cant belive Oneil or Reddam wouldnt send out, I dont know maybe Dougs brother or somone like that to look at the horse before spending $600k for him. They even questioned the fact that he didnt start till mid 3yr old season.

If the horse was misrepresented then Reddam should get his money back.

Caveat Emptor, yes. Deliberate concealment of an injury, no. My instincts tell me that had the defendant's truly disclosed the injury, and were using the drugs to treat and not conceal the injury, they would have insisted that the nature and details of it be in writing disclosed in the contract of sale.

It certainly seems like the Vet, Dr Pelphrey, didn't do his job very well.

If I'm spending $600K I'm going to make sure of what I buy.

Finders keepers....Ramsey found a nice chunk of money. If he was that good why would he want to sell? Someone should have thought about that.

Spyder

I was wondering when this was going to go to trial.

Thats what I was thinking also. If it was so obvious to the vet in Calif, how in the world did the vet that did the inspection miss it?? I think they are both wrong, Ramsey for selling a doped up cripple horse and Reddam for not doing a better job of covering is *ss. I mean, come on....for 600k you cant be bothered to send someone like Oneil or his brother to personally look at the horse and have a really intense vet check? The fact that the horse didnt start till mid 3yr old season says something is wrong.

Reddam hasnt had good luck in KY. He also bought Need Money Dad from Ky, he promptly broke down in his first start out West. Sad that stuff like this happens to good owners

This is the correct answer. They should be going after him for negligence.
If the horse came out of a 6/25 allowance race with shins, it's pretty standard practice of administering a course of anti-inflamatory and pain relieving meds.

Michael Meuser, a Lexington-based attorney who is representing the defendants, contends Reddam and his agents were informed of Big Picture's condition and "radiographs taken at the time showed that he had gotten over his shins. We're not aware of any other problems. Anything that was wrong with this horse, they were told about. We don't think there was any basis for returning" the horse to Ramsey.

Meuser said there is no evidence Big Picture's shin problem was chronic at the time. He said the injury was pointed out both to Pelphrey -- who did not report it, according to O’Neill -- and a representative of Reddam who watched the horse jog.

"I hate to think what would happen to the racing industry if everybody who bought a horse at Keeneland or some other place" could back out of the sale afterward, Meuser said. "There is no right of return."

Pelphrey claims in his deposition that he notified O’Neill and others about the condition, telling the trainer, “If you want a fast horse, he’s fast. But he’s not perfectly clean.”

The horse was sold on 7/10 with the expectation that he would go in the Oceanside stakes at Del Mar two weeks later.

Reddam had no horse for the race and was scrambling to get one, and no one plaintiff's side of the aisle wanted to hear a peep to the contrary - and the Vet staked his retutation on a bad gamble.

A report from Dr. Rick Arthur, now the CHRB's equine medical director but at the time in private practice, after an examination of Big Picture July 12, 2005, found "subchondral bone defects in the fore fetlocks…are likely to be progressive in nature and result in serious irreversible lameness."

Not sure how anti-inflamitories and pain relievers can mask bone defects, I think an X-ray by the inspecting vet would have been pretty definative.

I have no love for the Ramsey's, but they have become a staple in the industry based on their reputation...

The defendant's "Doped Up" Big Picture with painkillers and anti swelling medication........Hmmmmm,sounds like any leading U.S. horse trainer in this day and age.SO why is the horse supposed to test clean for a sale yet not when it goes to the track?What if this would have been a claim?Would there be a lawsuit then?Pending the outcome of this case,I forsee this to be opening a big can of worms!!

True

I don't like discussing specific situations when there is an absense of facts, as much of it is nothing more than speculation. However, based upon what was reported -- actually, it could be very different if this were a claim.

First, the article states that "painkillers and anti-swelling medication in order for the colt to pass a veterinarian's examination needed to complete the sale" and a blood test showed the presence of "Flunixin and Phenylbutazone". (Note, the article does not state when the blood test was done). Now, of course there is a great deal we don't know about this, and more importantly, nobody knows if the allegations are true -- however, at a certain point, level, timeframe, etc., these specific drugs would trigger a positive test (in a race). Thus, one could give a horse these drugs at certain levels and timeframes in order to train a horse and be submitted to a vet exam, physical inspection, etc.

However, those very same levels would trigger a positive test if the horse was treated for a race. Thus, if this were a claim, and the horse came up positive, the claim would be voided (at the request of claimaint).

Second, I agree 100% that this could open a very large -- and far reaching -- can of worms. Who knows if the buyer did their due diligence, or if the seller did whatever the lawsuit claims they did. I don't know and I think who did what will probably never come out.

Eric

This is a interesting situation. For 1...I know Ramsey is a cheap, non-payor....but I do not know Reddam at all. I am sure if you asked a few "inside" people here at DT they would have a few choice words for the Ram man.