Suffolk Downs Anti-slaughter Policy a Joke

[Monarchos1]

Suffolk Downs announced on Friday that it is reinstating 3 of the 5 trainers who were permanently banned under the track's widely applauded anti-slaughter policy:

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/nat...einstated.aspx

The timing of the announcement on the eve of the last major weekend of Derby preps was most certainly designed to keep this from attracting much attention, which was wise to do in light on the recent Ernie Paragallo charges. And this strategy seems to have worked since virtually no media have picked up on this pathetic charade that required mere letters of apology and a $1,000 donation to a horse rescue fund for reinstatement.

Suffolk Downs' management should be ashamed of itself for reversing its position at a time when a huge black cloud is hanging over the industry. It is clear that the media whores there just wanted positive publicity when it they could get it and are now willing to look the other way to fill entries with the track about to open.

[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.

[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.