Support services need to be sound

Horseracing, by its very nature, is a game of fortune. While they say that fortune favours the brave, even the brave need the support and help of those who provide essential services to the sport. The brave, in this instance, are those who own horses.  These individuals know that they are placing their fortunes into the hands of a trainer and a groom as well as numerous support personnel. They also know that if they are not happy with the support, they can replace these individuals.  That is not a problem and in fact occurs regularly enough in our sport. Where the problem (or the luck) comes in, with regard to the support of the other personnel–the veterinarian, the farrier, the feed men. Many ask if these individuals understand their roles. These support persons are critical to the sport; however there is a major dilemma when it comes to these people. The dilemma? A lack of accountability. It is virtually impossible to hold these individuals accountable for their negligence in the conduct of their duties. A few years ago, we had the unfortunate incident in which a Derby favourite was scratched on the eve of the race because the vet  administered a wrong drug.  Fortunately, T&T does not have ante-post betting as in the United Kingdom, as the losses to ante-post punters would have been huge. Recently, we have had instances of a vet performing a surgical procedure on the wrong horse, inappropriate dosages of drugs being administered, prescribed treatments being delayed for numerous reasons and so on.  

There is a current case pending in front of the Racing Authority (TTRA) in which a trainer is possibly going to be held accountable for an error reputedly made by a vet. The outcome of this case is being monitored closely.  The implication for the trainer is obvious but what exactly is the recourse of the owner? A lawsuit? To what end?  The legal fees will exceed any possible compensation. Fire the trainer? To what end? The vet population is so few that the same vet works for many trainers.  Resolve to never have the vet do any work on any of your horses again? To what end? And will such a resolution be sustainable?  There is no appropriate sanction when a vet makes mistake. At least, there is no appropriate sanction that can be levied at an individual level, unless of course the TTRA have some sort of accreditation system in place, where a vet’s license could be reviewed. Or a vet is required to give free community service for any serious breach of their responsibility or code. Then you have the farrier(s). These individuals are responsible for the shodding of horses–a procedure which is fairly routine and which is required to be performed on almost every horse at least once a month.  A simple mistake such as placing the nail in the wrong position on the hoof, can result in injury to a racehorse and the horse being ruled out of a targeted race or  missing a few days (if not more) of training.  

There have been numerous such cases over the years, hundreds if you believe the excuses made by trainers. What is the recourse of the owner? A lawsuit?  Fire the trainer? To what end? The farrier population in this country is so few that the same farrier works for several trainers.  Resolve to never have the farrier do any work on any of your horses again? To what end? And will such a resolution be sustainable?  There is no appropriate sanction when a mistake is made by a farrier.  At least, there is no appropriate sanction that can be levied at an individual level.  All of this sounds familiar? Except for one important fact, the vet earns thousands of dollars, while the farrier earns in the hundreds at best, so there is a critical difference. Then you have the feedmen. These are the individuals responsible for supplying some of the basic feed along with the various other nutritional supplements.  There is some reliance on these individuals for the supply of minimum and untainted feed since the implications of doing otherwise would be disastrous for the well-being of the horse.  This issue also extends to the suppliers of the main feed that are provided, the National Flour Mills, who are expected to provide feed that meet certain minimum standards. Independent tests conducted by owners/trainers have shown that feed from the various sources failed to meet the minimum standards. The consequence is an inexplicably poor performance by the horses involved.  It could be argued that all horses would be affected in like manner but since some trainers augment the local feed with imported feed, the impact on their charges would vary.  What is the recourse of the owner? A lawsuit? To what end?  The legal fees will exceed any possible compensation award.  Fire the trainer?  To what end?  Yes, you might be able to switch your horse(s) to a trainer who supplements the local feed with foreign feed but the training fees are undoubtedly higher and some portion of the feed will still be sourced locally.  Resolve to never provide feed from those suppliers to any of your horses again? To what end? And will such a resolution be sustainable?  Most owners are not involved in that level of detail.  There is no appropriate sanction when a mistake is made by the suppliers of feed.  At least, there is no appropriate sanction that can be levied at an individual level.  All of this sounds familiar?

Just last week, it was announced that the TTRA had warned off a number of owners for various offences, including non-payment of their fees as they became due. Trainers and grooms are warned off for indiscretions (directly or indirectly). Jockeys are warned off for various offences, on and off the track.  Administrators can be terminated and in some cases should be terminated sooner than they are.  There are sanctions that can be levied against almost all of those involved in providing support to the industry but apparently none for these service personnel.  One reason could be the dearth of qualified service personnel, and as such, a fear of reprisal or a fear that the industry would be worse off if any punitive sanction is enforced.  This is not a valid reason since it suggests that anything would be allowed.  There is no progress in such a scenario.  In the US, not too long ago, a well-known and respected administrator was terminated for failing to follow up on the apparent non-wellbeing of a racehorse scheduled to take part in a major race.  The entire world heard the jockey state that he felt the animal (a race favourite) had not been warming up properly prior to the race but yet no action was taken by the administrator (or anyone else in authority at the track that day, most of whom would have heard the same comment).  The horse raced and trailed the field for the entire race. Backers never had a chance. The furor was immediate with most backers believing the horse should have been scratched.  The US authorities eventually held the administrator responsible for failing to act judiciously.  Why is there no similar level of accountability in Trinidad? Is it about the level of administration in this country in horseracing, or is that there are too many persons with close connections to those in the services industry in horseracing and therefore the decision making on their workings is affected by conflict of interest matters.

The TTRA needs to establish a code of conduct so that persons can be called to account for their negligence. The penalties should be progressive and similar in nature to those imposed on trainers.  Until people are called to account for their actions, there can be no progress.  Maybe the late owner Roland Khan had exactly this in mind when he named one of his great racehorses in the early 1990s.  Sadly, good help remains very hard to find and in the current environment that is horseracing at the moment, with so much internal wrangling, it appears this is getting harder. It is sad, that horseracing and in particular horses have to suffer because of the lack of care, lack of efficiency of so many of the service providers in the industry and it is a great pity that horses cannot speak, otherwise they would tell us so much stories on their own experiences with all of those involved with them.

Good help is always required and if not good, then no help at all would be preferred, because bad help hurts not only the owner but also the horses.