OT: Rich Strike

@"pattersaur" said:

@"Skodin" said:

@"StickyBun" said:

@"purplefaithful" said:

Kentucky Derby winner Rich Strike won't run the Preakness Stakes

"Our original plan for Rich Strike was contingent on the KY Derby, should we not run in the Derby we would point toward the Preakness, should we run in the Derby, subject to the race outcome & the condition of our horse, we would give him more recovery time & rest and run in the Belmont, or another race and stay on course to run with 5 or 6 weeks rest between races," the statement said. 

Dawson said it was "very, very tempting" to race in the Preakness after their Derby win, adding it "would be a great honor."
"However, after much discussion & consideration with my trainer, Eric Reed & a few others, we are going to stay with our plan of what's best for Ritchie is what's best for our group, and pass on running in the Preakness, and point toward the Belmont in approximately 5 weeks," the statement said.

If Dawson's strategy goes according to plan, Rich Strike will return to the race track June 11 for the 154th running of the Belmont Stakes at Belmont Park in Elmont, New York.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/12/sport/rich-strike-preakness-stakes/index.html

They care about their horse. I'm sure its extremely tempting. 

They care about the money made from the horse.  Not so much the horse themselves.

Now they can prove me wrong by keeping the horse for the next 15-17 years of its natural life post the race (yes Derby winners are also sent to slaughter in their lives).  But the percentages on industry standards, is that he could be one of the 10,000 other thoroughbreds that will be sent to slaughter this year.  If not this year, then soon, well unless he dies on the track like 2,100 of them did last year.

You probably know this but others might not… Derby winners hardly fall into the same category as other thoroughbreds. I don’t doubt that sadly thoroughbreds do get put down before their natural time, but that’s almost never the case with Derby winners because there’s so much money to be made on stud farms. Way more than in the actual races.

https://www.americasbestracing.net/the-sport/2021-where-are-they-now-27-years-kentucky-derby-winners

Here’s a list of the past 27 years worth of Derby winners. One was injured in a race and another died a few years after retirement, but the rest lived for quite a while and the majority are still alive.  

So no, I don’t think Rich Strike’s owners are going to lead him to slaughter this year. In fact the odds are next to nothing. 

@"Skodin" said:

@"StickyBun" said:

@"purplefaithful" said:

Kentucky Derby winner Rich Strike won't run the Preakness Stakes

"Our original plan for Rich Strike was contingent on the KY Derby, should we not run in the Derby we would point toward the Preakness, should we run in the Derby, subject to the race outcome & the condition of our horse, we would give him more recovery time & rest and run in the Belmont, or another race and stay on course to run with 5 or 6 weeks rest between races," the statement said. 

Dawson said it was "very, very tempting" to race in the Preakness after their Derby win, adding it "would be a great honor."
"However, after much discussion & consideration with my trainer, Eric Reed & a few others, we are going to stay with our plan of what's best for Ritchie is what's best for our group, and pass on running in the Preakness, and point toward the Belmont in approximately 5 weeks," the statement said.

If Dawson's strategy goes according to plan, Rich Strike will return to the race track June 11 for the 154th running of the Belmont Stakes at Belmont Park in Elmont, New York.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/12/sport/rich-strike-preakness-stakes/index.html

They care about their horse. I'm sure its extremely tempting. 

They care about the money made from the horse.  Not so much the horse themselves.

Now they can prove me wrong by keeping the horse for the next 15-17 years of its natural life post the race (yes Derby winners are also sent to slaughter in their lives).  But the percentages on industry standards, is that he could be one of the 10,000 other thoroughbreds that will be sent to slaughter this year.  If not this year, then soon, well unless he dies on the track like 2,100 of them did last year.

@"IDVikingfan" said:

@"Skodin" said:

@"StickyBun" said:

@"purplefaithful" said:

Kentucky Derby winner Rich Strike won't run the Preakness Stakes

"Our original plan for Rich Strike was contingent on the KY Derby, should we not run in the Derby we would point toward the Preakness, should we run in the Derby, subject to the race outcome & the condition of our horse, we would give him more recovery time & rest and run in the Belmont, or another race and stay on course to run with 5 or 6 weeks rest between races," the statement said. 

Dawson said it was "very, very tempting" to race in the Preakness after their Derby win, adding it "would be a great honor."
"However, after much discussion & consideration with my trainer, Eric Reed & a few others, we are going to stay with our plan of what's best for Ritchie is what's best for our group, and pass on running in the Preakness, and point toward the Belmont in approximately 5 weeks," the statement said.

If Dawson's strategy goes according to plan, Rich Strike will return to the race track June 11 for the 154th running of the Belmont Stakes at Belmont Park in Elmont, New York.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/12/sport/rich-strike-preakness-stakes/index.html

They care about their horse. I'm sure its extremely tempting. 

They care about the money made from the horse.  Not so much the horse themselves.

Now they can prove me wrong by keeping the horse for the next 15-17 years of its natural life post the race (yes Derby winners are also sent to slaughter in their lives).  But the percentages on industry standards, is that he could be one of the 10,000 other thoroughbreds that will be sent to slaughter this year.  If not this year, then soon, well unless he dies on the track like 2,100 of them did last year.

I understand and do agree with your passion to protect horses and to change the industry.  But, have to ask, do you have evidence that the owner/trainers of Rich Strike are bad actors and abusive to their horses.  Shrug, maybe they are the worst ever, average or good horse people.  I'm not ready to condemn someone without evidence, YMMV.  Condemnation of practices by the industry overall seems appropriate but stopping short of condemning owners/trainers without evidence.

@"Skodin" said:

@"pattersaur" said:

@"Skodin" said:

@"StickyBun" said:

@"purplefaithful" said:

Kentucky Derby winner Rich Strike won't run the Preakness Stakes

"Our original plan for Rich Strike was contingent on the KY Derby, should we not run in the Derby we would point toward the Preakness, should we run in the Derby, subject to the race outcome & the condition of our horse, we would give him more recovery time & rest and run in the Belmont, or another race and stay on course to run with 5 or 6 weeks rest between races," the statement said. 

Dawson said it was "very, very tempting" to race in the Preakness after their Derby win, adding it "would be a great honor."
"However, after much discussion & consideration with my trainer, Eric Reed & a few others, we are going to stay with our plan of what's best for Ritchie is what's best for our group, and pass on running in the Preakness, and point toward the Belmont in approximately 5 weeks," the statement said.

If Dawson's strategy goes according to plan, Rich Strike will return to the race track June 11 for the 154th running of the Belmont Stakes at Belmont Park in Elmont, New York.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/12/sport/rich-strike-preakness-stakes/index.html

They care about their horse. I'm sure its extremely tempting. 

They care about the money made from the horse.  Not so much the horse themselves.

Now they can prove me wrong by keeping the horse for the next 15-17 years of its natural life post the race (yes Derby winners are also sent to slaughter in their lives).  But the percentages on industry standards, is that he could be one of the 10,000 other thoroughbreds that will be sent to slaughter this year.  If not this year, then soon, well unless he dies on the track like 2,100 of them did last year.

You probably know this but others might not… Derby winners hardly fall into the same category as other thoroughbreds. I don’t doubt that sadly thoroughbreds do get put down before their natural time, but that’s almost never the case with Derby winners because there’s so much money to be made on stud farms. Way more than in the actual races.

https://www.americasbestracing.net/the-sport/2021-where-are-they-now-27-years-kentucky-derby-winners

Here’s a list of the past 27 years worth of Derby winners. One was injured in a race and another died a few years after retirement, but the rest lived for quite a while and the majority are still alive.  

So no, I don’t think Rich Strike’s owners are going to lead him to slaughter this year. In fact the odds are next to nothing. 

Oh that's right, that annual ONE lucky horse get studded out to produce more race horses who are going to have a higher probability of being a part of the 10,000 thoroughbreds who are slaughtered annually vs them winning the derby.

No?  Doesn't that seem to be the case?  

The worst thing we ever did to horses was closing slaughter in 2007.  This resulted in many many many tortured animals starving in 2008 during the great recession and beyond.  At Big South Fork park here where there is all kinds of trail riding done.  It got so bad that people stopped going because their trailer would be filled with other peoples horses when they got back from a trail ride.

If we allowed horse slaughter again we wouldn't need pictures like above.  We'd have proper processing plants.  We'd have safety rules.  It just makes no sense. 

@"AGRforever" said:

The worst thing we ever did to horses was closing slaughter in 2007.  This resulted in many many many tortured animals starving in 2008 during the great recession and beyond.  At Big South Fork park here where there is all kinds of trail riding done.  It got so bad that people stopped going because their trailer would be filled with other peoples horses when they got back from a trail ride.

If we allowed horse slaughter again we wouldn't need pictures like above.  We'd have proper processing plants.  We'd have safety rules.  It just makes no sense.