jockeys mutiny against Michael Gill

[IcouldbeU]

Doesn't the owner have an ethical obligation to make sure he is not entering an unsound horse in a race because of the potential to cause injury or death to jockeys or other horses entered?

The buck stops with the owner who has the ultimate accountability for making sure the horses he owns are not a danger to anyone else.

No, I don't think its up to the owner. Last spring, my partners and I claimed a filly in CA. She ran a few times and ran poorly. We gave her time off, took her to the Southwest, tried 2 different tracks. Then we decided it must be the trainer. So we changed trainers, and her next start, she came out of the gate, took about 3 steps and bobbled. The jock pulled her up, she was euthanized later that night. Was I to blame for running an unsound horse? NO, we were never told she was unsound or had issues. After the fact 2 of the trainers both admitted something was "not right" with her in the morning but neither told us. We have several horses with these trainers and they were worried we would pull them. Instead we pulled them after we lost the filly. So, NO, I do not think the ultimate responsibility lies with the owner it lies with the trainer, track vets and officials.

[wilf]

The integrity of the sport is paramount when we "humans" are exploiting an animals' desire to compete against it's physical limits and fitness. How racetracks can operate without a pre-race exam is disgraceful to me. It becomes a political hot potato as trainers adopt an antagonistic pose towards commision vets and jockeys are worried about losing mounts should they scratch any horse from a big client while riding at a track where there are no pre race checks in place; Mountaineer Park and Beulah are another two tracks that come to mind. These tracks have a much higher breakdown rate than one would consider "normal" ranges but I have found that the attitude there is very matter-of-fact and trainers are more "horse trader " in nature. Yes I know that the majority of races are low level claimers and the condition books allow for horses with poor form to compete and win a purse ,however the medication rules are also questionable. Gill has a history of doubtful behaviour and finds trainers who are willing to push the limits to feed his ego. I know of trainers who will not go to Suffolk anymore because of his influence there. You must also remember that the jockeys are not only concerned about riding a horse of Gill's but of going over the top of a fallen horse as happened the other night.

[Fair Play]

I have been in the racing business for over 20 years and I have never seen riders stand together and refuse to ride for a certain owner , it is a very profound statement.

I have been much longer and have never heard of such a thing either. I have seen jockeys boycott until another jock's license is suspended (for riding dangerously), for wind, weather, power outages, cold and rain. Never for all the horses of one owner. It is a profound statement.

[Fair Play]

Doesn't the owner have an ethical obligation to make sure he is not entering an unsound horse in a race because of the potential to cause injury or death to jockeys or other horses entered?

Not at all. We have had lots of owners who don't know what color their horse is nevermind if it has four legs. That is what they pay a trainer for. Other owners are more opinionated and hands on. An owner can go make an entry of an unsound horse against the trainer's judgment. Then he has got to lead it over himself or make someone else. I once saw this happen with a two year old colt entered in several stake races in one month. The trainer would not enter him or take him over. I forget who got fined, but it is rare that the owner goes over the trainer. A good trainer would throw him out of the barn.

[Strategic Maneuver]

I have been in the racing business for over 20 years and I have never seen riders stand together and refuse to ride for a certain owner , it is a very profound statement.

I have been much longer and have never heard of such a thing either. I have seen jockeys boycott until another jock's license is suspended (for riding dangerously), for wind, weather, power outages, cold and rain. Never for all the horses of one owner. It is a profound statement.

Indeed.

[photofinish]

Pre-race exams that I have witnessed are generally no more than butt-covering anyhow. In NM they only check 2 races a day. Never remember a vet check at Turfway or Ellis. One race a day when Great lakes Downs was running. Chicago tracks had the most intense checks, every horse, every day. The vets are under pressure from the trakcs not to scratch too many in the morning.

I read where Gill "had to" fire one of his trainers, Darrel Delahousaye. That guy was pretty bad when he was in MI. He is banned from racing there for life. Never run at any tracks where Gill operates, but his past is certainly publicly checkered.

I recently acquired an owner who I doubt will last very long with me. He has a pretty classy little horse who is made horribly. Horse has an old pin fire mark high on his left suspensory. Horse came out of a morning work with a little filling above the ankle by the lower suspensory on the same leg. Ultrasound showed mild tearing on about 10% of the inner suspensory branch. Told the guy the horse needed 2 weeks off (per vet). His response? "Oh. He limping a little? Or alot? He can run in 2 weeks, then? He is no limping? Well, he should run now, then." I am figuring I will be firing him very soon....

[bdw0617]

I actually agree wholeheartdly with IcouldbeU.

I am not saying now...the guy isn't the scum of the earth. That he is.

I'm not even saying he doesn't know what's going on. it's ovbious who pulls the strings.


you can't preach to me "oh that's why he's a trainer and you aren't" then when a bunch of horses break down say "oh it's the owners fault not the trainers". you can't have it both ways.

The trainer is suppose to be the professional horseman. Michael Gill is a mortgage broker. So now it's up to mortgage brokers to determine if a horse is or is not fit to race?

The problem is the system when it's all said and done. if you won't do what I say do, I'll fire you and find someone else who will. now sit back, take my money and shut up and do what I say.

The owner does not have to take pass an exam to enter horses, the trainer does.

At the end of the day the trainer is responsible for the welfare of the horses, as long as the horses are in the trainers care. That's the way I see it.

If he is the scum he is, trainers do not need to take his horses. persona non grata. But once you take his horses, they are YOUR responsibility.

LIke photofinish said above, the trainer at some point has to take a stand and if you don't like it, we need to part ways.

[BridledObsession]

You really need to google Michael Gill, read the Paulick Report, and check out the Chronicle of the Horse racing forum. There are alot more statistics there and first hand information. We're obviously privy to alot more backside gossip, since PENN is in our backyard. We've been hearing the rumors for sometime ie. lame horses that blacksmiths would refuse to shoe in that barn, being run just a few days later, etc. Soon enough, the statistics started to back up the rumors.

The situation with Gill can not be compared to the culpability of the average owner. He pulls the strings and he chooses his trainers - whether he chooses based on his ability to control them or the fact that their tactics and thought processes are similar to his, I can't say. He openly admits to having cameras in every barn and being actively involved via that surveillance every day. Again, not a typical owner.

He admits to running sore horses. They are simply a means to end for him. Unlike the average owner, he has no emotional involvement whatsoever. If you read his interviews, you will see this is a fair conclusion.

Why do you think Gill uses the trainers with a checkered past and not the "top" or more respected trainers? It does not take a rocket scientist to come to a reasonable conclusion. In this case, the responsibility for the higher rate of horse and jockey injuries falls almost equally on the owner and trainer. Again, read Mr. Gill's interviews -- he says it himself - he is involved every day. Yes, unfortunate break downs and accidents can, and most likely will, happen to every owner and trainer. The issue here is that when you look at the COMPLETE picture, it becomes clear that for some reason this happens to Gill's horses at a much higher rate. The most disturbing part of this sad scenario: Gill is not bothered at all by the breakdowns -- in his interview he says it's just what happens when you are running "cheap claimers". Just the price of doing business as far as he's concerned. That school of thought is indecent, bad for the well-being of his horses, and bad for business.

[IcouldbeU]

BridledObsession while I understand where you are coming from, I stand by what I said. And until I see actual numbers of breakdowns vs starters for Gill and other large owners from a reputable source, I will continue to stand behind my words.

The gossip forums (i.e. Chron of the Horse) have their own biases against owners/trainers/jockeys and therefore I do not believe them to be reputable sources for information. If things are this bad, why haven't the Bloodhorse or Thoroughbred Times picked up the story and done a true investigation. When and if I see % I will consider changing my mind.

[Sysonby]

BridledObsession while I understand where you are coming from, I stand by what I said. And until I see actual numbers of breakdowns vs starters for Gill and other large owners from a reputable source, I will continue to stand behind my words.

The gossip forums (i.e. Chron of the Horse) have their own biases against owners/trainers/jockeys and therefore I do not believe them to be reputable sources for information. If things are this bad, why haven't the Bloodhorse or Thoroughbred Times picked up the story and done a true investigation. When and if I see % I will consider changing my mind.

You have a good point. I don't know where I stand on the whole Gill thing--I just don't have enough info to take up the pitchfork and torch- but I do know that the COTHers sure love drah-ma and most aren't big fans of the sport anyway nor are they very knowledgeable on the whole. They are more than willing to believe anything bad and then embellish it to make it worse. The "horrors! baby born at Keeneland" thing recently is a case in point.

I have to admit being a little amused that Maggi Moss is one of the people leading the charge -- and no one questions it. Wasn't she the cause celebre on there just a few short years ago?

[BridledObsession]

Icouldbeu,

While I see what YOU'RE saying, , I was not suggesting that you simply rely on one source, i.e. a forum, for your information. But rather, google it and read multiple sources. If I have time later (I do have a deadline to meet to keep my day job), I'll provide links. Bloodhorse and Thoroughbred times have run stories and are continuing their investigation. The local newspaper has also run a story and is continuing their investigation. There are solid statistics available if you read through these articles, forums, and responses. As you are aware, statistics kept by PENN alone do not reflect the bigger picture of Gill owned horses that had to be euthanized after exiting the track - they need to be combined with figures from those of other tracks he is running horses at. This is why I suggested that if you really wanted to have a better understanding of why so many people are upset, you check out various outlets.

I'm always ready to give someone the benefit of the doubt. I didn't immediately jump on this bandwagon and I'd love to be wrong. I've just been sitting back for approximately a year now absorbing the various "stories" from associates working on the backside, which then led me to investigate further and observe more closely myself. After witnessing the break down first hand Saturday night, taking in the resulting uproar from spectators and horsemen, and subsequently talking with several trainers afterwards that have first hand knowledge and were actively working for change, I have since become a believer that "something" is very wrong with this picture and "something" needs to be done. I admit that I do not have all the answers --- I just sincerely hope that people more knowledgeable then myself and in the right positions can figure that out. I'll just do my small part and help bring attention to an important issue that needs addressed with or without sanctions against Gill.

[ageecee]

[quote="Sysonby"][quote="IcouldbeU"]BridledObsession while I understand where you are coming from, I stand by what I said. And until I see actual numbers of breakdowns vs starters for Gill and other large owners from a reputable source, I will continue to stand behind my words.

The gossip forums (i.e. Chron of the Horse) have their own biases against owners/trainers/jockeys and therefore I do not believe them to be reputable sources for information. If things are this bad, why haven't the Bloodhorse or Thoroughbred Times picked up the story and done a true investigation. When and if I see % I will consider changing my mind.[/quote]

You have a good point. I don't know where I stand on the whole Gill thing--I just don't have enough info to take up the pitchfork and torch- but I do know that the COTHers sure love drah-ma and most aren't big fans of the sport anyway nor are they very knowledgeable on the whole. They are more than willing to believe anything bad and then embellish it to make it worse. The "horrors! baby born at Keeneland" thing recently is a case in point.

I have to admit being a little amused that [i]Maggi Moss[/i] is one of the people leading the charge -- and no one questions it. Wasn't she the cause celebre on there just a few short years ago?[/quote]






Poor Maggie telling Gill to straigten up. This is the lady who represented Assmussen in Texas last year on a positive test. Thats all you need to know about her. She represented a guy who has done just about worse than Gill.

[Des]

While I think the condition of a horse should be known by the current owner. I would imagine that being the type of owner that he is, he must have claimed an awfulf lot of sore horses from others. They did not get sore as soon as they arrived in his barn. Have anyone thought of that... What about the previous owners that ran them with the same problems....I would say approx 90% of the horses he owns are from claims....

[AscotStud]

Never remember a vet check at Turfway or Ellis

Ellis and Turfway jog and flex the horses pre-race. Woodbine has probably the most extensive check I've seen, with flexing and jogging a couple times if a looks different, they then mark it down and know for subsequent checks. At Laurel right now all you have to do is jog the horse on your way into the receiving barn, bandages can stay on.

I can attest to what BridledObsession is saying. Since it's currently a hot topic now, you are starting to hear from jocks agents who stopped riding for the barn and trainers who have quit because horses they don't want to run were being entered by Gill. I am not one for backstretch gossip, and aside from getting my horses out I'm not there. But I am on the frontside a lot and it's hard to ignore it when you hear the same thing from numerous people in various positions on the track.

[Des]

My Question Again....Did he claim them sore or did he run them in the ground to make them sore....?????