CTBA Pleasanton sale: 96 yearlings with bogus black type
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 5:04 pm
Catalogs for the September 25 Northern California yearling sale were released Monday and, not surprisingly, the CTBA sales committee once again opted to award the coveted 'black type" to horses which won or placed in (N) races. (N) races are generally carded by smaller racetracks, and offer total purses as low as $2,000.
Of the 264 yearlings catalogued, we found 96 of them whose pedigrees contain the bogus (N) stakes horses. A total of 65 (N) stakes wiiners and 98 (N) stakes placed getters were counted; Some catalog pages induded multiple (N) stakes horses.
Despite protests by several consignors that this CTBA policy discriminated against breeders whose yearlings contained bona fide black type (stakes races worth at least $45,000 added in 2007), the CTBA chose to ignore their concerns. Instead, it consciously elected to print the misleading information exactly as it had in 2005 and 2006.
As an example of how (N) black type can decidedly alter a buyer's perception of reality, click on this page: http://ctba.com/norcal07/catalog/141.PDF (requires Acrobat Reader)
As you can see, the second dam of this yearling, NICELY NATIVE, appears to have produced one SW, one stakes placed horse, and the dam of another SP horse. In fact, NONE of these horses receives real black type. All stakes wins and places occurred in races worth $6,000 or less. Take away the phoney black type, and you're left with a catalog page with no actual stakes horses appearing until the fourth dam.
In this instance, http://ctba.com/norcal07/catalog/119.PDF , you have a yearling filly by leading California sire Benchmark out of a Bertrando mare. The young first dam has produced one winner. The second dam appears to be the granddam of stakes winner ALCRES GEORGE. Many scurrying yearling buyers would assume this black type is accurate, since the third dam is strong. Unfortunately, it is not. The illusion of quality supercedes the reality of meniality.
And so it goes with 94 other Pleasanton yearling catalog pages.
Nowhere in its catalog does the CTBA disclose to buyers that yearlings with (N) black type will not be awarded that status by Barretts, Keeneland, Fasig Tipton, OBS or most other sales companies. Pinhookers buying at the CTBA sale may be more than shocked when they discover at resale time that their investment was purchased under false pretenses.
To further aggravate matters, the CTBA 'Conditions of Sale' (page 36) shift all legal responsibility for catalog errors or omissions to consignors.
"Horses catalogued in this sale are offered with information as repepresented by Consignor. The accuracy of all information on the catalog page(s) is the sole responsibility of the Consignor and not the Auctioneer. While certain information may have been procured by Auctioneer from third parties on behalf of Consignor, it remains solely the responsibility of Consignor to verify the accuracy of such information and to notify Auctioneer of any corrections......IN CASE OF ANY ERROR OR OMISSION, BUYER SHALL SEEK REDRESS ONLY FROM CONSIGNOR"
Read this condition carefully. It warns consignors that they are legally responsible for catalog errors and omissions--EVEN THOUGH THE CTBA NEVER PROVIDED THEM WITH CATALOG PAGE PROOF SHEETS before printing.
Thus, in the pinhooker example, when (N) races don't appear in a Barretts, Fasig Tipton, OBS or Keeneland catalog on a horse purchased at the Pleasanton sale, THE SELLER MAY BE LIABLE FOR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES.
We know we can sound like a broken record BUT.......can the CTBA do anything the correct way? If the CTBA was a public agency, it might be red-lined out of existence. If it was a public corporation, the shareholders would surely revolt. If it was a small business, it would have gone broke. How can an organization become so thoroughly incompetent?
In the 1990's, the CTBA developed what may be a long forgotten "MIssion Statement," ostensibly to provide direction for the association. Among the adopted CTBA goals:
"To utilize our sales and sales catalogues as tools of education for breeder, buyer, seller, and potential member."
Does the 2007 CTBA Northern California yearling sale catalog achieve this goal?
Of the 264 yearlings catalogued, we found 96 of them whose pedigrees contain the bogus (N) stakes horses. A total of 65 (N) stakes wiiners and 98 (N) stakes placed getters were counted; Some catalog pages induded multiple (N) stakes horses.
Despite protests by several consignors that this CTBA policy discriminated against breeders whose yearlings contained bona fide black type (stakes races worth at least $45,000 added in 2007), the CTBA chose to ignore their concerns. Instead, it consciously elected to print the misleading information exactly as it had in 2005 and 2006.
As an example of how (N) black type can decidedly alter a buyer's perception of reality, click on this page: http://ctba.com/norcal07/catalog/141.PDF (requires Acrobat Reader)
As you can see, the second dam of this yearling, NICELY NATIVE, appears to have produced one SW, one stakes placed horse, and the dam of another SP horse. In fact, NONE of these horses receives real black type. All stakes wins and places occurred in races worth $6,000 or less. Take away the phoney black type, and you're left with a catalog page with no actual stakes horses appearing until the fourth dam.
In this instance, http://ctba.com/norcal07/catalog/119.PDF , you have a yearling filly by leading California sire Benchmark out of a Bertrando mare. The young first dam has produced one winner. The second dam appears to be the granddam of stakes winner ALCRES GEORGE. Many scurrying yearling buyers would assume this black type is accurate, since the third dam is strong. Unfortunately, it is not. The illusion of quality supercedes the reality of meniality.
And so it goes with 94 other Pleasanton yearling catalog pages.
Nowhere in its catalog does the CTBA disclose to buyers that yearlings with (N) black type will not be awarded that status by Barretts, Keeneland, Fasig Tipton, OBS or most other sales companies. Pinhookers buying at the CTBA sale may be more than shocked when they discover at resale time that their investment was purchased under false pretenses.
To further aggravate matters, the CTBA 'Conditions of Sale' (page 36) shift all legal responsibility for catalog errors or omissions to consignors.
"Horses catalogued in this sale are offered with information as repepresented by Consignor. The accuracy of all information on the catalog page(s) is the sole responsibility of the Consignor and not the Auctioneer. While certain information may have been procured by Auctioneer from third parties on behalf of Consignor, it remains solely the responsibility of Consignor to verify the accuracy of such information and to notify Auctioneer of any corrections......IN CASE OF ANY ERROR OR OMISSION, BUYER SHALL SEEK REDRESS ONLY FROM CONSIGNOR"
Read this condition carefully. It warns consignors that they are legally responsible for catalog errors and omissions--EVEN THOUGH THE CTBA NEVER PROVIDED THEM WITH CATALOG PAGE PROOF SHEETS before printing.
Thus, in the pinhooker example, when (N) races don't appear in a Barretts, Fasig Tipton, OBS or Keeneland catalog on a horse purchased at the Pleasanton sale, THE SELLER MAY BE LIABLE FOR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES.
We know we can sound like a broken record BUT.......can the CTBA do anything the correct way? If the CTBA was a public agency, it might be red-lined out of existence. If it was a public corporation, the shareholders would surely revolt. If it was a small business, it would have gone broke. How can an organization become so thoroughly incompetent?
In the 1990's, the CTBA developed what may be a long forgotten "MIssion Statement," ostensibly to provide direction for the association. Among the adopted CTBA goals:
"To utilize our sales and sales catalogues as tools of education for breeder, buyer, seller, and potential member."
Does the 2007 CTBA Northern California yearling sale catalog achieve this goal?