Thank you all for insight into stallion management.
I agree with FOS in that Ms Jackson should have had another handler
with her for this particular stud (warning and all).
That specter of a possible accident down the road of maiming or killing someone is an all too real possibility and the lawsuit that would follow.
The farm would probably be out of business at the end of it.
I heard that Silver Ghost was a nasty stallion, but his handlers seem
to know how to manage him and that is a very good thing.
Corslew euthanized after attack
Moderators: Roguelet, WaveMaster, madelyn
-
summerhorse
- Breeder's Cup Winner
- Posts: 2178
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:40 am
- Location: Panama City, FL
- Contact:
No most insurance companies would not pay off for euthanasia for bad disposition. That's kind of like a horsey act of god. I have little tolerance for animals that try to kill people or other animals. This guy stood for $2,000. He simply wasn't worth the risk to life and limb. If he'd stood for $25,000 maybe they would have worked out a system to deal with him and minimize contact.
It sounds like they did work with him and he was behaving himself. Probably they started to treat him like an ordinary stallion because he'd been on good behavior. Then he deliberately tried to kill his handler. Animals like that just aren't worth the liability of keeping around unless they are REALLY producing something in the shed. (and even that is debateable depending on whether they pass that disposition on). There are no shortage of $2,000 stallions out there. Heck you can go rescue a Seattle Slew son that so far has never attacked anyone for $750... (see other thread)
No way would I consider not euthanizing an animal that deliberately tried to kill someone. Life is just too damn short (to have it shortened further!)
It sounds like they did work with him and he was behaving himself. Probably they started to treat him like an ordinary stallion because he'd been on good behavior. Then he deliberately tried to kill his handler. Animals like that just aren't worth the liability of keeping around unless they are REALLY producing something in the shed. (and even that is debateable depending on whether they pass that disposition on). There are no shortage of $2,000 stallions out there. Heck you can go rescue a Seattle Slew son that so far has never attacked anyone for $750... (see other thread)
No way would I consider not euthanizing an animal that deliberately tried to kill someone. Life is just too damn short (to have it shortened further!)
Last edited by summerhorse on Sat May 20, 2006 3:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Every mighty oak was once an acorn that stood its ground.
hi summerhorse
Fair enough but this is not a civil rights issue...this is a matter of a stallion known as "dangerous" being managed and handled in a fashion that will neutralize and/or short circuit (if you will) his ability and/or opportunity to inflict damage.
Whatever plan (if any) might have been in place to deal with the known "dangerous" stallion (Corslew) obviously failed. Is it possible that this incident was the result of handler error? A case of a lapse of focus and/or guard being dropped (or whatever) if only for a blink of an eye...and a horrible incident resulting due to a known "dangerous" stallion taking advantage of the moment. Sam touched on a possibility also.
Obviously Victory Rose Thoroughbred Farm believed that Corslew was worth the risk...otherwise I expect it's fair to say that they would not have taken him on (as a stallion)...knowing his reputation as "dangerous."
No such thing as an ordinary stallion...each has his habits...idiosyncracies...etc etc etc...and this guy came with a reputation as "dangerous". BEWARE...ALWAYS!!!
Seems like everyone is speculating why Corslew should or should not have been destroyed. Fair enough...but I don't believe we've gotten all the facts.
I've seen too many of what might best be described as tough...and/or difficult...and/or nasty...and/or yes dangerous stallions etc handled without incident. Based on the Blood-Horse article, I am NOT convinced that Corslew's destruction was a slam dunk, put-him-down situation.
Handling any stallion takes skill...knowledge...experience...focus etc etc etc (expertise if you will). Handling a known "dangerous" stallion necessarily ratchets everything up and requires the utmost of so many hands-on stallion management skills, not the least of which is focus-without-lapse and unwavering attention to detail etc. Arguably there is no room for error and/or lapses in judgment, focus etc...NONE!!!
In the case of Corslew...possibly there was.
Respectfully
summerhorse wrote:I have little tolerance for animals that try to kill people or other animals.
Fair enough but this is not a civil rights issue...this is a matter of a stallion known as "dangerous" being managed and handled in a fashion that will neutralize and/or short circuit (if you will) his ability and/or opportunity to inflict damage.
Whatever plan (if any) might have been in place to deal with the known "dangerous" stallion (Corslew) obviously failed. Is it possible that this incident was the result of handler error? A case of a lapse of focus and/or guard being dropped (or whatever) if only for a blink of an eye...and a horrible incident resulting due to a known "dangerous" stallion taking advantage of the moment. Sam touched on a possibility also.
summerhorse wrote: This guy stood for $2,500. He simply wasn't worth the risk to life and limb.
Obviously Victory Rose Thoroughbred Farm believed that Corslew was worth the risk...otherwise I expect it's fair to say that they would not have taken him on (as a stallion)...knowing his reputation as "dangerous."
summerhorse wrote:It sounds like they did work with (Corslew) and he was behaving himself. Probably they started to treat him like an ordinary stallion because he'd been on good behavior.
No such thing as an ordinary stallion...each has his habits...idiosyncracies...etc etc etc...and this guy came with a reputation as "dangerous". BEWARE...ALWAYS!!!
Seems like everyone is speculating why Corslew should or should not have been destroyed. Fair enough...but I don't believe we've gotten all the facts.
I've seen too many of what might best be described as tough...and/or difficult...and/or nasty...and/or yes dangerous stallions etc handled without incident. Based on the Blood-Horse article, I am NOT convinced that Corslew's destruction was a slam dunk, put-him-down situation.
Handling any stallion takes skill...knowledge...experience...focus etc etc etc (expertise if you will). Handling a known "dangerous" stallion necessarily ratchets everything up and requires the utmost of so many hands-on stallion management skills, not the least of which is focus-without-lapse and unwavering attention to detail etc. Arguably there is no room for error and/or lapses in judgment, focus etc...NONE!!!
In the case of Corslew...possibly there was.
Respectfully
Thank you for voicing that side of the argument; I think it's important that someone stand up for it.
However, I think you may be erroneously assuming that the handlers let down their guard or were otherwise negligent despite evidence that the stallion was dangerous. Just as the article does not report that Corslew was a homicidal manic that eats people for breakfast, it also did not report that there was any specific negligence on the handler's part, only a secondary source reporting what happened.
I guess we won't be able to really understand what went on until Jackson is interviewed.
However, I think you may be erroneously assuming that the handlers let down their guard or were otherwise negligent despite evidence that the stallion was dangerous. Just as the article does not report that Corslew was a homicidal manic that eats people for breakfast, it also did not report that there was any specific negligence on the handler's part, only a secondary source reporting what happened.
I guess we won't be able to really understand what went on until Jackson is interviewed.
-
Linda in TX
- Maiden Special Weight
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 5:07 pm
- Location: Manor Downs
- Contact:
FOS wrote:Based on the Blood-Horse article, I am NOT convinced that Corslew's destruction was a slam dunk, put-him-down situation.
Darley didn't hesitate to extinguish Festival of Light's flame after he injured a handler. He was a young stallion standing his first year, and quite likely had far fewer chances than Corslew. Since Corslew already had a reputation of being dangerous, the injuries to Ellen Jackson could very well have been the "last straw."
hi zinn21
Yes..but what about her degree of knowledge, experience and expertise (if you will) etc when it comes to handling dangerous stallions...including the likes of Corslew... whose reputation as dangerous preceded him to Ms Jackson's farm.
Respectfully...I have no doubt that Ms Jackson is a "very good horsewoman" (your words)...it's just the lack of specifics and details etc in the Blood-Horse article that leaves many questions unanswered (from my perspective anyway)...regarding the incident with Corslew (and the decision to destroy him).
Be assured, I wish Ms Jackson the best...and a speedy and full recovery...but I am still NOT convinced that Corslew's destruction was a slam dunk, put-him-down situation, based on the information offered in the Blood-Horse article.
Respectfully
zinn21 wrote:I know Ellen, she's a very good horsewoman with alot of experience handling stallions.
Yes..but what about her degree of knowledge, experience and expertise (if you will) etc when it comes to handling dangerous stallions...including the likes of Corslew... whose reputation as dangerous preceded him to Ms Jackson's farm.
Respectfully...I have no doubt that Ms Jackson is a "very good horsewoman" (your words)...it's just the lack of specifics and details etc in the Blood-Horse article that leaves many questions unanswered (from my perspective anyway)...regarding the incident with Corslew (and the decision to destroy him).
Be assured, I wish Ms Jackson the best...and a speedy and full recovery...but I am still NOT convinced that Corslew's destruction was a slam dunk, put-him-down situation, based on the information offered in the Blood-Horse article.
Respectfully
fyi the TB times has one up with more extensive coverage
http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/todaysnews/newsview.asp?recno=63916&subsec=6
http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/todaysnews/newsview.asp?recno=63916&subsec=6
-
summerhorse
- Breeder's Cup Winner
- Posts: 2178
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:40 am
- Location: Panama City, FL
- Contact:
This horse was ON his second chance (or maybe his third, fourth or fifth chance). If it takes an army to handle a horse, esp. one that stands for $2,000, WHY breed MORE just like him? Any horse that deliberately tries to kill his handler for WHATEVER reason is too dangerous to have around. You NEVER know when that horse will get loose and who might get in his way. This time maybe a stallion triggered him, maybe next time a bird, a color, a smell, whatever might trigger him. If a 1,000 plus of horse (of any sex) goes beserk there isn't a whole lot anyone can do to save that person. Usually it is dumb luck as it was this time the person survives. And he even after being driven off he STILL was ready to savage his handlers. That goes a little bit beyond a flash of stallion rage.
Every mighty oak was once an acorn that stood its ground.
Sam wrote:Though (and this is going to be really crude) ... am I the only one who read the article and wondered if maybe Ms. Jackson was maybe on her period at the time?
Nope...first thing my partner said. He's a former trainer. I'm all for women rising to whatever heights they can, but when it comes to animals and nature...sometimes women shouldn't enter the men's room. (And before you all gang up on me...I burned my bra in the 70's right along with Helen Reddy
)It seems to me from the TTimes article that the horse had no behavioral issues...ever. Like the decision he was dangerous was made after the attack. My daddy always said, "Never get between two stallions."
Personally I'm not sure he needed to be destroyed. I worked with one of Silver Ghost proportions that was fine as long as you played his game and kept your eye on him (and I'm female and only 5 feet tall), so even the biggest badasses can be managed. I think this was more a case of a stallion of limited value who saw his liability outweigh his value.
Personally I'm not sure he needed to be destroyed. I worked with one of Silver Ghost proportions that was fine as long as you played his game and kept your eye on him (and I'm female and only 5 feet tall), so even the biggest badasses can be managed. I think this was more a case of a stallion of limited value who saw his liability outweigh his value.
I don't have low self-esteem. I have low esteem for everyone else. ~ Daria
summerhorse wrote:This horse was ON his second chance (or maybe his third, fourth or fifth chance). If it takes an army to handle a horse, esp. one that stands for $2,000, WHY breed MORE just like him? Any horse that deliberately tries to kill his handler for WHATEVER reason is too dangerous to have around. You NEVER know when that horse will get loose and who might get in his way. This time maybe a stallion triggered him, maybe next time a bird, a color, a smell, whatever might trigger him. If a 1,000 plus of horse (of any sex) goes beserk there isn't a whole lot anyone can do to save that person. Usually it is dumb luck as it was this time the person survives. And he even after being driven off he STILL was ready to savage his handlers. That goes a little bit beyond a flash of stallion rage.
I agree.
-
Intrinsic Worth
- Starters Handicap
- Posts: 691
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:27 pm
If a stallion really wants to kill you, it doesn't matter what sex you are, they will find a way. Catrail is definitely one who needs to be put down as well.
I don't think people here quite realize the risk of keeping a dangerous stallion, especially one who only stands for $2000. There's a lot of liability involved and I don't think the risk of keeping him was worth it in the end.
I don't think people here quite realize the risk of keeping a dangerous stallion, especially one who only stands for $2000. There's a lot of liability involved and I don't think the risk of keeping him was worth it in the end.
All men are equal on the turf - or under it.