Somebody Take this Filly Please

austique · Postby **austique** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:48 pm

...and the Ken Ramsey show reaches new heights of lunacy

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/todaysnews/newsview.asp?recno=64271&subsec=1

sunday_silence · Postby **sunday_silence** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:10 pm

Sorry, but I don't see how this makes Ramsey a lunatic. The steward said the claim wasn't valid, so he doesn't want to pay to care for a horse he doesn't own? How is it less nuts for Rutherford to refuse to take back a horse that was ruled as still belonging to him? Dale Romans is the one who's really getting screwed here. He's footing the bill for the filly and can't even race her. Maybe if they'd reversed the ruling a few weeks later instead of A YEAR.

austique · Postby **austique** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:25 pm

Really the fault lies with the stewards, but lets roll with this here. The filly was claimed without Sarah Ramsey on the form and while I know claiming rules are completely anal, I'm sure one could have sussed out what Ramsey meant even though his wife's name was not included on the form.

The filly was in his possession. They filled out the ticket. He wanted the filly. It was in his trainers barn. Why wouldn't the guy take the filly back? Well because he got $40,000 in his pocket and that my friend is a completed contract, dumba** claiming rule or not. So now the Commission reverses the ruling (which shouldn't have been made) and the filly which Romans has been footing the bill for despite the fact that it was Ramsey's intent to claim her that put her in Romans' barn in the first place is Ramseys and he won't take her. WTF!

I mean he wanted the filly enough to claim her, but then the stewards make a bonehead ruling and the guy won't take the filly back. Seems like at that point Ramsey was in the position he intended to be in when he filled out the claim form in possession of a filly unfortunately named Ima Hogg.

I didn't see anybody say the slip was forged.

sunday_silence · Postby **sunday_silence** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:47 pm

I'll agree with you on one thing (besides the fact that she has a very unfortunate name :shock:

) . It's Ramsey's fault the filly is in Romans's barn. He should at least cough up the money to feed and vet her. He can afford it. And if I were Romans, I'd be more than a little peeved, but I suppose he can't afford to pi$$ off his biggest owner. At this point, I can understand why nobody wants the filly. Has she trained at all during this year of limbo?

I'd have a hard time making the call here on who should have to take her. It was definitely a stupid ruling in the first place. Of course Ramsey intended to claim her. But, when the ruling came down, stupid or not, Rutherford should've taken her back. And why did it take a YEAR to reverse? Sheesh. The stewards ought to have to give Ken his money back, reimburse Romans for the filly's upkeep and be the ones to worry what to do with her next.

ageecee · Postby **ageecee** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:41 pm

People the only thing the stewards did wrong was not make Rutherford take back the filly. They ruled the filly should be sent back to Rutherford but he doesnt want it. WTF?? How does Rutheford have a say in this at all is beyond me. If i was a steward i would of suspended Rutherford until he took back the horse. I wouldnt let him run a single horse until he took the horse back. And no transfering ownership of his horses until he got the filly back.

Ramsey didnt do a darn thing wrong. he just made a mistake on the claim slip and now he has the horse. WTF stewards wake the fawk up.

Sam · Postby **Sam** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:41 pm

Okay ... not really sure here since it wasn't stated in the article, but I'm going to assume that when the original claim was denied, Ramsey got his money back from Rutherford? IF that is the case, and now the ruling is being overturned, I'm going to assume that means Ramsey would now be on the hook for a $40k pricetag on a horse that, after a year layoff, is maybe only worth $20k?

Hell yes I'd be telling the stewards to go piss up a rope and I wouldn't accept the mare either.

sunday_silence · Postby **sunday_silence** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:49 pm

I agree with you Sam and Ageecee. But, was it really fair of Ramsey to stick Romans with taking care of the horse? Romans is doing just fine, but not every trainer could afford to have a dead weight in the barn with no one footing the bill. Shows that Romans is a pretty decent guy.

austique · Postby **austique** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:53 pm

See I didn't get that because if Rutherford lost the $40,000 why wouldn't you take the filly back. Why be out $40,000 and the filly? Which is why I assumed Ramsey didn't get his money back. I'm thinkin after 8 days its a done deal. The stewards should have just let it go through.

I'm with Sunday Silence on why the hell this took so long in the first place. Its not a difficult deal to settle. I'm wondering whats wrong with the little piggy that nobody seems to want her :cry:

hpkingjr · Postby **hpkingjr** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:07 am

It is my belief that Romans has a valid agisters lien against the horse. He may wind up having to jump through some legal hoops but if he wants to play hard ball he may wind up with filly for the year's keep. Ramsey may work something out with him but even at $35.00 per day (1/2 rate) Romans has a claim for about 15 grand. Interesting story.

LSB · Postby **LSB** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:09 am

Absolutely amazing that the HRA could take a year to make what Bill Street called "a simply decision." :roll:

Sunday Silence, Dale Romans is a very decent guy.

Rick · Postby **Rick** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:28 am

What's wrong with the name. She is named after one of the daughters of a former Texas govenor. Ima Hogg (the person) had a sister named Ura.

zinn21 · Postby **zinn21** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:04 am

If Ramsey goes to court he will loose. His intent was to claim her and an improper name submission will not stand up in court.

Sam · Postby **Sam** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:47 pm

Rick wrote:What's wrong with the name. She is named after one of the daughters of a former Texas govenor. Ima Hogg (the person) had a sister named Ura.

Yet another sterling example of why people should be forced to take a test and get a license before they are allowed to have children.

austique · Postby **austique** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:07 pm

Oooo...I've got a better one. One of my mom's friends was a doctor who interned in Oakland and he had the following beauties: Master of Life Jones, Master of the Universe Jones, and Chicken of the Sea Jones. As well as the lovely Tequila Leeks. The top family lead to the following exchange in the ER:

Nurse: Is Chicken of the Sea a boy or a girl?
Doctor: Why of course its a girl! Who would name a boy Chicken of the Sea!

ageecee · Postby **ageecee** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:56 pm

Why did they let Ramsey claim the horse in the first place? Did he have an account set up under just Kenneth L. Ramsey? If not this claim should of never happened. If he had an account set up under just his name and the money was in the account then this claim should of been good.

Anyone agree?