I can't believe that I am still writing about this. I thought that the first post that I wrote about Star of Rome would be a learning experience for all involved. Boy, was I wrong.
A long time ago, and friend of mine - who was an activist in a completely different area of life at the time - warned me that activists could be very shady. I was kind of incredulous when he said that. I believed that activists were justice-loving people who truly cared about others. He said, "Believe me Beth - they are not all out to do what's in the best interests of the victims involved. A lot of them are in this for their ego, whether they realize it or not." That statement is ringing in my ears now, loud and clear.
Once again, noisy social media folks have gotten Star of Rome barred from racing. This time at Fort Erie Race Track. Star was entered in the first race on tomorrow's card - a $4,000 claimer. This is the type of race that Star has always run in. Star is not a stakes horse. Star never was a stakes horse. Star is a home bred and a pet. Star is the only horse that his owner, Mike Progno, has running. Yes, Star of Rome is 15, and it is a tribute to the loving care that his owner has given him that he still CAN race, and Star races because Star loves to run. Star, by the way, looks like he is about 6 years old. So why shouldn't Star enjoy the time he has left to do what he loves?
Historically speaking, Star is NOT an anomaly. But in these times, when horses are pumped full of bone weakening drugs, and subjected to debilitating "two year old-in-training" breezing sales, racing at 15 is unheard of.
Star never lived in that world.
I see it kind of like my dog and I. If my dog loved agility trials, and he was getting old but still loved it - and his vet said he was up to the task: I'd sure as hell keep going. I wouldn't care what anybody said. If that's what makes my faithful companion happy, that's what I'm going to enable him to do. If someone said to me, "Sorry, Huckleberry can't compete. People are complaining, Huck is too old." And poor Hucky was waiting by the door with his leash in his mouth - waiting to hop in the car to get to the competition - I'd be pissed as Hell. I'd rant and rave and go crazy on these people. But Mike Progno is a better person than I am.
Mike is just confounded. He doesn't understand what these people are trying to do and why. He doesn't understand why those concerned wouldn't just ask around before calling the track to complain. He can't understand why Star isn't held up as a wonderful example of the potential longevity of the horse when well-cared for - and when not run at too early of an age. He doesn't understand why these people are going after him and his horse - a horse that rests all winter at their home in a big old grass filled paddock - a horse that is happy, sound and healthy - instead of going after cases of abuse.
Mike thinks racing should be rid of drugs. Mike thinks horses should wait to race till the age of four. Mike thinks that horse slaughter wouldn't be such a problem if this happened, because re-homing a horse when necessary wouldn't be such an overwhelming commitment for people to make if horses retired in their teen-age years. He's right. It would also be easier to fill the race cards without allowing horses that shouldn't run to be entered out of sheer desperation. It would be easier to get rid of thugs that associations keep around because of the number of horses in their barns as well.
Mike can't understand why these people are not concerned about horses entered every single day that are actually in a lot of trouble and most likely headed for an awful fate. There are the stakes horses that are dropped way down in class at a young age that one of the super-trainers or owners are looking to dump. There are also those horses that haven't won in ages, that used to be subject to the start eligibility rule, and that display no will to run. They are especially at risk. Then there are the horses that go from trainer to trainer and owner to owner, claim after claim after claim - having no stability nor quality of life at all.
People that object to Star running, despite having a loving owner and a great life, seem to do so because they claim that there is an increased risk of breakdown in older horses. However, horses that have been run hard at 2 years old and pumped full of NSAIDs and Corticosteroids are at much higher risk than Star will ever be. Just follow this past year's Kentucky Derby trail and tell me what's riskier - the path that those young horses took or that of Star of Rome - with his 136 starts and nary an injury to be found.
So why are these Twits (I know that it's "Tweeps," but I use "Twits" here for a reason) only looking at age, and targeting Star? Why are they calling for tracks to stop Star from running without so much as a phone call to inquire about Star first? Because it's easy. A quick thrill - a surge of pride at the cost of a click or a touch - and they can feel a false sense of accomplishment as they pat each other on the back. Investigating the circumstances further - as to class, ownership, trainer history, etc. would take more time and more work and involve a real commitment. It's also very safe. Everybody can agree that a horse is old and feel like a righteous warrior without burning bridges or offending colleagues. But saying "stop racing 2 year-olds!" would make one very unpopular among horsey folk. Naming names would involve a lot of risk. What has been happening to Star reminds me of a lynch-mob mentality - or the Salem witch burnings - this sometimes anonymous act of riling people up and persecuting innocent folk with the immense power of the crowd. Everyone involved should feel some degree of shame.
Not to mention that every one of these Twits - and Facebookers too - will have blood on their hands come year-end. One track that I know of so far has instituted an age limit as a result of their harassment. More will soon - if they keep up their irresponsible behavior. Star of Rome will be fine, but many other older horses will not be so lucky. The result of instituting these new rules - what we call an "unintended consequence" in Public Policy and the reason why Policy is supposed to be well-researched - will be a backwards leap in regard to horse slaughter. The recent drop in the numbers - the result of much tireless hard work - will be erased. Nobody will claim an "old timer" anymore if they feel there is an absolute limit on their potential careers. Those old timers will end up at New Holland on a kill buyer's truck. The tracks will not be able to handle the increased numbers of retirees. They already have their hands full trying to re-home their present numbers. You twits will soon overwhelm them, and all progress made will be lost.
Additionally, with a new upper limit in place, those on the fence about racing at two will be knocked right off of their perch, landing on the pro-racing two year-olds side. Injury after injury will follow, necessitating meds and more meds, and an ever-increasing number of break-downs. Unfortunately, this sport has thoroughly morphed into a business - that is the reality of it. If you limit earning potential, participants will maximize profit during the time they have to make it - and welfare of the horse will be pushed further down the list of priorities. They will laugh at the idea of putting off racing till three, let alone four. That will forever remain a pipe dream.
All this is not to mention the basic flaw in this "oh those poor seniors" reasoning. If a horse is racing and winning at an advanced age it is to be applauded, as it has beaten the odds and ended up with a trainer and owner that provided care that was good enough to let this happen. This happens only with the small guys and gals in racing. Not the richie-rich super-trainers. The Twits and Bookers are extending the current trend of society and persecuting the working and middle class horsepeople - alone. They, like our present government, are leaving the rich and famous untouched - free to run the horses into the ground before they even reach the age at which Star of Rome began his career.
THINK BEFORE YOU RE-TWEET or SHARE. WHO ARE YOU HELPING, REALLY?
Perhaps you should use your OWN brain, and some of your OWN time instead of furthering someone else's agenda. You never do know who could be behind those anonymous Twitter handles. Look at the racing record and race charts of the other horses running in the race in question.
In what would have been Star's race this time - look at Old Blue Eyes, and At the Sagamore. See whose career you find more suspect and objectionable. Try to picture their fate versus Stars. Ask yourself who needs help? Who requires intervention? And whose business should you really stay the hell out of?
Old Blue eyes ran third in a stakes race at Woodbine. At the Sagamore hasn't hit the board in his last three races. He has had three different owners and three different trainers in the last year.
Be careful with your mouse and your smart phone, lest you impede upon someone's inalienable rights - such as liberty and the pursuit of happiness - when you are only trying to "help." No real help is quite that easy. A click or a touch to a screen are empty gestures. Unless you give of yourself you haven't given at all - it's only posturing - and you're not fooling anyone of note. And now, I hope, you can't fool yourself either. Maybe now we can get somewhere.
Posts
