'Run Em On Three Legs'

The question is a yes or no, no word salad answer, yes or no.

Do y'all want to run sore horses? Yes or No.

Two more horses have announced their retirements, and right on cue, the peanut gallery has assembled to explain why everybody involved must have some hidden agenda and I take that as the answer is YES.

Folks, it's November. This is the time of year when horses are being sent to the breeding shed, others are being turned out to recover from a long season, and some are simply telling their connections they've had enough. It's called the Thoroughbred business. Not every retirement announcement is the opening chapter of a criminal investigation.

Englishman and Ted Noffey have both been retired, and apparently some people are having a difficult time processing the news.

Englishman underwent ankle surgery. We don't know the full extent of the damage, and neither do you. But apparently it was significant enough that the people responsible for his care decided retirement was the appropriate decision. That's not a conspiracy. That's a decision made by the people who actually own the horse and have access to the medical information.

Then there's Ted Noffey. He hadn't looked like the same horse since his two-year-old season.

He came back from a layoff, was asked to do something that was a tall order under the circumstances, and finished a dull fifth in the Dwyer. He was never really involved, never showed that familiar early speed, and never looked like the horse we remembered.

He's allegedly dealt with soft-tissue problems. Those aren't always easy to overcome.

Sometimes a horse comes back, sometimes he doesn't, and sometimes the smartest decision is to stop asking.

But apparently stopping isn't an option for some people.

What exactly do these folks want? Wait until the stitches come out, throw a saddle on him, breeze him a bullet, and put him right back in the entries? Maybe sprinkle a little magic dust on that ankle and hope for the best? Hell, they've got a bet to make!

Let's get down to what this really is. A portion of the betting public doesn't care why a horse is being retired. They don't care about the diagnosis, the prognosis, the rehabilitation, or what the veterinarian thinks. They don't care what the horse has been through or what his future might look like.

They care that they wanted one more opportunity to bet against him.

"The breeders are greedy!"

"The owners are protecting their investment!"

"I wanted to see him run one more time!"

There it is!

Well, congratulations. You've identified yourself.

You didn't buy the horse. You didn't negotiate the purchase. You don't pay the monthly training bill, the veterinary expenses, the farrier, the insurance, or the people responsible for caring for him. You don't have to make the difficult decisions when something goes wrong. You don't carry the financial responsibility, and you certainly don't carry the responsibility for that horse's future.

But you have a wagering opinion, and apparently that entitles you to an equal vote.

It doesn't.

What you're really saying is, "Run him on three legs. I've got a bet riding on him!"

That's the ugly truth behind some of this outrage. The horse's welfare is important right up until it interferes with somebody's wagering opportunities.

And here's the part that really gets me. If something tragic happens, these same people will be the first to send their phony thoughts and prayers, post their condolences, and lament the state of horse racing. They'll tell everybody how much they love the horses and how heartbreaking it all is. Bullshit.

The next chance they get they are advocating running a sore horse.

Well, where was that concern when you were demanding that an injured horse keep going?

You cannot preach horse welfare when it's convenient and then demand another start when it suits your betting interests. You cannot criticize connections for making a conservative decision and then turn around and lecture the industry about safety.

You don't get to have it both ways.

Retirement isn't a failure. It isn't a betrayal of the betting public. And it certainly isn't an obligation to explain every medical detail to people who have no responsibility for the animal.

A Thoroughbred isn't a slot machine with four legs. He's a living animal with a career, a body, limitations, and a future beyond the next race.

Englishman and Ted Noffey have already given the sport their talent. They've competed, entertained, and provided plenty of opportunities for people to cash tickets. Nobody is entitled to another performance simply because they aren't finished betting.

And if the connections believe the best thing for these horses is to end their racing careers, then perhaps we ought to give them the benefit of the doubt rather than convene another damn social media tribunal.

You want to talk about protecting the horse? Start by respecting the decision to stop racing him.

The horse owes the betting public absolutely nothing.

And that's a lesson some people could stand to learn.