Simple verbal agreements don't work anymore-there has to be a better wayIt never ceases to amaze me how owners are willing to entrust their horses-living creatures worth thousands of dollars-to the care of relative strangers after little more than a brief telephone conversation. Considering the number of upset owners I hear from year after year, I can't believe that an organized owners' group has not yet come up with a better way of looking out for their investments.
The potential for damage is high in this industry. There are a great many unavoidable ways a racehorse can ruin itself, no matter how careful the training and handling. The close confinement, the speed and effort asked for, the youthful high spirits of the animals can all lead to accidents. Because of this, every owner entering this sport should be consciously prepared for the possibility of losing his or her investment.

Protecting yourself
Being prepared to take a loss, however, should not equate to throwing money away. Owners do have means of protecting their investments. Insurance aside, an owner has the right to ask that his or her horse be handled in a certain way. Many decisions about a horse will affect its long-term productivity. These decisions should NOT be made by the trainer alone because, too frequently, the trainer is more concerned with the immediate future. An informed owner should be a part of the decision-making process.
The key word here is "informed." You, the owner, owe it to yourself to learn as much as you can about the medical treatments to which your horses may be subjected. You need to know not only the value of such treatments, but also the possible negative side effects and what alternatives are available. You should select as your source of information someone who is not financially involved with your horse. Preferably, you will find several different sources-keeping in mind that opinions vary according to past experiences.
I am not suggesting that you learn all about the condition book and start telling your trainer how to train. Leave the conditioning to the trainer, who does it for a living. I am more concerned here with the long-term health and soundness of the horse, because when that trainer is finished with the horse, you may not be. It would be nice if the animal were still useful. Hunter/jumper and dressage folks pay good money for a decent horse.
If I were an owner I would insist on being consulted before any medication were given to my horse, other than in the case of an emergency illness or accident. Why? Well, for starters, I'd want to know what happened to my horse. Why does my trainer feel it necessary to start using Bute or Lasix or joint injections or the like? Maybe I would prefer that those medications were not used. Perhaps I would want to know about the possible negative effects of a joint injection. I might prefer that the horse be given more time for healing, or that he was sent home for rest, or that a second opinion be brought in. If it's my horse, shouldn't I have some say in its medical treatment?
It is a good idea for each owner to also think carefully about how far they are willing to push a horse, and to let the trainer know what those limits are. This subject is most easily covered by an example. As I write, there is a mare limping around on three legs in a stall. Her fourth leg is in a brace because her knee bones have shattered into many pieces. She had numerous injections of steroids into the knee over the previous months in order to keep her going. The steroids reduced the inflammation, but caused joint damage, eventually leading to her breakdown. Now her owners are frantic to save her for breeding. Their only option is an expensive operation that has a guarded prognosis and involves a painful recovery period. Too bad they didn't think about this and discuss it with their trainer before the fact rather than after.
Another good reason for insisting on notification of any medication use is in the case of a drug positive. If I, the owner, suffer the loss of a purse because of the presence of a drug I knew nothing about, the trainer has a lot of explaining to do. I have a strong leg to stand on in order to recover that loss from the trainer, either through the courts or through action by the board of stewards.

Protecting the industry
Like a prenuptial agreement, this does not seem to be a very trusting way to begin a relationship. The truth is that when money is involved, even long-term friendships can be ruined by misunderstandings. Why should we expect any less from a relative stranger, who might only regard the owner as a necessary evil? And it should be remembered that racing horses is a business. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to be businesslike about your involvement.
You can't rent a car without a contract. You wouldn't think of handing cash to a bank teller without getting a receipt. Why, then, would you hand over your $15,000 or $50,000 racehorse to someone without an agreement protecting your investment?
Years ago, racehorses were mostly owned by relatively wealthy people who involved themselves in racing as an expensive hobby or tax writeoff. Their trainers tended to be private, working for one large stable. The owners traveled in the same social circles. There were fewer tracks, fewer racing days, fewer participants, overall. Word got around. It wasn't easy for a trainer to stay successful if he didn't take decent care of his horses or their owners.
Things are different now. This is the 1990s. Tax law changes a decade ago dramatically altered the nature of the ownership base. Now it is very broad, with more people owning fewer horses-but the overall number of horses owned is huge. Word doesn't seem to "get around" anymore. I wonder how many first-time owners got burned and got out, simply because they went into it uninformed and did not know how to watch out for their own interests. Meanwhile, racing organizations put on seminars trying to attract new owners.
Perhaps it is time for the industry to become more "user-friendly" for owners. This will only happen when some owners' organization, say the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, makes it a priority to develop and encourage, or perhaps even insist upon, the use of written contracts between owners and trainers, contracts that include specifics about medication and medical care. Such contracts could accomplish several things the industry really needs right now. Owners would gain some protection they don't seem to have at present. The owners' group would make a strong statement about the indiscriminate use of unnecessary (and expensive) medications. And maybe fewer horses would fall apart in the middle of a race, and fewer members of the betting public would turn away in disgust.
It's time for owners to be a part of the solution instead of a part of the problem.