A Track That Puts Horses’ Welfare First

Chip Tuttle is the chief operating officer at Suffolk Downs and a partner at the Boston ad agency Conover Tuttle Pace. He was the vice president for communications at the N.T.R.A. from 1999 to 2001.

Soon after Richard Fields bought an interest in Suffolk Downs in March 2007 and I signed on as the track’s C.O.O., we had a conversation about his opposition to horse slaughter. “This is very important to me,” he said. “I don’t want horses from this track to end up on someone’s dinner plate.”

Richard is one of many people who draw a distinction between animals raised humanely for food and animals raised and used for sport or pleasure. He has four lucky former Suffolk Downs runners at his ranch in Wyoming. Sam Elliott, our vice president for racing, shares Richard’s opinion. Over the last few years, Sam has personally financed the transition of over a dozen horses from the track to second careers, buying them from their owners and laying them up at local farms until good homes could be found. I came at the issue with a different point of view, but discussions with Richard, Sam, anti-slaughter advocates and my two teenage daughters, Libby and Annie, both of whom ride, led me to the same place. (Libby and Annie are soon to be the proud co-owners of an Off-The-Track Thoroughbred).

Luckily for us, by the spring of 2007, Suffolk Downs had already been working on the issue for a few years. Patricia Moseley, one of its prior owners, had established partnerships with two great organizations, Canter New England, which finds good second careers and homes for healthy runners that can no longer race, and the Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation, which places those who are not fit enough to be ridden in one of its retirement facilities.

In 2007, we increased our financial contributions to both organizations and quietly enacted a policy that prohibited the transport of horses from the Suffolk Downs backstretch to auction facilities that supply slaughterhouses in Canada. We worked with the New England Horsemen’s Benevolence & Protective Association to educate horsemen on our position and we restricted certain individuals and transport companies to dropping off here only.

A year later, a reporter from the Thoroughbred Times asked Sam about our policy, specifically, what would happen if someone violated it. Sam confirmed for the reporter we would revoke that individual’s stall privileges and, voila, we were credited with the country’s first “zero-tolerance” anti-slaughter policy.

Since that time, it has received quite a bit of attention. HBO called and NBC Nightly News did a feature. The owner Tracy Farmer and the trainer Nick Zito said it was one of the reasons they sent Commentator to Boston, where he won the 2008 MassCap. Other tracks adopted similar policies. The N.T.R.A. Safety Alliance insists that tracks participate in aftercare programs for retired Thoroughbreds as one of the key components of its national accreditation process. We received plaudits last year when we revoked stall privileges of five individuals who violated the policy and catcalls this year when we reconsidered and allowed three of the five to return.

We never expected or anticipated the attention, but we’re happy it has brought so much positive discussion of the issue. The endeavor has been an education for all of us on how complicated this is and how much time, energy, effort and money is required to ensure our athletes are treated humanely after their racing days are over.

Once you rule out slaughter, there are only three options for horses at the ends of their careers – adoption, where we partner with The Communication Alliance to Network Thoroughbred Ex-Racehorses (Canter); retirement, where we work with the Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation; or humane euthanasia, a difficult but sometimes necessary decision among individual owners, trainers and vets.

At Suffolk Downs, we work with the New England H.P.B.A. to educate the local horsemen not only on our policy but on the alternatives available to them. Canter hosts open houses on our backstretch for interested buyers and adopters. Trainers get to use our Equine-Ciser, a specialized treadmill for horses, by making small donations to the T.R.F. We designed a standard bill of sale for our horsemen to help prevent horses falling into the wrong hands. The trainer Lorita Lindemann works the barn area, identifying and monitoring horses whose racing days are over.

As a result, over the last two years, Canter has helped our horsemen find second careers for over a hundred horses and the T.R.F. has taken 65 to its various facilities.

These aren’t all modest claimers who plied their trade on the secondary circuit. Among the 65 are horses that raced at Keeneland, Belmont Park and Gulfstream Park; horses bred by perennial leading breeder the late John Franks, former Kentucky Governor Brere Jones and Eclipse Award winners Ken and Sarah Ramsey; and, horses trained by Dale Romans, Tom Amoss, Scott Lake and Gary Contessa.

The reality is tracks with modest purse levels like ours, Finger Lakes, Emerald Downs and Tampa Bay Downs are much more likely to have horses of retirement age due to the cycles of racing. That’s why it’s so important for everyone in racing – tracks, owners, breeders and other participants who earn their livings from our game – to support these retirement and aftercare programs.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Bravo!

terry terrell zick June 4, 2009 · 8:48 am

This cruel, brutal practice of horse slaughter must be stopped!!! Thank goodness these fine people have instituted these measures. All the race courses should adopt these policies.

What is crueler … horse slaughter or starvation?
Don’t get me wrong I’m glad the tracks are taking a stand about shipping off horses to slaughter just because they did not win one race, but people have to understand there is just more to the horse business that racing.

And the other areas have bred way, way to many horses and now because of the no slaughter policy of the US these horses are being turned out on public lands to fend on their own, or they are being left in out of the way pastures and fields to starve.

I know of many rescue operations in my state that are completely full and no way to take any more and they are having a hard time trying to raise money. They have no way of helping the horses that need it. So now what do we do?

I really want to know, because I would be more than willing to point horse owners that I know in that direction.

Jo, I think humane euthanasia is something to consider if necessary ? it is not an either or with slaughter or starving ?

and the number of horses that are abused (starving) is much much smaller than the numbers sent to slaughter. and i could go on.

also, from my own observations, the horses heading to slaughter are rather healthy looking animals.

Thank you to Suffolk Downs for taking steps to prevent horse slaughter. As an owner of a never-raced Thoroughbred I support any organization that tries to step in between a horse and a slaughter house.

Sometimes circumstances dictate that what an individual can do is small – maybe a donation that is 3 digits or less. Or maybe donating tack, or offering to support one horse’s routine vet care for a year. The people that run Thoroughbred rescues tend to appreciate whatever help they receive, especially the smaller organizations.

To the commenter Jo, if your premise is that it is either starvation or slaughter then you won’t see the other options that are in front of us. It’s a complex issue that does include over-breeding, but there are more than two options for a horse. I am ill equipped to go to a track or an auction and save a horse from a kill-buyer, but I can do my small part to help the people who can.

Jo is repeating that moronic pro-slaughter talking points. Decent horse owners are not just stuck between slaughter or starvation for horses needing humane euthanasia. People like you don’t deserve to control the fate of a single horse.

Decent and responsible people should own horses they can afford to feed and treat humanely including offering humane euthanasia when needed. Horse owners who believe that their only choices are between slaughter or starvation don’t have enough of a brain or moral to be around horses. Vet-assisted euthanasia or a well placed bullet is one solution, the relinquishing of unwanted horses to animal rescue facilities is another solution, not starving or transporting then butchering horses in uncontrolled and barbaric ways.

If $200 makes that much difference to people like you, you should not a horse. Or is the barbaric dragging of downed cattle to slaughter instead of their mercy killing so important to preserve for you and your ilk that you also need to drag horses into your bloody scheme to make your barbaric practices and lack of moral appear normal? How do you sleep at night?

I feel sorry for horses and other animals controlled by people like you.

In answer to Jo, both slaughter and starvation are cruel but there is a third alternative – humane euthanasia paid by the owner.

I applaud Suffolk Downs.

This is fantastic! Taking responsibility at the track’s level can only start to lesson the terrible fate some of these horses endure.

The NYT needs to research just how Suffolk has enforced it’s so-called zero tolerance policy before allowing the track’s management to promote what a seemingly positive thing it has done. This is nothing but a sham and I’m saddened that the NYT is giving them a forum for such. I suppose they are an advertiser.

At the Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation, we are caring for more than 1200 retired racehorses and have adopted out hundreds more. At least 200 of them are from Suffolk. Their past performances show that they usually made more money at other tracks before they got to Suffolk. However Suffolk is the only track to pony-up for their retirement. A horse’s retirement fund needs to start at breeding and be grown in all stages of the horse’s career. This is the only fair way to ensure that all retired racehorses get the humane treatment they deserve and the pubic wants to see. Too many owners and breeders are riding on the coat tails of Suffolk’s generosity and the efforts of the TRF as we toil to raise money to care for horses that have been thrown away.

Excuse me? Chip Tuttle, I call bull you-know-what on this ridiculous piece. I was thrilled to learn that Suffolk Downs was going to adopt a “zero-tolerance” policy towards trainers sending horses t slaughter – and I was even happier when trainers were actually suspended for this activity.

Imagine my surprise when, just a few months later, three of the banned trainers were reinstated… they submitted written apologies, agreed to donate a little cash to horse rescue, and all of a sudden, poof! What zero-tolerance policy?

This is from the Thoroughbred Times in April:
““We felt that these folks acknowledged that they made a mistake,” said Suffolk Downs chief operating officer Chip Tuttle. “In good faith they wanted to remedy that, and the circumstances here required some level of flexibility on our part.””

Ridiculous. I can’t believe that the NYT is letting Tuttle spout his self-congratulatory dribble here – or that well-meaning people are eating it up.

Remember, folks: Horse racing isn’t just about “the love of the horses”. There are some wonderful, compassionate people in the industry, but at the end of the day, there are always people like Chip Tuttle for whom it’s all about the M-O-N-E-Y. Don’t be fooled.

Roger is right and no one should be giving Suffolk any accolades for its zero tolerance policy that is anything but. The track permanently banned trainers last November when the meeting was ending and reinstated them before the spring meet started. I guess it’s easy to have a zero tolerance policy when the track isn’t racing and doesn’t need the horses. To add insult to injury, Suffolk only required a minimal donation to a horse retirement fund and admission of GUILT for reinstatement. This whole thing is just a joke and the fact that Tuttle is penning this nonsense demonstrates that the track just wants whatever positive publicity they can get from this. Make Tuttle explain the reinstatements before giving him a forum to pat himself on the back.

Shame on the NY TImes for shilling for Suffolk Downs and giving a voice to its self-serving COO Chip Tuttle. Suffolk’s zero tolerance policy is a joke, They let those guys back after slapping them on the wrist. It’s well known in New England that many horses still go to slaughter at Suffolk and that Tuttle looks the other way because he knows he needs horses to fill races. Fields is OK. Tuttle is no friend of the horse.

Excuse me, NYT, but Suffolk Downs banned certain
connections from their track for sending their
horses to slaughter. I believe there were 4 that got caught doing this dirty deed.

Then when it was RACING time, they allowed those
they banned for enabling the horses to go to slaughter/ slaughter auctions BACK AT THE TRACK!!

New York Times,, Wake up !!!!!!!!!!! That was a short lived ban.
the Ban was to be FOREVER!!

Suffolk Downs, the home of the most notorious traners and jockeys in racing. Have a look at the records of some of the folks racing and riding horses there, then tell me why you would believe anything that management has to say? The NYTimes needs to have a closer look at the “real” on-goings at Suffolk Downs.

It’s very heartening to see that people have twigged to how Chip Tuttle’s “zero-tolerance” policy really works.

Unfortunately, it’s all about the bottom line… when Tuttle had to choose between taking a strong stand against slaughter and making money by not losing entries, he chose the cash. Just as those “banned” trainers, when forced to choose between finding homes for the horses they had used up or making a little money off of sending them to auction, chose the money. The similarity is striking – and the horses always lose out.

Does anyone bother to vet these guys before letting them appear on the blog?

I do want to make several points here…

Suffolk Downs reached into its own pocket to purchase back the horses that wound up on the road to slaughter. This is a track that cared about the welfare of each individual horse.

Yes, several people were reinstated. Those that were allowed to come back were the individuals that were misled. The two that were really behind the whole ordeal are still banned. The trainers that were allowed to come back have paid money towards retirement efforts and, like in many avenues of life, deserve a second chance to make up for their wrongs.

Most importantly, Suffolk Downs set an example for the Thoroughbred racing world. Because of the actions at Suffolk Downs, the very important issue of horse retirement became an issue of national awareness and many tracks have followed suit and orchestrated their own “anti slaughter” policy.

Suffolk Downs and those working there are doing a top notch job ensuring the best possible future for these animals.

The issue of what happens to a horse when it is done racing is one where those in charge could easily just look the other way. But, at Suffolk Downs, they work tirelessly with the retirement organizations to create happy endings for these wonderful athletes.

To Jo: it is wrong to blame horse starvation/abuse/abandonment on a slaughter ban — because THERE IS NO SLAUGHTER BAN.

In 2008, just as many US horses went to slaughter for human consumption abroad as when the US abattoirs were operating. If horses are being starved, etc. it is for other reasons (like, the economy, maybe?). The slaughter pipeline kept on operating just fine.

Regarding Suffolk Downs, I hope Leah has the right explanation, and I would like to hear Chip Tuttle discuss this issue.

Suffolk’s bogus ban was nothing more than a publicity stunt orchestrated by PR man Tuttle. I don’t think it was a coincidence that the reinstatements were announced late Friday afternoon before the final round of Derby preps. Tuttle is a phoney, but he’s no dummy. He knew no press would be paying attention or have the time/space to follow up when the announcement was made, and it went virtually unnoticed. If the NYT is going to give him space to congratulate himself, the paper should at least provide its readers with the rest of the story and follow up on the reinstatements.

Thank you. I own an OTTB and he is the best thing that’s happened to me since the birth of my daughter. I didn’t find him through CANTER although I certainly looked at their websites after a friend recommended them. I hope other tracks join in and that the accreditation process helps to provide an incentive for tracks to make efforts similar to yours.

Regardless of how you feel about Suffolk’s reversal of their earlier decision, the fact remains that two VERY successful retirement programs run out of the track. Between CANTER NE and the TRF hundreds of horses have found new homes and new careers each year through their partnership with Suffolk Downs. With viable retirement organizations working hard and working together, trainers are presented with other options, and that is a good thing. Please take a moment to offer your support to both CANTER NE and the TRF.

It doesn’t matter how many “zero tolerance” rules are set up. It’s all about the $$$$. The KB’s aren’t taking them off the track. The horses are being brought by the owners/trainers directly to the KB’s. Many of these horse are in good condition. They just can’t run. Others are in such bad shape that they should be have been euthanized before getting there, but that costs money. They are offered the option to donate them to CANTER and the TRF but choose to take them to slaughter because it puts a few more bucks in their pockets. There’s always a way to get around the rules.