John O'Shea - Trainer - Racehorse TALK harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



John O'Shea - Trainer - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: John O'Shea  (Read 74639 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rowdybear

  • Class2
  • User 1805
  • Posts: 22
« 2012-Mar-08, 03:12 PM Reply #25 »

Regardless of what happens in the industry there are some clear points here.

1. The purchaser made it quite clear what he wanted - he did not care about "low risk" he wanted a horse with NO ISSUES.
2. A horse with no issues does not mean a risk free purchase BUT it does mean a horse who has nothing out of the ordinary wrong with it.
3. The trainer was told by the vets that something was WRONG with the horse - ie it had a cyst and would take 6 months time.
4. When the owner asked about the horse, the trainer DID NOT mention this and in effect said that the horse was FINE.

whether the horse came good or not is irrelevant. The trainer WITHELD crucial information which would affect the ultimate decision the owner made.

If the owner ended up buying a horse with no issues but it turned out to be a dud so be it. that is all part of this game - but in effect he was already behind the 8ball when he made it super clear he did not want to be.

full and frank disclosure did not occur.  How the horse ends up is irrelevant - it was the trainers obligation to pass on the info given by the vet - this was not done.

I dont know either party this is just my observaion.
 

Offline JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 18242
« 2012-Mar-08, 03:19 PM Reply #26 »
If I was going to fork out $270,000 or whatever it was I'd engage a vet for him to supply me the report.

Would you have a pest examination of a house and have the real estate agent engage the pest report guy, and have him report to the agent?

I wouldn't. 

Online Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 31143
« 2012-Mar-08, 03:28 PM Reply #27 »
If I was going to fork out $270,000 or whatever it was I'd engage a vet for him to supply me the report.

Would you have a pest examination of a house and have the real estate agent engage the pest report guy, and have him report to the agent?

I wouldn't. 

      13  The appellant indicated his agreement with that arrangement and Mr O'Shea further explained to him:

"I charge each client a fee of $1,000 per horse successfully purchased. That is not a profitable exercise for me as I have to meet the veterinary expense of $250 on many horses that I do not end up buying. Sometimes my expenses at any particular sale exceed my income charged."

Offline rowdybear

  • Class2
  • User 1805
  • Posts: 22
« 2012-Mar-08, 03:50 PM Reply #28 »

JWH the owner put his faith in the trainer to do the right thing and entered into a contract for this to occur. i think if he knew the trainer was going to hold back he might have done otherwise.

Dont you think an owner deserves more. To say it happens all over the industry makes this ok is a cop out.

the part i am confused about is why this actually happened at all. Wouldnt the trainer want the owner to buy a horse without this issue. I.e wouldnt he want to train something that is all ok and ready to go and get ready for MM races......?

Seems illogical that the trainer would want this horse that he cant do anything with for a good 6 months, when there were presumably umpteen other horses that the trainer could have directed this owner to buy without an issue of this nature......

thoughts.......

Offline monologue

  • Group 1
  • User 200
  • Posts: 8692
« 2012-Mar-08, 04:44 PM Reply #29 »
The Cups King owed a few more dollars than most and he seemed to survive.


Offline wordedmeat

  • VIP Club
  • Group3
  • User 216
  • Posts: 660
« 2012-Mar-08, 05:17 PM Reply #30 »
did he give the horse time (6 months) before breaking it in???
 if he didnt i see O'Shea  in the wrong completely, but if he waited, in my opinion that changes it somewhat..

Offline 22 WOOBIA 22

  • Group 2
  • User 1173
  • Posts: 1358
« 2012-Mar-08, 05:22 PM Reply #31 »
Well I hope Foxwedge wins as it is #22 and have coupled it up with the Qlder's.

Would love to know how JBC or more importantly shareholders in that deal. was it Champions ?

Offline el zoro

  • Group 1
  • User 367
  • Posts: 9310
« 2012-Mar-08, 05:38 PM Reply #32 »
JWH the owner put his faith in the trainer to do the right thing and entered into a contract for this to occur. i think if he knew the trainer was going to hold back he might have done otherwise.

Dont you think an owner deserves more. To say it happens all over the industry makes this ok is a cop out.

the part i am confused about is why this actually happened at all. Wouldnt the trainer want the owner to buy a horse without this issue. I.e wouldnt he want to train something that is all ok and ready to go and get ready for MM races......?

Seems illogical that the trainer would want this horse that he cant do anything with for a good 6 months, when there were presumably umpteen other horses that the trainer could have directed this owner to buy without an issue of this nature......

thoughts.......


I was under the impression that O'Shea had bought the horse first & then onsold it to the 'buyer'. Many would think a dumb practice but it is what it is.  

Offline el zoro

  • Group 1
  • User 367
  • Posts: 9310
« 2012-Mar-08, 05:44 PM Reply #33 »
Well I hope Foxwedge wins as it is #22 and have coupled it up with the Qlder's.

Would love to know how JBC or more importantly shareholders in that deal. was it Champions ?

Think Bart got conned into buying a heap of yearlings but couldn't on-sell them.
Similar idea though, buy them 1st & then on-sell them to syndicates.
   

Offline 22 WOOBIA 22

  • Group 2
  • User 1173
  • Posts: 1358
« 2012-Mar-08, 05:49 PM Reply #34 »
I always found it hard to beleive Bart could get conned to that degree. more like Greed.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15193
« 2012-Mar-08, 06:22 PM Reply #35 »
If O'Shea had made full disclosure he wouldn't be in this mess.

As it turned out the horse wasn't any good.....so I think the owner got a lucky break.

O'Shea has a cross appeal agin the vets but on the face of it hardly likely to go ahead let alone succeed. :o

Offline JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 18242
« 2012-Mar-08, 06:36 PM Reply #36 »
Two points:-

Auth quoted me and then posted something that bore no relationship to the quote

and

Rowdy also answered me without addressing what I said.

We're not talking $10,000 here, I wouldn't get out of bed for that, but for $270,000 I'd at least get up, have a leak, and put the porridge on before I decided whether to face the day or go back to bed and pull the doona over my head.

So I ask again, you are buying a house or unit, and get a pest report, a strata report or a survey report, would you have the results reported to you through the real estate agent, or to you directly or through a knowledgeable third party?

I don't think the answer is too hard.

Offline usernametaken

  • Group3
  • User 937
  • Posts: 683
« 2012-Mar-08, 06:56 PM Reply #37 »
Sounds to me like the buyer was treating the trainer as the "trusted 3rd party".
JOS in wrong 100% IMHO.

Online Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 31143
« 2012-Mar-08, 07:00 PM Reply #38 »
JWH, John O'Shea had the full veterinary report, he chose NOT to disclose everything in that report. As far as the new owner was concerned John O'Shea had told him everything that was in that report when in fact he had not.

If John O'Shea had told him everything about that report he would not be in the poop he finds himself in now.

Offline JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 18242
« 2012-Mar-08, 07:07 PM Reply #39 »
JWH, John O'Shea had the full veterinary report, he chose NOT to disclose everything in that report. As far as the new owner was concerned John O'Shea had told him everything that was in that report when in fact he had not.

If John O'Shea had told him everything about that report he would not be in the poop he finds himself in now.

I know he had it. I know what he chose what to do. I know he's in the poop.

I'm not talking about that.

And I'm not gunna ask the same question. sigh.


Offline ratsack

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 327
  • Posts: 10310
« 2012-Mar-08, 08:05 PM Reply #40 »
The Cups King owed a few more dollars than most and he seemed to survive.


bailed out by Mr Chess

Offline Jeunes

  • VIP Club
  • Group 2
  • User 296
  • Posts: 2399
« 2012-Mar-10, 04:16 PM Reply #41 »
Not sure why O'Shea feels hard done by if he did not pass on the vet report.

Offline Jeunes

  • VIP Club
  • Group 2
  • User 296
  • Posts: 2399
« 2012-Mar-14, 07:58 PM Reply #42 »
Article from SMH below.


Court ruling spells change ahead for those who deal in bloodstock Craig Young
March 12, 2012
 
After a court judgment that has trainer John O'Shea considering his future in the racing industry, John Schreck felt compelled to weigh in.

The former Australian Jockey Club and Hong Kong Jockey Club chief steward has warned ''there could be great changes ahead for those who deal in racehorses''. Schreck knows racing like few others.

Last Monday, the Court of Appeal ordered O'Shea to pay $500,000 in court costs and damages in addition to his legal fees after owner Humberto Vieira had taken O'Shea to court. The case centred on Vieira's 70 per cent stake in O'Shea's $330,000 Magic Millions buy Dashere. X-rays and a clinical inspection carried out by the Randwick Equine Centre classed the colt as ''low risk with time'' due to a cystic lucency in his near stifle.

The court found that O'Shea's recommendation to buy the horse constituted a breach of contract.

''No one would ever or should ever argue that it's wrong to 'doll' up a horse cosmetically for sale,'' Schreck wrote to the Herald. ''Likewise no one would argue that emphasising a horse's strong points is a legitimate tool in the selling process. To conceal a latent defect is, I reckon, fraudulent. So is, say, sedating a horse to make him more appealing.''

And it happens all the time. Think of yearlings being prepared for the sale ring. In recent times, Schreck has been buying and selling horses but it has never been his main source of income.

''Like a lot of things in my life, I wish I could go back and do things a bit different,'' he said. ''Some I've been involved in selling have been an absolute embarrassment.''

Schreck believes ''there is a real issue for all those who sell horses'' and is adamant ''they have to work within a set of ethical standards''. Therein lines another problem.

''Where the line is drawn between what is acceptable and what is improper is hard to find,'' he said. ''There is not much by way of absolute in selling horses.''

In light of the finding against O'Shea, why would anyone want to sell a horse? More so a trainer who finds one at a yearling sale, buys it himself, hoping to sell it later.

There is no such thing as the perfect racehorse. They have defects. Black Caviar might be unbeaten, a wonder horse, but trainer Peter Moody knows she has had issues. She has been deftly managed.

''There are no horse-selling officials to check on every deal that's done,'' Schreck said. ''The racing game is played by all sorts and can be a tough, selfish business. Let's be fair dinkum, greed is everywhere in our sport. And if the need is great enough, some selfish sellers tend to forget ethics.''

O'Shea bought and sold a horse which was ''low risk with time''. What about the high-risk ones that have been bought and sold? The borderline ones?

''Horse dealers have been taking advantage of horse buyers since horse commerce began,'' Schreck said. ''Let's not kid ourselves, the fact is that abuse in horse sales is not uncommon. Sellers profit from their misdeeds and, regrettably, innocent buyers are the ones hurt. I would like to be able to look at a young horse and find faults that might cause it to go lame. Faults are not necessarily unsoundness, they may be predisposed to many lameness problems that would not otherwise occur.''

What one sees in a horse another does not. It's all in the eye of the beholder, and then you've got the old line about buyer beware. What happens next? A racehorse breaks down and the owner demands his money back?

''Bone chips are found in the knee of a horse, and the owners immediately wants their investment returned,'' Schreck said. ''It goes on and on. Where does it end? In court, and O'Shea is the fall guy. The racing industry should be concerned.'


Read mo http://www.smh.com.au/sport/horseracing/court-ruling-spells-change-ahead-for-those-who-deal-in-bloodstock-20120311-1usfo.html#ixzz1p5FbwS86

Rumpelstiltskin

  • Guest
« 2012-Mar-22, 09:04 AM Reply #43 »
O'Shea bought and sold a horse which was ''low risk with time''.

you cant just ignore the fact the vet said there was a risk and the buyer should have been told.

theres talk of a benifit night for John to help with payment for costs.  :thumbsd: sorry but racing should be helping people with real problems ie medical .

this type of fundraiser is a farce.

like the Munce fundraiser, i havnt heard if Munce is giving back the money he was given when times were tough. if it was me the injured riders fund would be getting the lot.

put your hand out when your down and keep it in your pocket when your flying. sorry if im wrong but greeds a common factor.

Online Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 31143
« 2012-Mar-22, 10:29 AM Reply #44 »
O'Shea bought and sold a horse which was ''low risk with time''.

you cant just ignore the fact the vet said there was a risk and the buyer should have been told.

theres talk of a benifit night for John to help with payment for costs.  :thumbsd: sorry but racing should be helping people with real problems ie medical .

this type of fundraiser is a farce.

like the Munce fundraiser, i havnt heard if Munce is giving back the money he was given when times were tough. if it was me the injured riders fund would be getting the lot.

put your hand out when your down and keep it in your pocket when your flying. sorry if im wrong but greeds a common factor.

I can only assume that Chris Munce and his like would be donating double to similar racing fundraisers when they occur. There would be no way of knowing if he gives back. I would like to think he does.

I would assume the same for John O'Shea, Whilst I will not donate to his cause If others who are actually part of the industry and feel strongly against the situation he finds himself in want to donate that is naturally up to them.

As I said, others who have benefited from such fundraisers might be amongst the ones helping once they get back on top.


Rumpelstiltskin

  • Guest
« 2012-Mar-22, 12:23 PM Reply #45 »
I can only assume that Chris Munce and his like would be donating double to similar racing fundraisers when they occur. There would be no way of knowing if he gives back. I would like to think he does.

I would assume the same for John O'Shea, Whilst I will not donate to his cause If others who are actually part of the industry and feel strongly against the situation he finds himself in want to donate that is naturally up to them.

As I said, others who have benefited from such fundraisers might be amongst the ones helping once they get back on top.



a bit of transparency would go a long way to promote the industry, ie wouldn't it be nice if Munce said thanks for donating x amount while my family and i were struggling,now that im back on top i would like to let the industry know that i have donated that money back to the injured riders fund or to help out someone in a wheel chair like goode or silburn.
nice gestures can promote the industry. Munce may well be doing this and  :no1: if he has.
imo Oshea should come clean if he wants support and the industry may band together to help throwing his financial situation on the table including investments.
below is just an eg of situations
it would be crazy for people to donate if for eg someone had three million dollar properties and owed half a million on one of them giving them 2.5 million in equity. yet if someone had a $500,000 home and a $200,000 loan things look a bit tougher.

Online Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 31143
« 2012-Mar-22, 12:34 PM Reply #46 »
On the other hand Rumpel, this was a test case within the Industry. How many trainers are witting back thinking that could have been me in O'Sheas situation.

I think this has bought it all to a head and it is possibly unfair for one individual and his family to wear the whole thing no matter what his wealth situation ?

Offline el zoro

  • Group 1
  • User 367
  • Posts: 9310
« 2012-Mar-22, 01:44 PM Reply #47 »
No problems with having fundraisers for people who have had unfortunate accidents.
Don't think this would qualify as such.

In this case, he's been found guilty of misleading a buyer. In other words, lying to a buyer to make a profit off him. In other words scamming someone for money.
If his friends want to donate to help him out of his dilemma, then all well & good & that is there right. He might be a great bloke who made a stupid mistake.
 
Should the Racing Industry be seen helping someone who has fraudulent dealings within the industry?
  :what:       

Offline RedGoat

  • Group3
  • User 219
  • Posts: 893
« 2012-Mar-22, 01:53 PM Reply #48 »
Should the Racing Industry be seen helping someone who has fraudulent dealings within the industry? [/color]  :what:       

No. It sends a message of "we don't think what you did is wrong and you've been hard done by so we'll all get together and help you out".


Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15193
« 2012-Mar-22, 04:54 PM Reply #49 »
It's not surprising that fellow trainers and/or supporters are considering a fund raiser to meet the massive costs $500K he is likely to be up for...this is a precedent setting case......and but for the grace of God...it could have been plenty of others in his shoes ...personally I think it's very gratifying to see his fellow professionals helping a colleague in need..........but I wouldn't expect run of the mill punters to dip into their cunning kicks. :shutup:

Should be noted that no adverse inferences were drawn about his integrity in the two cases.........no doubt he should have disclosed the vet report ....and as the record shows the horse wasn't any good with or without the  blemish the vet found.


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap