July 24, 2025 • 16 mins
We are joined on this week's Harness Racing Alumni Show with longtime owner, breeder and founder of OnGait.com, Eric Cherry. He gives his side of the story about the recent investigation of him by the Standardbred Racing Investigation Fund which led to him being sanctioned by the USTA for $32,500. Cherry also shares his plans of putting this behind him and moving forward. A must listen to broadcast for anyone in harness racing.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to this week's Harness Racing Alumni Show. I'm Freddie Hudson.
I'm here as always with Trade Martin and Bob Marks.
This week's Harness Racing Alumni Show is brought to you
by the Meadowlands Racetrack, home of the Hamiltonian, which will
be celebrated its one hundredth edition on August second. For
(00:21):
more information call two A one eight four three two
four four six our visit Laythmeeatlands dot com. The Harness
Racing Alumni Show with your host Freddie Hudson and Trade
Martin joining us this week, we have special guests mister
(00:42):
Eric Cherry, a standardbred owner and reader for many many years.
Eric just recently yet the Standardbred Racing Investigative Fund through
the USDA just find you thirty two thousand dollars. Tell
us your side of the story.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Sure, well, it's a long and short story at the
same time. Basically, someone from the USCCH told contacted me
to say that they're wrapping up some things with Nick
Zuric and that I'm not a target, but but I
helped them buy up some loose sense, and I said,
sure I would, So we opened up and I spoke
(01:22):
to you know, the investigators, as my bookkeeper did, has
been with me for twenty eight years, and we basically
told them everything we had. Some things they didn't like.
The end, unfortunately, the investigators really weren't very alice all
out of business, and I actually taught them a lot
about you know, everything from the US. He doesn't have
(01:43):
percentage ownership, doesn't keep rect of that. We're our partners,
were co owners, because the difference is we you know,
file separate tax returns and all the other things go
with being a partner. What breeding awards were, all those
different things. So I was going along and giving them
all the information they wanted, and at the end they
turned around and said, you know something, we think you're
(02:05):
guilty too. I think it's everybody's understanding that I spoke to,
and it was definitely mine that anyone could own breeding
stock at broodmares. The only problem came into licensing. That
problem is when you wanted a race a horse and
right me so, so you know I owned I've owned
over thirty five hundred horses compared as per the USTA,
(02:30):
this is somewhere under ten broodmares over the years where
I owned a minority piece of I think they might
have one or two or fifty percent, but most of
my minority piece and I had sold them all over
a year before the investigation started. You know, I didn't
even feel pressure to sell them, only because you know
(02:50):
they were I was looking for the right time and
the right timing. You know, Nick turned out to be
a very bad person in my opinion. I knew him
since he was young. I didn't have a social relationship
with him. I have right now. I counted I have
over forty partners or co owners today with my different horses.
It was never a big thing being involved with him
(03:12):
and other people. I don't check their records. I don't
know what they're doing. I always do things on the
up and up. And I'm here today because my reputation
is extremely important to me. I'm not looking to throw
anybody under the bus, but I don't want to be
one of those people gets going under the bus. So
you know, the way it was written, it's very ambiguous
(03:34):
whether it had to do with race stock or breeding stock.
If it's racetock, this would be very very serious. Nick
never trained a horse for me, We never owned racehources together.
There were you know, small parts of seven or eight,
you know, lower end brood mares that we were ponners in.
And as I say, I got rhythm over a year
before the investigation started and the USCA decided it was
(03:57):
said to go after breeders, you know the one. I know,
I'm rambling a little bit, but the biggest problem our
industry has is shortage of horses. Every other problem can
have a potential solution. But I've been saying this for years,
but without horses, we have no business. So the first
thing we want to do, whether it was going up
(04:17):
to Diamond Creek or me or any other breeder. Not
only is the USA losing money in the investigation versus
what they're fronting people, but more important is disincentivizing people
from breeding horses is just what we need. Every other
problem has a potential solution. There's no potential solution unless
(04:39):
switching breeds of animals or something. But without horses, we
have a business.
Speaker 1 (04:45):
Eric who is the Standardbred Racist Investigative Fund and who
gave them the authority to investigate in? Where does their
power come from?
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Okay, from what I understand, it's the USTA hired them
Primarily I believe two people they're based in Pennsylvania, and
I believe it's the USTA that is the one that
authorized them, funds them, And I don't know how they
decide who to go after, but you know it's pretty
(05:17):
you know clear, they're going to after breeders, which is
the one area we don't want to go after.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
Well, my next question is why you and not some
of the known chiefs that are in our sport that
we all know of.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
I don't know, I can't. You just have to ask them.
I think just because I was tied in at one
point in a very small way with Sark. I mean
he went from that point, but you know, I think
that's where it all started and ended with athem to
do with Sark, like I said, he turned out, my opinion,
is a very bad person. I don't speak to them.
(05:53):
I never even went to lunch with him in my life.
I've known him since he's sixteen. But I speak to
ten or twenty people a day in this industry. You know,
I'm partners, like I said, with over forty just today.
You know, I've thought partners or co owners with over
forty different people just today. I don't check their records.
I don't know what they're doing. I just know we're doing.
Let it Right comes first on the programs and letter primarily,
(06:16):
and let it Right handles all of the paperwork as directly,
you know, with racing, but on the breeding side, every
farm wherever we are builds individually. I don't see any
paperwork that has to do with them, accept you know,
basically registrations. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
Well, another question, why didn't the USDA contact everyone that
might have had a partnership deal with SURH some place
along the line and basically say, hey, you know, there's
a partnership here with sir if you you need to
get rid of them, get rid of the horse, or
something to that effect. Why didn't ye? Well, and that
is a courtesy to the owners.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Well, well, there's the big questions. I don't know what
they did didn't do to other people. Okay, so I'm
not going to speak to that. But since they keep
the databases, you would think that if there should be
two things, this should be a list of whoever is
no longer eligible to own horses. That's the first thing,
because you know, how can everyone be expected to automatically know?
(07:11):
And if I took some names out there, people would
know today and I don't want to throw them out,
but they wouldn't know today if they could own horses
or not, so they should have a database. But two,
since they do have a database, anyone who is related
to me at one point, they should receive notice and
have thirty days whatever to change it or switch it.
You know, I can't say why they don't do that,
(07:32):
but you know, basically the primary function is record keeping.
This is something you think they would do automatically right now.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
Wait, why didn't you have your attorney with you when
they were interviewing you?
Speaker 2 (07:48):
You know, most of the people did. I really didn't think.
There's a couple of reasons. One, I didn't think I
was a target. But two, I really felt that I
knew my business better than if somebody had just hired
and it would become second hand. So I really didn't
feel I needed it. I felt very confident in what
I did was on the up and up. I wasn't
looking for legal loopholes. I just presented what I did
(08:11):
and you know what I didn't do and what I thought.
And I just didn't feel an attorney would actually do
me justice because it would just be one more link
in the chain that information would have to pass through.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
Now today the USCA released the investigation report. Do you
think that was retaliatory against you because you're speaking out?
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Yeah, I think that they wanted to get their side heard,
and they obviously didn't like some of the things I
was saying. It was never meant to victimize them, so
to speak. But the real reason I did this what
I spoke out, was it wasn't clear that it was
just breathing doc and brood mares and having nothing to
do with racing, and my reputation means everything to me.
(08:57):
I've business business fifty two years. I've never ever any
business I've been involved in or organization ever been brought
up at any kind of charges of any type or accusations.
So it's very important to me to know, for everyone
to know out there that I'm not a cheater and
I'm not a liar. So I went ahead, and when
it wasn't clear that this was strictly breathing, I went
(09:19):
ahead and sent my piece in a few places, which
I'm sveressing, So I'm sure they felt it was necessary
to show there the interesting thing that came out of
that if you read the bottom, which I didn't even
realize is that the investigators actually suggested a fine about
little less than one third of what I was actually
find So whoever is on the gibet, Yeah, so who
(09:42):
was ever on the committee decided that wasn't enough and
I should be fined three times more than what the
investigators thought.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
Now, now here, here's another question for you. You do
a lot of advertising with the United States Draught and associations.
Do you continue do you plan to continue doing so?
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Yeah? You know, at this point, I'm not going to
make this a personal vendetta. There are many people involved
in the place that we advertise, so at this point
I would have to say we're probably going to just
we will not, probably going to keep the business as
status quo and put this beyond everybody.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
Now, do you have any plans of suing or getting
out of the sport or are doing a make a reduction.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
Suing? Absolutely not. I don't believe in that in general.
As far as getting out, my first inclination was to say,
who needs this? Let me just get out. And the
more I thought about and discussed it with my wife, Felsa,
who also loves the business, we decided. You know why
I cut off you know spite your face, and that
we really like this business. We have a lot of
good relationships with a lot of people. People that know
(10:48):
me and us know who we are, and we're just
going to go forward and stay in the business. You know,
We're not going to make any real you know, if
it happens within the first twenty four hours, I probably
do to be out. But at this point in time,
we decided that it's too There's so many good people
in the business and we enjoy it so much and
(11:10):
such a big part of our lives that we're going
to not change anything. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Now I'm going to go back to the beginning here
where now see the horses, if they were not enlisted
in your name, sirs name, or sir it's mother's name
or Benson's name, they were listed in a stable name.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Correct, right, But yeah, all my horses are owned under stables.
And as far as I believe, I believe there's rs
as well. I don't really look at the registrations. So
even now I really couldn't tell you one hundred percent,
but I'm ninety percent confident that's true.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Because you currently have about two hundred and fifty horses
and probably about forty fifty partners.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Yeah, that's true. And you know there there are certain
names I had, like aways for sales Stable that's actually
started about five years before I ever owned a horse
with Surah. But when I sell horses at the sale,
you know, if I put down let it ride, not
did anything wrong, but people say, well why is he selling?
So you know many people do this and one of
(12:09):
the names and you could look it up on the
USTA website if you wanted to. But one of the
names I used was always for Sale. Hence that's what
I do. So some of the horses that since they
were food marees that had babies or going to the sale,
they were listed. Some of them were listed in always
for Sale. It wasn't to hide anything because anybody could
(12:30):
look it up. It's just it was for the public
perception when they went to sell something. There are many
of the large racing people that do the exact same thing.
And as I said, anybody could look it up. There's
nothing nefarious about it.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
My last thing is did you know that you had
to have a license in order to own a broodmare? No?
Speaker 2 (12:53):
I mean not only did I know, but I've been
speaking to people even since this, and not one person
has told me you have to be licensed for a broodmare,
even people within the USTA actually told me the same thing,
you know. And the truth is how you really can't
cheat with the broodmare no matter what you do. You know,
(13:14):
before the days of DNA testing or you know, identification,
when there were babies, maybe somebody could have switched the
horse and done something and sold them for a lot
more money because they said it was by you know,
in the old days most happy fella and not tropic
song or something. Who knows, right, But and I'm just
(13:34):
thinking out two horses if living behind either one of those.
But you know, but the bottom line is is that
you can't shoot with the broodmare I mean, or or
a baby. I mean, how can you? So there would
be no reason to hide the ownership or you know,
race keeping a different name for somebody else, because there
(13:56):
is there is nothing.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
Okay, they bobbed it. Do you have anything to ask Eric?
Speaker 2 (14:03):
I don't know. I think we've covered I think Eric
has covered everything perfectly.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
Bad then I have clothes the show out, well, Eric,
thank you, thank you.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
I can I just say one thing, okay, so okay, sure, Okay,
So basically the biggest thing I started saying the show
we really need to address is how do we, you know,
get more babies born every year? Because we are horses,
we really don't have an industry. I've been working on
many things, trying to get either steak races for the
(14:35):
stallions that you know, the lower priced stallions, or maybe
having a breeding season where it starts to like first
like they do almost down Under, so we have an
a and the b steak season, you know, or let
the horses breed. Some mayors breed more than one stallion
a year using et. But whatever we do, if we
don't do something to make it worthwhile for people to breathe,
(14:57):
we're just gonna not bread ourselves out of resistance, you know,
even with the horses come down Under where we be
without them, you know. So this is where you know,
people think and look, we want legitimacy and racing. There's
a lot of things we want, but the one thing
we need are horses. And that's the one thing that
if you just look at the charge, every year we
(15:18):
breath less than the year before. Look, we have a
couple of really good bright spots right now in an industry, Kentucky, obviously, Ohio, Canada, Indiana.
There are certain places that are doing their job whatever.
But if you can't make it economic for people to
breathe a horse, you know where we're going. It costs
me over thirty thousand dollars a baby to have a
(15:40):
baby born raised all the way through. I mean, think
about how many horses sell o the sales that's the
count stead fee, amorization of a mayor or a sales fee.
So if you don't get forty fifty thousand, let's just
break even. So we really have to address That's something
I think we really need to address as an industry.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
I agree with you that that.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
Yeah, yeah, and this is just a very sad event.
But you know, I've never, like I said, anything like
this happened before. But it's just something that hopefully goes
behind us, just becomes a bad memory. And people that
know me know me, and those who don't know me
just know I don't cheat and I don't lie with that.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
Eric, thank you so much for joining us today.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
That's a wrap for this week's show. Please don't forget
to join us again next week. The Hunts Racing Alumni Show,
Welcome to this week's Harness Racing Alumni Show. I'm Freddie Hudson.
I'm here as always with Trade Martin and Bob Marks.
This week's Harness Racing Alumni Show is brought to you
by the Meadowlands Racetrack, home of the Hamiltonian, which will
be celebrated its one hundredth edition on August second. For
(00:21):
more information call two A one eight four three two
four four six our visit Laythmeeatlands dot com. The Harness
Racing Alumni Show with your host Freddie Hudson and Trade
Martin joining us this week, we have special guests mister
(00:42):
Eric Cherry, a standardbred owner and reader for many many years.
Eric just recently yet the Standardbred Racing Investigative Fund through
the USDA just find you thirty two thousand dollars. Tell
us your side of the story.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Sure, well, it's a long and short story at the
same time. Basically, someone from the USCCH told contacted me
to say that they're wrapping up some things with Nick
Zuric and that I'm not a target, but but I
helped them buy up some loose sense, and I said,
sure I would, So we opened up and I spoke
(01:22):
to you know, the investigators, as my bookkeeper did, has
been with me for twenty eight years, and we basically
told them everything we had. Some things they didn't like.
The end, unfortunately, the investigators really weren't very alice all
out of business, and I actually taught them a lot
about you know, everything from the US. He doesn't have
(01:43):
percentage ownership, doesn't keep rect of that. We're our partners,
were co owners, because the difference is we you know,
file separate tax returns and all the other things go
with being a partner. What breeding awards were, all those
different things. So I was going along and giving them
all the information they wanted, and at the end they
turned around and said, you know something, we think you're
(02:05):
guilty too. I think it's everybody's understanding that I spoke to,
and it was definitely mine that anyone could own breeding
stock at broodmares. The only problem came into licensing. That
problem is when you wanted a race a horse and
right me so, so you know I owned I've owned
over thirty five hundred horses compared as per the USTA,
(02:30):
this is somewhere under ten broodmares over the years where
I owned a minority piece of I think they might
have one or two or fifty percent, but most of
my minority piece and I had sold them all over
a year before the investigation started. You know, I didn't
even feel pressure to sell them, only because you know
(02:50):
they were I was looking for the right time and
the right timing. You know, Nick turned out to be
a very bad person in my opinion. I knew him
since he was young. I didn't have a social relationship
with him. I have right now. I counted I have
over forty partners or co owners today with my different horses.
It was never a big thing being involved with him
(03:12):
and other people. I don't check their records. I don't
know what they're doing. I always do things on the
up and up. And I'm here today because my reputation
is extremely important to me. I'm not looking to throw
anybody under the bus, but I don't want to be
one of those people gets going under the bus. So
you know, the way it was written, it's very ambiguous
(03:34):
whether it had to do with race stock or breeding stock.
If it's racetock, this would be very very serious. Nick
never trained a horse for me, We never owned racehources together.
There were you know, small parts of seven or eight,
you know, lower end brood mares that we were ponners in.
And as I say, I got rhythm over a year
before the investigation started and the USCA decided it was
(03:57):
said to go after breeders, you know the one. I know,
I'm rambling a little bit, but the biggest problem our
industry has is shortage of horses. Every other problem can
have a potential solution. But I've been saying this for years,
but without horses, we have no business. So the first
thing we want to do, whether it was going up
(04:17):
to Diamond Creek or me or any other breeder. Not
only is the USA losing money in the investigation versus
what they're fronting people, but more important is disincentivizing people
from breeding horses is just what we need. Every other
problem has a potential solution. There's no potential solution unless
(04:39):
switching breeds of animals or something. But without horses, we
have a business.
Speaker 1 (04:45):
Eric who is the Standardbred Racist Investigative Fund and who
gave them the authority to investigate in? Where does their
power come from?
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Okay, from what I understand, it's the USTA hired them
Primarily I believe two people they're based in Pennsylvania, and
I believe it's the USTA that is the one that
authorized them, funds them, And I don't know how they
decide who to go after, but you know it's pretty
(05:17):
you know clear, they're going to after breeders, which is
the one area we don't want to go after.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
Well, my next question is why you and not some
of the known chiefs that are in our sport that
we all know of.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
I don't know, I can't. You just have to ask them.
I think just because I was tied in at one
point in a very small way with Sark. I mean
he went from that point, but you know, I think
that's where it all started and ended with athem to
do with Sark, like I said, he turned out, my opinion,
is a very bad person. I don't speak to them.
(05:53):
I never even went to lunch with him in my life.
I've known him since he's sixteen. But I speak to
ten or twenty people a day in this industry. You know,
I'm partners, like I said, with over forty just today.
You know, I've thought partners or co owners with over
forty different people just today. I don't check their records.
I don't know what they're doing. I just know we're doing.
Let it Right comes first on the programs and letter primarily,
(06:16):
and let it Right handles all of the paperwork as directly,
you know, with racing, but on the breeding side, every
farm wherever we are builds individually. I don't see any
paperwork that has to do with them, accept you know,
basically registrations. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
Well, another question, why didn't the USDA contact everyone that
might have had a partnership deal with SURH some place
along the line and basically say, hey, you know, there's
a partnership here with sir if you you need to
get rid of them, get rid of the horse, or
something to that effect. Why didn't ye? Well, and that
is a courtesy to the owners.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Well, well, there's the big questions. I don't know what
they did didn't do to other people. Okay, so I'm
not going to speak to that. But since they keep
the databases, you would think that if there should be
two things, this should be a list of whoever is
no longer eligible to own horses. That's the first thing,
because you know, how can everyone be expected to automatically know?
(07:11):
And if I took some names out there, people would
know today and I don't want to throw them out,
but they wouldn't know today if they could own horses
or not, so they should have a database. But two,
since they do have a database, anyone who is related
to me at one point, they should receive notice and
have thirty days whatever to change it or switch it.
You know, I can't say why they don't do that,
(07:32):
but you know, basically the primary function is record keeping.
This is something you think they would do automatically right now.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
Wait, why didn't you have your attorney with you when
they were interviewing you?
Speaker 2 (07:48):
You know, most of the people did. I really didn't think.
There's a couple of reasons. One, I didn't think I
was a target. But two, I really felt that I
knew my business better than if somebody had just hired
and it would become second hand. So I really didn't
feel I needed it. I felt very confident in what
I did was on the up and up. I wasn't
looking for legal loopholes. I just presented what I did
(08:11):
and you know what I didn't do and what I thought.
And I just didn't feel an attorney would actually do
me justice because it would just be one more link
in the chain that information would have to pass through.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
Now today the USCA released the investigation report. Do you
think that was retaliatory against you because you're speaking out?
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Yeah, I think that they wanted to get their side heard,
and they obviously didn't like some of the things I
was saying. It was never meant to victimize them, so
to speak. But the real reason I did this what
I spoke out, was it wasn't clear that it was
just breathing doc and brood mares and having nothing to
do with racing, and my reputation means everything to me.
(08:57):
I've business business fifty two years. I've never ever any
business I've been involved in or organization ever been brought
up at any kind of charges of any type or accusations.
So it's very important to me to know, for everyone
to know out there that I'm not a cheater and
I'm not a liar. So I went ahead, and when
it wasn't clear that this was strictly breathing, I went
(09:19):
ahead and sent my piece in a few places, which
I'm sveressing, So I'm sure they felt it was necessary
to show there the interesting thing that came out of
that if you read the bottom, which I didn't even
realize is that the investigators actually suggested a fine about
little less than one third of what I was actually
find So whoever is on the gibet, Yeah, so who
(09:42):
was ever on the committee decided that wasn't enough and
I should be fined three times more than what the
investigators thought.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
Now, now here, here's another question for you. You do
a lot of advertising with the United States Draught and associations.
Do you continue do you plan to continue doing so?
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Yeah? You know, at this point, I'm not going to
make this a personal vendetta. There are many people involved
in the place that we advertise, so at this point
I would have to say we're probably going to just
we will not, probably going to keep the business as
status quo and put this beyond everybody.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
Now, do you have any plans of suing or getting
out of the sport or are doing a make a reduction.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
Suing? Absolutely not. I don't believe in that in general.
As far as getting out, my first inclination was to say,
who needs this? Let me just get out. And the
more I thought about and discussed it with my wife, Felsa,
who also loves the business, we decided. You know why
I cut off you know spite your face, and that
we really like this business. We have a lot of
good relationships with a lot of people. People that know
(10:48):
me and us know who we are, and we're just
going to go forward and stay in the business. You know,
We're not going to make any real you know, if
it happens within the first twenty four hours, I probably
do to be out. But at this point in time,
we decided that it's too There's so many good people
in the business and we enjoy it so much and
(11:10):
such a big part of our lives that we're going
to not change anything. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Now I'm going to go back to the beginning here
where now see the horses, if they were not enlisted
in your name, sirs name, or sir it's mother's name
or Benson's name, they were listed in a stable name.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Correct, right, But yeah, all my horses are owned under stables.
And as far as I believe, I believe there's rs
as well. I don't really look at the registrations. So
even now I really couldn't tell you one hundred percent,
but I'm ninety percent confident that's true.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Because you currently have about two hundred and fifty horses
and probably about forty fifty partners.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Yeah, that's true. And you know there there are certain
names I had, like aways for sales Stable that's actually
started about five years before I ever owned a horse
with Surah. But when I sell horses at the sale,
you know, if I put down let it ride, not
did anything wrong, but people say, well why is he selling?
So you know many people do this and one of
(12:09):
the names and you could look it up on the
USTA website if you wanted to. But one of the
names I used was always for Sale. Hence that's what
I do. So some of the horses that since they
were food marees that had babies or going to the sale,
they were listed. Some of them were listed in always
for Sale. It wasn't to hide anything because anybody could
(12:30):
look it up. It's just it was for the public
perception when they went to sell something. There are many
of the large racing people that do the exact same thing.
And as I said, anybody could look it up. There's
nothing nefarious about it.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
My last thing is did you know that you had
to have a license in order to own a broodmare? No?
Speaker 2 (12:53):
I mean not only did I know, but I've been
speaking to people even since this, and not one person
has told me you have to be licensed for a broodmare,
even people within the USTA actually told me the same thing,
you know. And the truth is how you really can't
cheat with the broodmare no matter what you do. You know,
(13:14):
before the days of DNA testing or you know, identification,
when there were babies, maybe somebody could have switched the
horse and done something and sold them for a lot
more money because they said it was by you know,
in the old days most happy fella and not tropic
song or something. Who knows, right, But and I'm just
(13:34):
thinking out two horses if living behind either one of those.
But you know, but the bottom line is is that
you can't shoot with the broodmare I mean, or or
a baby. I mean, how can you? So there would
be no reason to hide the ownership or you know,
race keeping a different name for somebody else, because there
(13:56):
is there is nothing.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
Okay, they bobbed it. Do you have anything to ask Eric?
Speaker 2 (14:03):
I don't know. I think we've covered I think Eric
has covered everything perfectly.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
Bad then I have clothes the show out, well, Eric,
thank you, thank you.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
I can I just say one thing, okay, so okay, sure, Okay,
So basically the biggest thing I started saying the show
we really need to address is how do we, you know,
get more babies born every year? Because we are horses,
we really don't have an industry. I've been working on
many things, trying to get either steak races for the
(14:35):
stallions that you know, the lower priced stallions, or maybe
having a breeding season where it starts to like first
like they do almost down Under, so we have an
a and the b steak season, you know, or let
the horses breed. Some mayors breed more than one stallion
a year using et. But whatever we do, if we
don't do something to make it worthwhile for people to breathe,
(14:57):
we're just gonna not bread ourselves out of resistance, you know,
even with the horses come down Under where we be
without them, you know. So this is where you know,
people think and look, we want legitimacy and racing. There's
a lot of things we want, but the one thing
we need are horses. And that's the one thing that
if you just look at the charge, every year we
(15:18):
breath less than the year before. Look, we have a
couple of really good bright spots right now in an industry, Kentucky, obviously, Ohio, Canada, Indiana.
There are certain places that are doing their job whatever.
But if you can't make it economic for people to
breathe a horse, you know where we're going. It costs
me over thirty thousand dollars a baby to have a
(15:40):
baby born raised all the way through. I mean, think
about how many horses sell o the sales that's the
count stead fee, amorization of a mayor or a sales fee.
So if you don't get forty fifty thousand, let's just
break even. So we really have to address That's something
I think we really need to address as an industry.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
I agree with you that that.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
Yeah, yeah, and this is just a very sad event.
But you know, I've never, like I said, anything like
this happened before. But it's just something that hopefully goes
behind us, just becomes a bad memory. And people that
know me know me, and those who don't know me
just know I don't cheat and I don't lie with that.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
Eric, thank you so much for joining us today.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
That's a wrap for this week's show. Please don't forget
to join us again next week. The Hunts Racing Alumni Show,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.