TapitsGal wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 7:11 am
TwilightTear wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 12:28 pm
CorridorZ75 wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 11:43 pm
So my question is were her testosterone levels never tested while racing since she won several stakes? Isn't that one of the things they usually test for? Also, I wonder whether these vet exams where they certifying broodmares as suitable for breeding all include a rectal exam with ultrasound and endocrine testing to see what the hormone levels are - one way or another, I can't see "her's" as being normal.
I don't know about her in-racing tests (if any), but in terms of being certified as suitable for mating, Keeneland's conditions of sale state:
Suitable for Mating. Any filly or mare that is not pregnant at the time of examination shall be characterized as “suitable for mating” if a palpation per rectum of the ovaries, uterus and cervix, and speculum examination of the cervix and vagina does not reveal significant abnormalities that would indicate that the filly or mare is not reproductively within reasonably normal limits.
Fasig-Tipton defines "suitable for mating" as:
Any filly or mare that is not pregnant at the time of examination shall be characterized as “suitable for mating” if a palpation per rectum of the ovaries, uterus or cervix, and speculum examination of the cervix and vagina, does not reveal significant abnormalities that would indicate that the filly or mare is not reproductively within normal limits.
So it sounds like no, they don't need to do endocrine testing, but she did need to at least undergo a rectal examination. If she has no ovaries, I'm not sure how she could have been normal on the rectal exam.
Would the buyers be responsible for having a vet do the "suitable of mating" exam? Or the sellers/consigners. I forget which racing news site I was reading but I remember one of the articles saying that Crawford Farms never had a vet examine Kept True before they bid on her and bought her at the sale which I thought was odd. Isn't part of buying a horse usually having at least a pre-cursory pre-purchase exam done on the sales grounds when you are looking at horses on your short list?
Since I am a lawyer, let me preface this by saying I am in no way offering legal advice. (I know you're not asking for legal advice, but I don't want someone else reading this to rely on something posted on a message board by someone who isn't even licensed in Kentucky.)
I read the Terms & Conditions as the seller is the one certifying or warranting that the filly or mare is "suitable for mating" at the time of the sale. Condition Fourteen states:
Each broodmare in this sale shall be offered with veterinary certificate provided by the Consignor in conformity with standards established by the American Association of Equine Practitioners (A.A.E.P.) showing her to be either (1) pregnant, in the opinion of the examining veterinarian, based on appropriate examination within ten (10) days prior to the date of sale, or (2) not pregnant, but suitable for mating in the opinion of the examining veterinarian based upon appropriate examination within ten (10) days prior to the date of sale.
"Suitable for Mating," as defined by Keenland, means that the mare has a uterus, ovaries, and cervix that are free from significant abnormalities and the mare is normal within reasonably normal limits as determined by rectal palpation and a speculum exam. The T&C makes clear that "Suitable for Mating" does not mean that the seller is certifying or warranting that the mare can or will become pregnant, and that if further tests would show something about the mare that renders her unsuitable for breeding, that would be on the buyer to discover prior to the sale. So, essentially, this would be like buying a used car where the seller tells you the car has an air conditioning system but does not warrant to you that the AC system necessarily will blow cold air. Since Kept True didn't have ovaries at all (at least based on what's been reported), she would not have met the definition of "suitable for mating." This would be like the car you bought not having an air conditioning system at all.
The reason there is a lawsuit is, per the T&C, the buyer has 24-hours from the end of the sale to ask to rescind the sale because the buyer's vet finds the mare is not as certified. (Had that happened, if the seller's vet disagreed, then Keenland would have appointed a 3rd party vet to arbitrate the dispute.) Since Kept True's buyer did not act quickly, there ended up being a lawsuit versus a simple recission of the sale.
I don't know Kentucky law, and I don't work with equines. However, I deal with warranty law a lot. Not exercising the right to rescind means a change in the damages. Had they moved to rescind within 24-hours, Kept True's buyer would have gotten their money back. Since they did not, their damages would be the difference between Kept True as warranted and how she actually is. In the case of the car, that would mean the price of installing an air conditioning system, essentially. In the case of Kept True, it would likely be her nominal value as a riding or companion horse versus her price as a potential broodmare.
