What will happen to Curlin?

Question

Now that 2 of his Co-Owners have been indicted on wire fraud charges, what do you suppose will happen to Curlin? I feel so bad for this horse, trainer and other owners! First a greedy bank (Fifth Third Bank) tried to grab him, and now who knows who is going to jump in on this? The plantiffs in the Fen-Phen case (some 400 of them) now may own a piece of him!

Do you think this will interfere with his training? I am so looking forward to seeing him run in The Haskell or The Travers.

Answer 1

If the trainer is worth his salt then he wont let this interfere with the horses training schedule. At the end of the day he has to do what is best for the horse.

Answer 2

no those jankey owners will sell him to a friend and low-key still run the operation, he will finish out the year running in grade 1 races and make each race a thriller...c/ya in the breeders cup..baby

Answer 3

It's in the best interests of the plaintiffs who may have a monetary claim against the two co-owners to keep Curlin in training and to try to get him as many stakes wins/placings as possible.  I'm sure the judge who rules on any motions regarding the horse is going to see it that way.  

(For those who are unfamiliar with the issues involved, this is a link to a news article about it:  http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/horse/n...

FWIW, Jess Jackson and Satish Sanan, who are two of the partners in the horse, are very savvy individuals with extremely sharp lawyers available to represent their interests.  Both Jackson and Sanan have been involved in legal battles with people who they contend shortchanged them in bloodstock deals.  I'm sure that both Jackson and Sanan knew when they put the deal together to buy an interest in the horse that there might be issues arising from the legal problems the sellers were having (heck, Jackson and Sanan probably knew that the legal problems of the sellers were what made them open to an offer on the horse).

I don't think there's much chance of the legal issues here keeping the horse from racing.

Answer 4

I think Curlin will be fine--he would be a good horse to stud.  It is a shame about the owners, but this horse is here to stay.  I loved it when Robby won with him--Albarado lives here in Louisville.  You can find out a lot about Curlin by either googling him as Curloin or type in Robby Albarado.  Good Luck--I love this horse, too.

Answer 5

What is a wire fraud charge?

Curlin....he won the Preakness Stakes, right? I watched it on youtube. I doubt it will interfere with his training...a dominant owner will probably make him train the way he wants him to train.

Answer 6

i didn't hear of this!!! omg, my poor baby! they better not mess this horse up cuz if they do then i'll mess them up!

but for the training, Curlin? messing up in training? yea.... don't think this horse is ever funny wen it comes to training he loves wut he does and does what he luvs... RACE!!

i luv this horse to death

-mel

Answer 7

In the short term probably nothing.  It would be harmful to all parties to cease his racing career because the ownership issue needs to be sorted out.  If there is a challenge, the court will probably put the ownership in a trust and put a hold on all earnings and breeding fees or sales.  The court could order that the dissolution of ownership be handled in a private auction, but the more likely scenario is that the trust will handle his retirement to stud.  This is going to be a LONG court battle, but I hope that in the end the judge vacates the sale to Sanan, Jackson, et al and gives all of the money to the plaintiffs.  I am not a lawyer, but that is what I would do ;)

Answer 8

who really cares- it is a horse and only a horse

Answer 9

A similar thing happened to Great Hunter and it resolved right before the Bluegrass.  The previous owners had used GH as collateral on a loan, then they defaulted on the loan, so the bank wanted GH...  then they asked Keeneland to save any money that GH won in the Bluegrass and give it to the bank to pay off that loan.  But the owners and the bank settled right before the race.  Which is sort of disappointing because that means the owners paid some money to the bank and GH hasn't won since that day...  and now he's hurt and won't run for months.

As for Curlin, I think that the 2 owners who are left need to take some of his preakness winnings and pay it to the 2 indicted owners.  That way the 2 owners can own all of Curlin.  People can go after the indicted co-owners and get some of the Preakness winnings, but they wouldn't be able to get to the horse.

I agree with newmarketsalsa...  the trainer shouldn't let it affect the horse.  even if the owners are all fighting, it should not affect the way that the trainer works with the horse.  The trainer works with many horses throughout the day and he's not going to let it affect all of the other horses, and Curlin should be no different.

Curlin himself wouldn't have any idea that anything was wrong, so he should run exactly the same.  the only thing that could affect him is if someone comes and acts all nervous around him...  mainly the trainer, but also if an owner comes in.  The person can make the horse nervous, but the trainer should be able to distance himself from the problems enough to work with the horse and if the owners are all upset, they should just stay away from the horse if they can't act calm when they see him.

As for the Fen Phen case itself...  [first of all, i don't know how Curlin actually fits in to the case...  i don't know how the owners were related to the case...  so this is my general take on the Fen Phen case, not geared towards Curlin]...  So these people took a drug that they thought was tested and wouldn't hurt them...  then it really did hurt them...  and it was pretty serious...  it wasn't like coughing and sneezing, it's heart disease.  So why shouldn't those people get compensated for that?  The drug should have been tested before it was given to people...  and if it's going to cause heart disease, it shouldn't have been given to people at all.  Wouldn't you want to be compensated?  I mean if your doctor prescribed something and you took it, then you develop heart disease and have all these hospital bills...  should you go bankrupt because of all those bills or should the people who gave you the drug go bankrupt?  I don't think those people are being greedy...  they just want to have the same position that they had before they developed heart disease.  If that means that they get to own part of a TB racehorse, then that's what it means.

The FenPhen case was long enough ago that I didn't really follow it, so i didn't know about the cheating people out of money thing.  I figured that my approach to lawyers wouldn't be extremely popular, but I think it's true...  everyone's all negative about lawyers, but when that person is actually injured severely enough to need a lawyer, they want every penny they can get too.  Certainly not all lawyers are the pillar of morality...  you'll be unable to find a profession where there's no individuals who manipulate the business for their own ends.  But there's many more lawyers doing good than the few who do bad...  it's just that bad lawyers draw more attention than the good.  My answer was referring to the ordinary tort action...  since I was unaware of the wire tapping and the cheating people out of money issue, my answer doesn't really fit the situation which seems to be much more grave than the ordinary mass tort.  But in ordinary circumstances, I cannot condemn the common man and his lawyer for fighting the big business who injured the common man because of their carelessness.  And I fail to see why so many people think that's a bad thing.