Short Arms, Long Speeches
Show Them the Money
Two of the biggest and most powerful organizations in the industry with significant payrolls are sitting on around 150 million while horses are starving, dying, and suffering, can we call ourselves The Sport of Kings?
It’s hard to digest that.
No independent media outlet has pressed the issue harder with The Jockey Club than Past the Wire. Not with whispers. Not with tweets. With an open letter, with an 18-month mandate, and with direct questions.
To date:
- No formal response to our open letter.
- No direct answers to the questions raised by Louis Masry and Westlake Stables.
- No meaningful engagement at the Eclipse Town Hall.
They did hire Charlotte Clement — and that’s a good hire. Credit where it’s due. But hiring one capable executive doesn’t answer structural questions.
Here’s the bigger one:
If it’s all about the horse, why are aftercare organizations still scrambling for hay money?
The Money No One Likes to Talk About
Publicly available nonprofit filings show that The Jockey Club and its affiliated entities control tens of millions in net assets. Depending on the year and reporting entity, figures in the $40–50 million range are not unreasonable.
The Breeders’ Cup Limited, by publicly filed Form 990s, has reported net assets approaching or exceeding $100 million in recent years. The Breeders’ Cup puts on a phenomenal event. World class. No dispute there. But let’s be honest about what “rainy day fund” means in a sport whose participants are flesh and blood animals.
When rescues are publicly posting:
- Emergency hay drives
- Vet bill fundraisers
- “We’re at capacity” pleas
… the rain is already falling.
So what exactly are we waiting for?
Aftercare: The Talking Point vs. The Reality
There are excellent people in this business who go above and beyond. Individuals. Trainers. Owners. Quiet donors. Boots-on-the-ground operators. But institutionally?
Aftercare remains largely dependent on:
- Voluntary donations
- Small per-start contributions
- Racing office add-ons
- Fundraisers
- And the same generous handful writing checks over and over
Meanwhile, we have centralized organizations sitting on significant reserves. Now let’s be clear here:
- Nonprofits are legally allowed — and often expected — to maintain operating reserves.
- Endowments and liquidity are prudent financial management.
- Boards have fiduciary duties to protect long-term viability.
All true.
But fiduciary duty does not equal moral insulation. If you publicly position yourself as steward of the breed and guardian of the sport, optics matter. Alignment matters. Proportionality matters. More importantly the horses matter as do those who rescue and care for the discarded, hurt, or just sometimes slow ones.
The Unanswered Question
How much would aftercare be stabilized by:
- A structured, recurring percentage allocation from major event revenues?
- A defined annual contribution formula tied to net asset thresholds?
- A matching program funded from reserve growth rather than operating budgets?
We’re not talking about draining coffers. We’re talking about meaningful participation. Even 3–5% of excess annual surplus from entities sitting on nine-figure reserves could materially stabilize multiple accredited aftercare groups. That’s not rhetoric. That’s math.
The Repole & Cummings Funding Model — Ignored
Mike Repole and Pat Cummings didn’t just criticize. They floated ideas — including more formalized funding mechanisms. Agree or disagree with Repole on other matters, dismissing the funding conversation entirely is harder to defend. Silence may be strategic. But silence also looks like avoidance. I would find it humorous if it wasn’t sad they are continually asked for more of their plans when the one they offered would up in the trash bin without being circulated.
Hoarding vs. Stewardship
No one is accusing anyone of illegality. No one is denying that The Jockey Club and the Breeders’ Cup operate within nonprofit frameworks. But!
But perception matters.
When:
- Aftercare groups are begging publicly
- Industry leadership talks compassion fatigue
- The phrase “for the betterment of the breed” is repeated often
… yet tens of millions sit largely untapped, people start asking uncomfortable questions.
And they should. Because if this truly is “all about the horse,” then the horse should not be dependent on Facebook fundraisers once his earning days are over.
Short Arms and Long Speeches
Here’s where I’ll say it plainly. It is time to get over the short arms and write a check.
Not a symbolic check.
Not a press-release check.
A structural, recurring, meaningful check.
The kind that changes the landscape, not the headline. Because rainy day funds are defensible — until the barn roof is leaking.
The Broader Accountability Issue
This isn’t just about money. It’s about engagement.
- Answering open letters.
- Responding to owner coalitions.
- Participating directly in public forums.
- Addressing aftercare funding transparently.
If you’re going to claim stewardship of the breed, you don’t get to selectively engage. Leadership requires showing up.
The Question That Matters
Can anyone — with a straight face — look at:
- Struggling rescues
- Fundraising pleas for basic care
- Horses exiting a shrinking industry
… and say the current funding structure reflects “it’s all about the horse”?
Many individuals are doing their part. Institutions need to do theirs. Because at some point, “rainy day fund” starts sounding less like prudence and more like hoarding — especially when the horses we claim to love are the ones standing in the storm or the kill pen.
And that’s not an attack. That’s a question. One that deserves an answer.
This is the answer:
