PDA

View Full Version : No more tat searches...petty people



tirnanog
Jan. 15, 2008, 06:09 PM
Due to someone getting there britches in a bunch over me supplying people with tatoo searches, I am no longer able to do that. Someone notified my resource that I was doing this outside of my job and was asked not to anymore.
I still have access to the info (it’s part of my job) I can’t do it for anyone else. I’m amazed at how petty some people can be. The info supplied was only helpful to the horse and owner. But someone who pays for the service just couldn’t stand that people were getting their info for nothing
I’m sorry for the horses that may never get identified and their connections. I hope the others who have supplied the info are able to continue to do so

Ishi
Jan. 15, 2008, 06:23 PM
I am so sorry that happened. I can't thank you enough tirnanog for finding out who the new gelding I got in was. He didn't come with papers, no history, someone bought him and sent him here to be started. Now we all know who he is and it's just really comforting. The owner was told he was a Two Punch baby but who knows, without that tattoo. That was just awesome what you did for us and the horse! I am just really sorry that someone was so petty.

Thank you again!

maxxtrot
Jan. 15, 2008, 06:51 PM
ditto, thank you so much for helping us all. what a shitty thing to do to you.you are just trying to help the horses!

minnie
Jan. 15, 2008, 06:54 PM
Takes all kinds, doesn't it? Gotta feel pity for someone so miserable within their own skin and so jealous that someone has or can get something they can't that they have to be hateful and lash out at someone they don't even know. Was your providing this information to an individual harming the informant in some way? Taking something out of their pocket? No, I certainly don't think so. Sure would hate to be the informant and have to look at myself in the mirror every morning.

texang73
Jan. 15, 2008, 06:54 PM
Due to someone getting there britches in a bunch over me supplying people with tatoo searches, I am no longer able to do that. Someone notified my resource that I was doing this outside of my job and was asked not to anymore.
I still have access to the info (it’s part of my job) I can’t do it for anyone else. I’m amazed at how petty some people can be. The info supplied was only helpful to the horse and owner. But someone who pays for the service just couldn’t stand that people were getting their info for nothing
I’m sorry for the horses that may never get identified and their connections. I hope the others who have supplied the info are able to continue to do so

That sucks! What kind of petty person would want to get you into trouble for being nice? That's just stupid... :mad:

2ndyrgal
Jan. 15, 2008, 07:07 PM
Not to pee in anyone's cheerio's here but tatoo lookups through the JC (whatever they call the website now) are just not that expensive. Yes, it's nice to be the hero, but yes, all us regular people have to shell out our $5 or $10 for the information on tatoo, name, pedigree, whatever. It's just not that much. I actually wondered how someone that didn't work for the JC had "free" access to that information. I don't think that if in the course of someone's employment, they have access to information, not available to the general public for free, that it should be "given away" no matter how well intentioned a reason. Anyone with access to this bb also can access the JC information system. Doing it all under the onus of "helping poor horses and owners" doesn't really fly. Nice to know what old suchafuss did while racing and who his daddy was, but it's not a life or death matter, and it apparently is proprietary information that the JC compiles, maintains, and expects to be compensated for regurgitating. I always thought that a tat lookup and pedigree should be free, but apparently the JC doesn't and they do have administrative costs for maintaining this data base. It would be a bit like going to an apple orchard after hours, picking apples that don't belong to you and taking them to your barn and giving them to all your friends. Sure, THEY think you are wonderful, but the apple guy doesn't like it much. So it isn't really about someone with their panties in a wad, it's about not doing something that you really aren't supposed to be doing in the first place. If you worked for my company, under our corporate policy, you'd be terminated.

Calamber
Jan. 15, 2008, 07:52 PM
Well, I guess we figured out who just "couldn't stand for it", on ethical grounds of course.:no: BTW. the search is for either $35 or $50, not $5 or $10 and I don't think you need to back up your displeasure because of the poor Jockey Club needing to be paid because of "administration" fees. This service could and should be made available to the general public since all of the original fees to document this were paid by the owner/breeders in any case. Entering them into a database is done at the time of registration and the Jockey Club holds a monopoly on this information. Not that I recommend the Robin Hood approach, but really, do you think they were being robbed?

2ndyrgal
Jan. 15, 2008, 08:01 PM
It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, really, except that the OP was griping about her employers not letting her use her access to company information to do freebee searches for her bb buddies. She could have just said "hey, I got caught, can't do it anymore", but no, she has to tell everyone how "wronged" she is and how hateful and petty people are being because she is giving information away that isn't supposed to be free. She got a warning, which was fortunate. There are places that are not so forgiving.

caffeinated
Jan. 15, 2008, 08:04 PM
Actually I agree with 2ndy...

It's really not that hard to call up the people with that information and get the research done. I've done it twice, both times when I was a teenager with no income, LOL

It sucks, but there is a system, it's not that hard or expensive to use. It seems that if you have access to a system that usually costs money, and are giving the info out, you are undermining the people you work for (or however it is you have access to that information). It's basically a database, and it's owned by certain people- so giving it out for free is cheating them, IMO.

It's like me working for the agency I work for. I'd be fired for giving out information outside the regulated channels (if not prosecuted). Of course I get asked all the time if I can provide certain info- and it might be "nice" of me to do so, but highly unethical.

It was nice of you, but honestly isn't it sort of unethical? I dunno. I didn't care enough about it to "report you" or anything, and maybe I'm biased by my own workplace rules, but... *shrug*

Calamber
Jan. 15, 2008, 08:12 PM
As I said the only reason the Jockey Club "owns" the information is because it has already been paid for, after all, all we are talking about is being able to identify a horse. It does not give you the ownership of the horse or anything else. They monopolize information, but I suppose that goes with the new ideology of the "Information Age". Not really helping out the horses are they? I do not see her committing some ethics violations to simply tell someone who their horse is, the principle reason for the database is to promote the integrity of the Thoroughbred bloodlines and maintain the honesty of the industry as far as racing/breeding/showing. But some people just do not have such a charitable outlook. Sorry that someone believed this to be such a problem that they had to tattle to her employer.

minnie
Jan. 15, 2008, 08:49 PM
Personally, I have a lot of heartburn with the way the jockey club does business in the first place. The fees to register are exorbitant, $200. to register a foal, $550. to register a yearling, $750 to register a 2 year old - and I think something like $2k for an older horse???? Give me a break! Why on earth should the fees be THAT much more expensive for an older horse. And what do you get for this money, what kind of service? NADA! I lost a mare several years back and learned she had 2 full sisters. I tried to get the name of the last owner of record from the jockey club. They don't divulge that information, "not their job". DUH! I bought her race record, tracked down the last listed trainer who gave me the name of the owner who told me she'd been sold to "somebody" from Tennessee to breed paints. So, I contacted the paint horse association, gave them the name of the mare and asked for any progeny and who the breeder would be. They gave me the breeder's name, town and state, names of the foals she'd had and enough pertinent information I was able to track her down, contacted the owners and bought her. And I wasn't even a paying member! And their registration fees are a fraction of the thoroughbreds. I have, on occasion, had to jump through hoops to get a foal registered and had to jump through hoops to get one named. If I'm not mistaken, all that information is on a computer, how much administration fees can it be to type in a tattoo number and find a freakin' name???????? And I really don't have a problem at paying $10. or so for an answer, but $35.? Give me a break. So, if someone who works there wants to do something as innocuous as providing a name to match a tattoo to some new owner, sure isn't any skin of my nose. Might even be a money maker for the jockey club as they might then pay for the race record for said horse which is substantially cheaper than tracking down a tattoo. So, yeah, I think whoever reported op was being a little petty.

2ndyrgal
Jan. 15, 2008, 09:09 PM
The Jockey Club has very high standards, and much like logging on to websites to do research on individuals, some information is free and some information you have to pay for. Was it petty for someone to narc on the OP, maybe, but the fact remains that if you have access to information that is not supposed to be made available for free and you give it away, just because you can, then you are wrong. This is black and white. Not gray. It does not keep anyone from knowing "who" their horse is. It keeps them from finding out for "free". Nice? Maybe not, but considering the scope and amount of records the JC keeps, should we just presume it doesn't have any overhead? And someone, is PAYING the OP for whatever job it is she does. I guess if she were a nurse and you wanted to find out where your low life ex husband was so you could get your child support check, she'd just access his medical records and let you know where he lives and where he works now. And who else is on his insurance. It isn't really any different, the reason for needing to know information does not outweigh the fact that the dissemination of it was wrong.

Calamber
Jan. 15, 2008, 09:22 PM
This is a horse not a person, very poor comparison. High standards? I think it is purely a money making proposition. The owner of a horse has to pay them to identify their own horse. That is a high standard? This is a silly debate, the Jockey Club is notorious for it's outrageous fees, pure and simple. It is as bad as the AKC and just about as helpful to the animals. Perhaps she did not exercise good judgement but she was not doing so to make herself "heroic", she just thought it was a decent thing to do. How cynical can you get.

luvmytbs
Jan. 16, 2008, 07:30 AM
And I would bet, that petty person accesses COTH and other internet sites, while he/she is at work. That's a no-no too. :confused:

SleepyFox
Jan. 16, 2008, 08:13 AM
I think the point here is that, regardless of how one feels about the OP's actions, it does seem a bit overboard to potentially negatively impact someone's career over something fairly minor they are doing on a BB.

To the OP, I'm sorry and I hope it didn't cause any problems for you.

I've always found the JC reasonable for fees, dealing with, etc. Now, the AQHA - that's a ripoff IMO. ;) I think it's just what you're used to. The JC has a slightly different mindset than some of the other registries. They encourage horses to be registered early to prevent people from only registering horses just prior to racing. Also, despite being the breed registry, it really is a race-oriented registry - hence the spinoff of the PHR. Their system works really well for what it is designed for - but, admittedly is not so user-friendly for OTTB owners.

Sabovee
Jan. 16, 2008, 08:38 AM
I think it's incredibly petty that someone "reported" you.

The JC tattoo look up is more expensive than it needs to be.

Thanks for you help with tattoo look up in the past.

caffeinated
Jan. 16, 2008, 09:01 AM
I'm not saying it wasn't nice or helpful, but isn't it essentially stealing?

Yeah, someone may have been "petty" in reporting it, but honestly now, you got asked to stop because you were doing something wrong (nice, helpful, but wrong). It's like blaming the cops for pulling you over when you were the one speeding in the first place.

tirnanog
Jan. 16, 2008, 09:26 AM
I actually wondered how someone that didn't work for the JC had "free" access to that information.

I do NOT work for the Jockey Club, don't make ASSumptions.



I don't think that if in the course of someone's employment, they have access to information, not available to the general public for free, that it should be "given away" no matter how well intentioned a reason.


Why not?



Doing it all under the onus of "helping poor horses and owners" doesn't really fly.


Why not, what's the problem?




Nice to know what old suchafuss did while racing and who his daddy was, but it's not a life or death matter,


Sometimes it is.



and it apparently is proprietary information that the JC compiles, maintains, and expects to be compensated for regurgitating.


I suppose the Jockey club does, but since I don't get my info from them, how does that apply?




It would be a bit like going to an apple orchard after hours, picking apples that don't belong to you and taking them to your barn and giving them to all your friends.


Not at all...I have complete permission to pick all the apples I want, whenever I want. The apples are there for me to use for the sole purpose of identifying those apples and occasionally share that info.
The problem came about because of 1 disgruntled person/s who couldn't stand that they BOUGHT there apples and and subsequently told the farmer that they didn't think it was fair and I shouldn't be allowed to share my apples.
Hence, the new policy is to not share the apples.
IT ONLY TAKES ONE BAD APPLE TO RUIN IT FOR EVERYONE ELSE.



So it isn't really about someone with their panties in a wad, it's about not doing something that you really aren't supposed to be doing in the first place.

Another false ASSumption. Let me reiterate, NO ONE, not the farmer, not my boss, not the program from which I get my info, had a problem with me sharing the info until someone made a stink about it.


If you worked for my company, under our corporate policy, you'd be terminated.

Thank God I don't work for your company.

flyingchange
Jan. 16, 2008, 09:34 AM
The Jockey Club has very high standards, and much like logging on to websites to do research on individuals, some information is free and some information you have to pay for. Was it petty for someone to narc on the OP, maybe, but the fact remains that if you have access to information that is not supposed to be made available for free and you give it away, just because you can, then you are wrong. This is black and white. Not gray. It does not keep anyone from knowing "who" their horse is. It keeps them from finding out for "free". Nice? Maybe not, but considering the scope and amount of records the JC keeps, should we just presume it doesn't have any overhead? And someone, is PAYING the OP for whatever job it is she does. I guess if she were a nurse and you wanted to find out where your low life ex husband was so you could get your child support check, she'd just access his medical records and let you know where he lives and where he works now. And who else is on his insurance. It isn't really any different, the reason for needing to know information does not outweigh the fact that the dissemination of it was wrong.

:sleepy::sleepy::sleepy::sleepy::sleepy:

You are a real wanker.

tirnanog
Jan. 16, 2008, 09:41 AM
Jan. 15, 2008 07:01
PM2ndyrgal
It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, really, except that the OP was griping about her employers not letting her use her access to company information to do freebee searches for her bb buddies. She could have just said "hey, I got caught, can't do it anymore", but no, she has to tell everyone how "wronged" she is and how hateful and petty people are being because she is giving information away that isn't supposed to be free. She got a warning, which was fortunate. There are places that are not so forgiving


I wouldn't call it "griping", just stating a heartfelt fact.

Can I just say that you are an idiot.
I didn't get "caught" doing anything. IT'S WHAT I DO!!! The only wronged person here is the one who would like to know who there horse is and can't afford to do multiple searches when they're not sure about the tat.
I DIDN'T GET A WARNING....A new policy has been implemented to not share the info,which is at my fingertips,because of some stingy, cold hearted, jealous moron.
But that is life... It only take one jerk to ruin for everyone.


DO NOT BEGIN TO PRETENT YOU KNOW WHAT MY COMPANY'S POLICY IS.

vineyridge
Jan. 16, 2008, 02:34 PM
I've been on here long enough to remember when anyone with a JC account could get tattoo numbers cross-referenced from the JC database. Then the JC found out that people were able to get free look-ups, and, BOOM, they shut down access for the public. That's how I got D done back in 2001 or 2002. I posted pictures of his tattoo, and someone here looked up the numbers. Sometimes, it would take several tries, since (of course) the sex and color were part of the description, but it was often done.

The JC DOES NOT need the tattoo search money. It's an infinitesmal source of income for them, and they are not the easiest to deal with or the most accurate or dogged in their searches. For the money, if one has to pay, I'd say boycott the JC and use the TRPB service. At least they are customer friendly and fast.

2ndyrgal
Jan. 16, 2008, 02:46 PM
I don't PRETEND to know what your company policy is. I don't know who you work for, I did not ASSUME anything, I was fairly certain in fact, that you didn't work for the JC. I'm not an idiot. If, in the course of your employment, you have access to information that either your company has to pay to access (and they do pay you) or other people have to pay for you to access, then you should not give it away. You are either working on non compay business on company time, or giving away something that someone does not really intend for you to give away. It does not matter if the JC charges too much and does an ineffective job. It is probably never a matter of life and death, really. It's not like Dobbin has to find his mother to get a kidney or something. I'm not an idiot (nice argument by the way, you should have used something appropriate like b**ch, that would be much more accurate). What matters is that someone complained, which means you should have either found out a way to get your employer or the JC to let you do free favors for EVERYONE, or they asked you to knock it off. But since you can pick all the apples you want and you didn't get a warning, and you are absolutely morally right, then just keep doing the lookups, after all, it's just someone else's information, and company time right????

hitchinmygetalong
Jan. 16, 2008, 02:58 PM
If you think the cost of a tattoo search is high, try replacing two sets of Jockey Club papers that were sent via certified, INSURED mail. That the USPS most inconveniently "misplaced" for three months. The two horses in question had been entered in a sale so the papers needed to be replaced asap ($$$$$). Three months later, the original papers finally showed up at their destination. USPS would not pay the replacement cost because even though the papers were sent "insured" they do not insure paperwork. Very expensive lesson.

As far as the situation with the OP:

If I go to the grocery store to buy milk, and a friend of mine who works there says, "Don't bother buying it, I can give it to you free" --- well, there is a word for that.

Same deal here. Doesn't matter if the information has already been "paid for" by the breeder/owner - they are actually paying The Jockey Club to store that information. The information is OWNED by The Jockey Club.

Barnfairy
Jan. 16, 2008, 03:00 PM
Hey.

You know what's worse than the racing forum being inundated with requests for tattoo searches?

-People arguing about tattoo searches, that's what.

Let's all move on, shall we? Please?

Sing Mia Song
Jan. 17, 2008, 01:08 PM
I always wondered (and no, I did not squeal on you) if the database that is made available to the tracks is done so under a contract that specifies that it is only to be used for the purpose of identifying racing interests. If it does, then, sorry, you were using the information inappropriately.

I work for the government. Every time I sign on to a government computer, I have to click "OK" to a pop up that says I won't use the information I glean for personal business. Doing so is grounds for dismissal. Period.

While I would love for the JC to lay open its books for all to see, the fact remains that it's their information, they generated the database and hired the manpower to generate and maintain it. Therefore, it's within their rights to charge what they feel the market will bear.

tirnanog
Jan. 17, 2008, 02:28 PM
I always wondered (and no, I did not squeal on you) if the database that is made available to the tracks is done so under a contract that specifies that it is only to be used for the purpose of identifying racing interests. If it does, then, sorry, you were using the information inappropriately.

I work for the government. Every time I sign on to a government computer, I have to click "OK" to a pop up that says I won't use the information I glean for personal business. Doing so is grounds for dismissal. Period


If, in fact, there is/was any type of contract, written or otherwise, stating that the info ,which is at my disposal, is to be used for the sole interest of my employers, and I was sharing that info outside of the workplace, than I would agree whole heartedly that the info was used inappropriately.
There are no pop ups to click ok on, no verbal or written statements regarding which animals are allowed to be identified. I have done this job for over 10 years in several different states from the East coast to the mid west and I have NEVER been told not that my employer is to be the sole recipient of the info.
Not until some petty entity made a stink about it. Now and only now, has it been "suggested" to limit the tatoo searches.

Freebird!
Jan. 17, 2008, 02:55 PM
I don't PRETEND to know what your company policy is. I don't know who you work for, I did not ASSUME anything, I was fairly certain in fact, that you didn't work for the JC. I'm not an idiot. If, in the course of your employment, you have access to information that either your company has to pay to access (and they do pay you) or other people have to pay for you to access, then you should not give it away. You are either working on non company business on company time, or giving away something that someone does not really intend for you to give away. It does not matter if the JC charges too much and does an ineffective job. It is probably never a matter of life and death, really. It's not like Dobbin has to find his mother to get a kidney or something. I'm not an idiot (nice argument by the way, you should have used something appropriate like b**ch, that would be much more accurate). What matters is that someone complained, which means you should have either found out a way to get your employer or the JC to let you do free favors for EVERYONE, or they asked you to knock it off. But since you can pick all the apples you want and you didn't get a warning, and you are absolutely morally right, then just keep doing the lookups, after all, it's just someone else's information, and company time right????


I don't think that is a very good comparison since, what Tirninog was "giving away" was not a material item like....apples. I think what she did would be like a vet offering advice here on COTH, or a Dr. unofficially looking at a patient.

Besides, it sounds like it wasn't that her company had issues with her doing tattoo searches - since I know that she has helped CANTER and many OTTB's in the past by the info she has obtained - they just wanted to keep the masses happy.


Anyway, Tirnanog thanks for all that you do!

tirnanog
Jan. 17, 2008, 03:44 PM
If I go to the grocery store to buy milk, and a friend of mine who works there says, "Don't bother buying it, I can give it to you free" --- well, there is a word for that.



If you want to compare apples to apples then this would be a more accurate scenario:

You go to farmer Joe's dairy farm and ask anyone and everyone who happens to be in earshot, if you could get a cup of milk because you have these kids at home who could benefit from some of the milk but you don't have the resources to buy a whole gallon of milk. And someone who happens to be milking one of the cows says "sure, here's a cup".

Then, the person who has been buying the gallons of milk every week, finds out that someone got a free cup of milk from one of Farmer Joe's milkers, calls farmer Joe quite irate says "you can't allow your milkers to give away the milk. I have to buy it, so should everyone else."

So Farmer Joe tells milkers to be more careful with whom you lend a helping hand.

There is a word for that too....

You people make it sound as though I have been soliciting business.
Someone asked a question, I was able to answer it.

What about the charts of a particular race or several races for that matter? When someone wants to know how a particular horse ran in a particular race and that info is posted, who's in violation there? Someone compiled that info also. Order of finish, who was where at any given point during the race, who rode, how many lengths in front or behind. Some people have to "buy" the Daily Racing Form" for that info.

Sources of info are endless and someone, somewhere puts it together.

There is nice and there is not nice. Everyone has a choice.

luvmytbs
Jan. 17, 2008, 06:18 PM
In the real world, there are always instances in which someone is offering information, that may have to be paid for or isn't easily accessible.

What's the big deal?

It's not like we are talking about insider trading or homeland security here.

tirnanog
Jan. 17, 2008, 07:41 PM
Touche, luvmytbs.

Hey does anyone know how to put the sign that would normally go above the "e" in the word "touche" on?

caffeinated
Jan. 17, 2008, 07:51 PM
hold down the alt key, and then hit 0223 on the numeric keypad.

Calamber
Jan. 17, 2008, 07:57 PM
Called accent grave. (pronounced grav) I did not know that about the alt 0223. Where the heck did you learn that? What can't you learn on COTH anyway?

Drvmb1ggl3
Jan. 17, 2008, 08:12 PM
That's way too much work, not to mention memorising.
Set your keyboard to international setting and all you have to do is hold down the Alt button with the letter you want to accent... áéíóúñßðøöüäþåæ

tirnanog
Jan. 17, 2008, 10:37 PM
I tried the alt 0223 and this is what I got: ß - a pretty B. What is that by the way?

FalseImpression
Jan. 18, 2008, 01:38 AM
alt130 é accute
alt138 è grave
alt136 ê circomflex

free tip!!

Philosopher
Jan. 18, 2008, 04:03 AM
looks like the greek 'beta'

luvmytbs
Jan. 18, 2008, 08:14 AM
I tried the alt 0223 and this is what I got: ß - a pretty B. What is that by the way?

That's a "double s" in German.

Lady Counselor
Jan. 18, 2008, 09:37 AM
Due to someone getting there britches in a bunch over me supplying people with tatoo searches, I am no longer able to do that. Someone notified my resource that I was doing this outside of my job and was asked not to anymore.
I still have access to the info (it’s part of my job) I can’t do it for anyone else. I’m amazed at how petty some people can be. The info supplied was only helpful to the horse and owner. But someone who pays for the service just couldn’t stand that people were getting their info for nothing
I’m sorry for the horses that may never get identified and their connections. I hope the others who have supplied the info are able to continue to do so

What bothers me the most about this whole thing is that someone went to the trouble to find out who you are, and where you work, then CONTACTED THEM!
That is just so wrong on so many levels.
On other forums I frequent, harassing someone in the real world is a bannable offense.
Unless it's a matter of life or death, or someone has revealed themselves to be involved in a crime, it's a huge no-no to stalk, harass, or otherwise go after people like that. Especially if it involves someone's work.
This should have been settled on site, either between whomever did that and the OP, or through a moderator, NOT by contacting the workplace of the OP.
I don't care how justified the person felt in doing that. By going off-line, and contacting this person's workplace, you are guilty a much larger offense than any that may/may not have been done by the OP.

caffeinated
Jan. 18, 2008, 09:40 AM
if alt 0233 didn't work, just go to your character map.

On a windows computer, go to start -> programs -> accessories

It's either listed directly under accessories, or it's in "system tools"

It'll come up, you can find the letter/accent you want, and in the lower right hand corner of the window it will show the keystroke that produces it. I memorized a bunch of them years ago when I was writing a lot of french papers (and chemistry, because there are keystrokes for sub and superscripts too, and it was the quickest way for me to do it, since I type faster than I click).

my favorite, alt 0222 which makes this thing: Þ

FalseImpression
Jan. 18, 2008, 10:00 AM
I had read a previous thread where someone was being petty.... it is not hard to put the two threads together and get an idea of who could be responsible for this... I just found the thread, on page 2, with "tattoo" in the title!

Must have a lot of time on his/her hands!!!

caffeinated
Jan. 18, 2008, 10:10 AM
alt130 é accute
alt138 è grave
alt136 ê circomflex

free tip!!

huh, those work for me too. This may be too much for my brain, two ways to do the same thing, LOL... (been using 0232 and 0234 for the other two all this time...)

Calamber
Jan. 18, 2008, 10:11 AM
You know Lady Counselor, you have something there.:cool: Oh, and False Impression, thank you for the free tip, guess it has been too long since my high school French!

azbloodstock
Jan. 18, 2008, 10:30 AM
If, in fact, there is/was any type of contract, written or otherwise, stating that the info ,which is at my disposal, is to be used for the sole interest of my employers, and I was sharing that info outside of the workplace, than I would agree whole heartedly that the info was used inappropriately.
There are no pop ups to click ok on, no verbal or written statements regarding which animals are allowed to be identified. I have done this job for over 10 years in several different states from the East coast to the mid west and I have NEVER been told not that my employer is to be the sole recipient of the info.
Not until some petty entity made a stink about it. Now and only now, has it been "suggested" to limit the tatoo searches.

Just because there is no popup window or other disclaimer when signing in does not mean that it isn't in the user license for the program.
Do you have any idea the expense it takes to maintain corporate network and internet infrastructure? That is why the Jockey Club charges for a lot of their information. The information is their Intellectual Property and they control how and who has access and at what cost. The reality is that even if they tried to provide information on rescue horses for free it would quickly be abused by those individuals that although they can afford to pay are to cheap to.

Calamber
Jan. 18, 2008, 10:37 AM
Azb, she was referring to her employer, not the provider. As far as Intellectual Property is concerned, What? How can the history of breeding be considered any organization's Intellectual Property, just some Information Age type jargon. Even if people who could "afford" it accessed the information, believe me this is no financial drain. How do you suppose Studbooks are managed, they are not kept on lockdown to the general public. However, the bigger question is what Lady Counselor brought up. This dispute, if it can be called that, should have been settled by the aggrieved taking it to the Moderators, not finding out who Tiranog is, then finding out where that person worked, and then calling them, that is harrassment.

azbloodstock
Jan. 18, 2008, 11:12 AM
I know she was referring to her employer. My statement was more directed at the folks including her that think this information should be provided for free.

Intellectual Property is not just jargon. The Jockey Club goes to the expense and effort to collect the pedigrees and storing the information. There is nothing to stop you from creating your own databases and giving that information away for free if you wish.

Wonder how her employer would feel if they had gotten a bill from the JC for each of her freebies.

hitchinmygetalong
Jan. 18, 2008, 12:29 PM
What about the charts of a particular race or several races for that matter? When someone wants to know how a particular horse ran in a particular race and that info is posted, who's in violation there? Someone compiled that info also. Order of finish, who was where at any given point during the race, who rode, how many lengths in front or behind. Some people have to "buy" the Daily Racing Form" for that info.

Sources of info are endless and someone, somewhere puts it together.

There is nice and there is not nice. Everyone has a choice.

The chart of a race is free for seven days via either DRF or Equibase. Probably would be available longer but there's a limit to what can be made available via computer access - at some point you have to archive stuff. That chart gives you each horse's post position and their position at set points during the race. It will also give you a brief synopsis of the race.

After seven days, that same information is going to cost you.

An individual horse's past performance chart costs $5.00.

If my buddy wants a past performance chart for a horse they are thinking of buying, they can call me up and ask me if I would run it for them. My answer would be NO, as my employer has to pay for the service, and for me to run a PP for them would be stealing from my employer. $5 isn't worth losing my job.

grayarabs
Jan. 18, 2008, 04:29 PM
Tirnanog - I agree - what happened is petty. I am fairly sure you helped me ID a TB a couple of years ago - I searched - but cannot find the thread. The horse was a rescue - all we had was tattoo - he turned out to be Fort Miro. It was wonderful to know his name, his breeding, his age, his history. I think many of the horses you have researched have been rescues. How could anyone have a problem with that?

haligator
Jan. 18, 2008, 05:39 PM
Hi All,
I'm not going to take a stand either way on the main issue, as I have been on both sides of this particular fence and don't want to go there. But I think a big thank you is due to 'Tirnanog' for what she has done for so many. I don't think she needs to be scolded anymore.

Without wading too deeply into the fray I did want to say The American Paint Horse Association has high standards, too - it's why they are the fastest growing breed organization in North American (last I looked anyway). They respond to their members.

I've bred both Paints (yes, they have a wonderful racing program and even a Gelding Incentive Program so people are encouraged to geld and not breed something just because it is pretty) and TBs, putting me into a position to observe both groups. Hands down, the APHA people are just nicer and more helpful, and don't charge as much for their services as the JC (so saying this....I wonder if I will ever get a JC name I choose again).

(If you're wondering, I've bred TB MSW winners at Belmont, Philadelphia Park, and Penn National....my tally on Paint runners, no starters - no wins).

I had a name issue (a small change to the already paid for name) a few years ago with the APHA and I could actually call, talk to a human being, and fix the problem, yes, hard to believe - OVER THE PHONE. Customer service is job one for the APHA.

Now, there are some terrific people at the JC, but often I've felt like it is just a large corporation that doesn't care enough whether or not you use their services (I say this luckily never having had an ax to grind with the JC but I hear stories all the time from friends).

I mean, remember, this is the group that still won't accept AI fertilization because then people wouldn't ship their mares to the big farms in Kentucky (or Florida or New York or wherever) for long periods of board. Board equals money for the big players in the JC.

The Standardbred industry has been doing AI for years and the breed is stronger for it. Times have gotten faster and the breed is seeing more outcrossing (facts from Dr. Patrick Cunningham of Dublin University). (Dr. Cunningham is the gentleman that identified a fourth stallion to add to the three stated founding fathers of the TB breed - Darley Arabian, Goldolphin Arabian, and the Byerly Turk - the Curwen Bay Barb who is back in a lot of pedigrees and more common than one of the previous three stallions. Unfortunately, I can't remember which one.... But, the fiction continues all over that only three stallions are responsible for the TB breed - for some reason people have been reluctant to accept this information).

Hallie McEvoy
Racing Dreams, LLC

vineyridge
Jan. 18, 2008, 06:28 PM
Halligator--

Thanks for your post. It is possible to be a huge registry and provide decent customer service. I wish the JC could be reminded of that.

As to the Curwen Bay Barb being a founder, there is no doubt that thousands of modern day TBs have him multiple times in their pedigree. When people point back to the "big three", though, aren't they really only looking at tail male? Or Herod, Matchem and Eclipse in tail male? Every modern horse whose pedigree I've personally traced all the way back to the beginning has ended up tail male to Herod, Matchem or Eclipse. Of course, my personal research is only a drop in the hundreds of thousands of TBs that have lived over the years, and the hype may have warped my own brain. That's something I am certainly more than willing to admit.

There are actually over 300 different stallions who produced get that appear in the early days of the studbooks. Most of them have descendants--just not tail male today.

On the Farm
Jan. 18, 2008, 07:50 PM
When people here continue to spin these warped excuses (the JC's not friendly, they charge too much, the horse is a "rescue," the info has already "been paid for," etc.) to justify someone disseminating information when they had NO RIGHT to do so, then one can easily see why our society is heading down the tubes. Stealing is stealing, particularly when the issue at hand is something as insignificant and unimportant as the previous name of a horse.

Frankly, if $35 and a little legwork are too expensive and too time consuming for a horseowner to invest in this sort of endeavor, then I'd hate to see what other corner cutting goes on.

Calamber
Jan. 18, 2008, 08:03 PM
Just for the heck of it, I wanted to mention another somewhat unrelated matter concerning the "proud history" of the Jockey Club. Just finished the book by Ed Hotaling called "Wink" "The Incredible Life And Epic Journey Of Jimmy Winkfield". Absolutely astonishing what has been "written out" of the history of racing. I had never even heard a whisper about the 252 TB horses that he and others saved by riding and driving 1100 miles from Russia to Poland! Not to mention how the black riders were driven out of the country and had to ride in Europe. I guess that was not one of the things they wanted in their massive databases.:lol:

Drvmb1ggl3
Jan. 18, 2008, 08:19 PM
Just for the heck of it, I wanted to mention another somewhat unrelated matter concerning the "proud history" of the Jockey Club. Just finished the book by Ed Hotaling called "Wink" "The Incredible Life And Epic Journey Of Jimmy Winkfield". Absolutely astonishing what has been "written out" of the history of racing. I had never even heard a whisper about the 252 TB horses that he and others saved by riding and driving 1100 miles from Russia to Poland! Not to mention how the black riders were driven out of the country and had to ride in Europe. I guess that was not one of the things they wanted in their massive databases.:lol:

What has that to do with the American Jockey club? Did they drive riders out of the country? What exactly do the JC have to do with riders anyway? They register horses, not administer racing. If anything it has to do with the racist society that US was back then.

The people that are whining and bitching about the JC are mostly OTTB people with little or no interest in racing. The JC doesn't exist to please you, never has and never will. What does it matter what your OTTB raced 10 times in some no name claimer races at Penn Natl, you're don't own the horse for anything other than riding around a ring or doing some trail riding. Why should the JC change it's whole structure to please you? Give us a break. They exist first and foremost to register the +_ 35,000 TBs that are born in the US/CAN/PR every year, and secondarily to track their racing performance. The overwhelming majority of the tens of thousands of people involved with the breeding and racing of TBs seem to be happy enough with the job the JC do. Why should they bend over backwards to please some people with no interest in racing and breeding for racing?

Drvmb1ggl3
Jan. 18, 2008, 08:28 PM
I mean, remember, this is the group that still won't accept AI fertilization because then people wouldn't ship their mares to the big farms in Kentucky (or Florida or New York or wherever) for long periods of board. Board equals money for the big players in the JC.


You know, many people in the US seem to forget that the American JC does not exist in isolation. It is a signatory of an International Agreement with other TB studbooks around the world to not allow the registration of TB not conceived by live cover. It is not a decision that can make unilaterally, not without huge consequences.

Calamber
Jan. 18, 2008, 09:25 PM
"The Jockey Club, then and now, is dedicated to the improvement of Thoroughbred breeding and racing and it maintains a leadership role in numerous industry initiatives including the National Thoroughbred Racing Association (NTRA)". From the Jockey Club webpage.

Did something hit a raw nerve? I care whether or not nearly 50 - 100 years of racing history has been rewritten, do you? As for whether I care about racing or not, I spent close to 10 years as a hotwalker, groom, and assistant trainer. I care what has happened to this sport and to the horses that make it happen, which means I also care about the people involved. International Agreements! What a lark, you think they will not allow people access to their information without spending money because of an agreement? Remember, this is the same Jockey Club that would never allow until recently a horse to be registered as either white or black. I am just surprised you had to stoop so low to make your advertisement for the JC as to call those who would like change, "only those OTTB" people. :lol:

haligator
Jan. 18, 2008, 09:48 PM
First, thanks vineyridge!

1) From On the Farm: <<When people here continue to spin these warped excuses (the JC's not friendly, they charge too much, the horse is a "rescue," the info has already "been paid for," etc.) to justify someone disseminating information when they had NO RIGHT to do so, then one can easily see why our society is heading down the tubes. Stealing is stealing, particularly when the issue at hand is something as insignificant and unimportant as the previous name of a horse.>>

Although I did say the JC has some issues and can be but is not always unfriendly, I didn't comment on the other topic. I know all about stealing both hard property and intellectual properties (I'm an equine writer and I get ripped off every now and then) - and I'm an ex-cop and I don't condone it. But (and the key word is but) this story had a lot of gray areas so that is why I didn't comment. Plus, I felt a bit of a mob mentality was forming....

2)
The people that are whining and bitching about the JC are mostly OTTB people with little or no interest in racing. The JC doesn't exist to please you, never has and never will. What does it matter what your OTTB raced 10 times in some no name claimer races at Penn Natl, you're don't own the horse for anything other than riding around a ring or doing some trail riding. Why should the JC change it's whole structure to please you? Give us a break. They exist first and foremost to register the +_ 35,000 TBs that are born in the US/CAN/PR every year, and secondarily to track their racing performance. The overwhelming majority of the tens of thousands of people involved with the breeding and racing of TBs seem to be happy enough with the job the JC do. Why should they bend over backwards to please some people with no interest in racing and breeding for racing?

Are ya talkin' to me here? Because I'm both a breeder and owner of racing TBs, a member of TOBA, and as well I help place OTTBs. I care passionately about racing to the point I may not sleep tonight due to Evening Attire racing tomorrow! I've walked, groomed, galloped (I own real estate at Belmont's 3/8th pole), and now am a owner/breeder.

On the OTTB front, I do assist the Exceller Fund with helping retire and rescue TBs and finding then new jobs. I was once a USEF hunter and eq judge who loved watching OTTBs succeed in the show ring. Does that make me less knowledgable about track and farm life?

You'll have to pardon me for being sensitive tonight - I found out today that a wonderful TB I bred, The Bobcat (not his registered name) had to be put down (untreatable colic). He turned 7 on January 1 as all TBs do, but his actual birthday is a bit later.

Bobcat never made it on the track - unlike his brothers who all have wins at the MSW/Allowance level, he just wasn't cut out for track endeavors and I stopped his training when we realized he would be far happier being a show horse for a living. I didn't love him any less because he didn't race. I feel so terribly for young Gabriella his owner. Theire short time together found two kindred souls bonding and loving one another. I wish Bobcat and Gabriella had many more years together....

I sincerely apologize for misreading both your posts if I did.

Hallie

tirnanog
Jan. 19, 2008, 07:56 AM
I had read a previous thread where someone was being petty.... it is not hard to put the two threads together and get an idea of who could be responsible for this... I just found the thread, on page 2, with "tattoo" in the title!

Must have a lot of time on his/her hands!!!
__________________
www.FriendsofTBFriends.Com (http://www.friendsoftbfriends.com/)



That was my thought but after some of the posts on this thread, it's anybody's guess.


Interesting comments regarding Paints. I can look up their tatoos also. As well as Arabs, QH, Mules, Appaloosas.

I doubt there would have been such a stink over any of the other racing breeds but maybe I'm wrong about that.


As a TB breeder, I pay the JC to register my horse. Then 2 years later I pay another $50 - $60 to get that horse tatooed. The tatoo number is NOT new or additional registration information. I don't know what additional paperwork is done by the JC when a horse is tatooed since the tatoo number is the registration number minus YOB. And that number is issued at time of registration. So the additional money collected for tatooing goes to ??? And I do know how much per horse the tatooer gets out of that.

Not a complaint, just food for thought.

minnie
Jan. 19, 2008, 08:57 AM
It depends on what "is" is. Whether looking up the tattoos was right or wrong isn't really the point in my opinion. What is WRONG is that someone took it upon themselves, due to information on a bulletin board to contact someone's employer, in essence jeopardizing their job and livelilhood over something that was essentially not their business to do so. And obviously the intention was to get this person in trouble. Not only petty, but totally mean spirited. Before he/she reported this, did he/she contact Tirnanog via pm asking her to cease and desist looking up tattoos and if she didn't this person would be compelled to contact her employer? Oh, of course not, then he/she would no longer be anonymous, at least through a screen name. Tirnanog was not hurting anyone, whether what she was doing was right or wrong, but the person who took it upon themselves to "rectify the situation" did so with the full knowledge that she could potentially be hurting someone. If something's so important to you that you have to be the "holier than thou" person who reports this, than by all means have the balls to step up and take the credit for it.

On the Farm
Jan. 19, 2008, 08:58 AM
That was my thought but after some of the posts on this thread, it's anybody's guess.


Interesting comments regarding Paints. I can look up their tatoos also. As well as Arabs, QH, Mules, Appaloosas.

I doubt there would have been such a stink over any of the other racing breeds but maybe I'm wrong about that.


As a TB breeder, I pay the JC to register my horse. Then 2 years later I pay another $50 - $60 to get that horse tatooed. The tatoo number is NOT new or additional registration information. I don't know what additional paperwork is done by the JC when a horse is tatooed since the tatoo number is the registration number minus YOB. And that number is issued at time of registration. So the additional money collected for tatooing goes to ??? And I do know how much per horse the tatooer gets out of that.

Not a complaint, just food for thought.

When the JC starts using an all volunteer staff, the landlord donates the building, the power company gives free electricity, etc. etc. and etc., then maybe they can start providing registration, tatoo lookups, DNA verification, and everything else for free. I don't know what they do with their money, which is about as much as you know on the topic. However, let's say at a board meeting, the JC was brainstorming as to how they might fund other projects such as the Grayson research foundation. Maybe someone came up with the idea that since alot of folks want to find out about their retired racehorse's past, maybe the JC can provide tatoo identification for a REASONABLE fee, and then they can use those monies to do other good work for the industry.

Your logic sounds like those of boarders who only look at the costs associated with the immediate needs of their one horse and refuse to factor the fixed and variable overhead of the entire facility when complaining about their barn's day rate.

What you did was wrong and if you can't see that, then you evidently have looser code of ethics and morals than those which were instilled in me. I can't help you beyond that.

Sing Mia Song
Jan. 19, 2008, 09:27 AM
What is WRONG is that someone took it upon themselves, due to information on a bulletin board to contact someone's employer, in essence jeopardizing their job and livelilhood over something that was essentially not their business to do so. And obviously the intention was to get this person in trouble. Not only petty, but totally mean spirited. Before he/she reported this, did he/she contact Tirnanog via pm asking her to cease and desist looking up tattoos and if she didn't this person would be compelled to contact her employer?

Wait a second. How do we know this is the case? I mean, couldn't it be that someone else in her office stumbled upon this board and saw the tattoo requests and searches and decided to do something about it? Here's a thought: maybe it was someone who works for the Jockey Club. In which case, they'd be protecting their intellectual property.

Besides, from this post by the OP:


Now and only now, has it been "suggested" to limit the tatoo searches.

indicates that all is not lost, and that her employers don't mind the occasional giveaway tattoo search. If she wants to continue to fly under the radar, she can communicate by PT with people coming on this board and requesting tattoo lookups. Then no one is the wiser.

tirnanog
Jan. 19, 2008, 10:55 AM
On the farm - you have a very skewed view of what's right and wrong and a very large chip on your shoulder.

Since there have been several different interpretations posted on this thread, I will add one more so that you can possibly understand the situation.


Let's say I am a carpenter who works for a contractor building houses.
The contractor has provided me with the tools to build the houses. While in the process of building the houses, occasionally someone comes by and asks if I could cut a piece of wood for them. Of course, being a nice person, I say sure. A moment later the wood is cut, person is happy and I continue building house.
And over the years, I have cut several pieces of wood for several different people.
Now, along comes someone who has hired a carpenter with their own tools to cut wood for them. They find out that a few others have had their wood cut for free and get mad that they have not been the beneficiary of the random acts of kindness and contact the contractor for whom the carpenter works. After listening to this irate person's tirade, the contractor tells the carpenter to use discretion when using his tools on the job. In other words do what you must to "Shut that person up". And if it means no more cutting wood for strangers, than no more cutting wood for strangers.

JHUshoer20
Jan. 19, 2008, 11:10 AM
Due to someone getting there britches in a bunch over me supplying people with tatoo searches, I am no longer able to do that. Someone notified my resource that I was doing this outside of my job and was asked not to anymore.
I still have access to the info (it’s part of my job) I can’t do it for anyone else. I’m amazed at how petty some people can be. The info supplied was only helpful to the horse and owner. But someone who pays for the service just couldn’t stand that people were getting their info for nothing
I’m sorry for the horses that may never get identified and their connections. I hope the others who have supplied the info are able to continue to do so
Is just as well actually, that was getting a bit tiresome. Perhaps a sticky could be posted giving the necessary info to get tattoo searches through proper channels.

Everyone knows it's easy enough to do with payment of the necessary fee. people's trying to circumvent paying for the service was bound to get out of hand which it clearly did.

I too would vote for no more free tattoo info.
George

monicabee
Jan. 19, 2008, 11:17 AM
This is unfortunate because it encourages the person who went on the tirade to think they did the right thing because it was effective.

Kind of like when you step out of the way of a pushy horse.

The next person who is the focus of their frustration and spleen will face a greater challenge.

So I have to say although in many cases making things public is only benefiting the aggressor, I think Tiranog is doing the right thing by addressing the situation and letting us know.

If this person is in fact in an equestrian business, they have clearly misunderstood the importance of goodwill and reputation. They might have gotten their way in the short term, but sooner or later they will get their comeuppance. That or an ulcer.

Part of what makes researching TBs interesting is the way people do generally pull together to try to match them up with their past. It can be hard to justify spending $$ on researching a non-breeding animal (we all have a CFO somewhere in our lives who might say the money is better spent on the vet and farrier bills), and of course people turn to those who have access to information for free. This is the foundation of the BB, after all - the free exchange of ideas and information. Yes, we have to respect legalities, but as I understand it, there was no code of conduct broken here, government secrets revealed or confidental information disclosed. Its a shame this avenue has to be closed down.

On the Farm
Jan. 19, 2008, 11:53 AM
On the farm - you have a very skewed view of what's right and wrong and a very large chip on your shoulder.

Since there have been several different interpretations posted on this thread, I will add one more so that you can possibly understand the situation.


Let's say I am a carpenter who works for a contractor building houses.
The contractor has provided me with the tools to build the houses. While in the process of building the houses, occasionally someone comes by and asks if I could cut a piece of wood for them. Of course, being a nice person, I say sure. A moment later the wood is cut, person is happy and I continue building house.
And over the years, I have cut several pieces of wood for several different people.
Now, along comes someone who has hired a carpenter with their own tools to cut wood for them. They find out that a few others have had their wood cut for free and get mad that they have not been the beneficiary of the random acts of kindness and contact the contractor for whom the carpenter works. After listening to this irate person's tirade, the contractor tells the carpenter to use discretion when using his tools on the job. In other words do what you must to "Shut that person up". And if it means no more cutting wood for strangers, than no more cutting wood for strangers.

I just glanced at both shoulders, no chips to be found. I'll pose an easy question to you...what do I have a chip about? I also think my parents and grandparents instilled in me a very good sense of what's right and wrong, and I'm respected by my family, peers, and employer because of it.

Since you're wanting to now be a carpenter, let's look at your scenario another way. Say you cut pieces of lumber on the sly for a few folks. No biggie I guess, even though you're costing your employer extra money (a few moments here and there can add up.) Let's say a person who heard about your charity showed up at the job site and ran into the contractor/super (or maybe even the potential homeowner,) who is under the gun to finish a job. When asked why this person was on the job site, the reply comes back, "Oh I heard ol' Tiranog cuts a few boards for people and I have some 2x4s measured up for a home project." The contractor retains his/her cool and inquires about this person's project and then offers a quote for the work. "No thanks," says the person, "why should I pay you when ol' Tiranog wll do it for free and on your time and with your tools." Ouch.

From my perspective, you're letting the issue of someone ratting you out cloud the fact that what you were doing in the first place is the issue here. After all, your employer had the option to allow you to continue doing it, and they didn't. That should tell you something.

2ndyrgal
Jan. 19, 2008, 12:09 PM
well said otf. Time and tools are expensive. It's like my mechanics asking me if they can use my tools and my time to work on their own cars. Or their buddies cars. So they aren' doing the work for "free", it costs me money. Not for the parts maybe, but for the use of the tools and the time I'm paying them to be doing the job they are being paid to do. I'm sure that the OP was well intentioned, but she shouldn't be surprised that perhaps, though her employer simply asked her not to do any further searches, she may be enough of a valued employee that they simply expect her to now discontinue without getting snarky with her. Hey, I think ice cream should be free,to anyone under 6 that doesn't want to pay for it, but Dairy Queen doesn't. Because they spend money to keep all the ice cream in one place and keep it cold. And they pay for the little bowls it comes in and the spoons we eat it with. So it might very well be great public relations to give away free ice cream to all the little kids that come through the door, and if I'm a good employee they might just say, hey, I know you were just being nice, but we'd prefer that you not give away ice cream, after all, Timmy is only 7 and he can't get the free ice cream, so his mom is pissed, so just don't give anyone free ice cream anymore, OK?

tirnanog
Jan. 19, 2008, 01:26 PM
On the farm & 2ndyrgal -

Unless I've misunderstood, you both seem to think that somewhere along the lines, I've said that the info "should be free".

I can't find any post of mine that says the info "should be free".

My only complaint is about the "petty" person who complained.

When I go to the bank, the teller "gives" lollipops to kids and/or "give" dog treats for someones dog, I don't go to the bank owner complaining that I have to buy those lollipops when my children want one or I have to buy those dog treats when my dog wants one. Because, I know that if I really wanted one for my kids or dogs, they would probably give me one.

The ice cream store "gives" me a miniature cone for my dog.
I guess someone will complain about how much goes into making, marketing, packaging etc.. the company must pay therefore someone is "stealing".

Such is the problem with the world. Too many skeptics, not enough kind heartedness, too much "what about me" attitudes.

Like I said before, I'm not the one who's done anything wrong here. I feel sorry for those of you who can't smile when a horse gets his name back.

For all of you have accused me of stealing, doing something wrong, unethical, immoral, - let's have a group hug. You guys need a hug and I hope you come across some generous heart warming people in the course of your lives that will lighten you up.
A giving heart is a kind one.

On the Farm
Jan. 19, 2008, 02:18 PM
On the farm & 2ndyrgal -

Unless I've misunderstood, you both seem to think that somewhere along the lines, I've said that the info "should be free".

I can't find any post of mine that says the info "should be free".

My only complaint is about the "petty" person who complained.

When I go to the bank, the teller "gives" lollipops to kids and/or "give" dog treats for someones dog, I don't go to the bank owner complaining that I have to buy those lollipops when my children want one or I have to buy those dog treats when my dog wants one. Because, I know that if I really wanted one for my kids or dogs, they would probably give me one.

The ice cream store "gives" me a miniature cone for my dog.
I guess someone will complain about how much goes into making, marketing, packaging etc.. the company must pay therefore someone is "stealing".

Such is the problem with the world. Too many skeptics, not enough kind heartedness, too much "what about me" attitudes.

Like I said before, I'm not the one who's done anything wrong here. I feel sorry for those of you who can't smile when a horse gets his name back.

For all of you have accused me of stealing, doing something wrong, unethical, immoral, - let's have a group hug. You guys need a hug and I hope you come across some generous heart warming people in the course of your lives that will lighten you up.
A giving heart is a kind one.

Again, you're spinning bad analagies. You need to work on that. The bank or ice cream shop gives away freebies like that as their POLICY. They supply such items, or make allowances for that in their accounting. I also have a kind heart, just ask my family, friends, employees, and employers. That being said, I only give away what is mine and not something that belongs to someone else. I guess that's just going to be the difference between you and me.

luvmytbs
Jan. 19, 2008, 02:47 PM
tirnanog,

this is turning into something like the a thread on the topic of horse slaughter. No matter what you say, no matter how you try to explain something, the die-hards will come back and color you wrong.

I am sure you know how the majority here feels about this situation and we know who looks petty in this whole debacle. ;)

Albion
Jan. 19, 2008, 02:55 PM
Such is the problem with the world. Too many skeptics, not enough kind heartedness, too much "what about me" attitudes.

Like I said before, I'm not the one who's done anything wrong here. I feel sorry for those of you who can't smile when a horse gets his name back.

For all of you have accused me of stealing, doing something wrong, unethical, immoral, - let's have a group hug. You guys need a hug and I hope you come across some generous heart warming people in the course of your lives that will lighten you up.
A giving heart is a kind one.

A better analogy than the ones you picked out is controlled access to any other pay-to-use database. I have access to all sorts of fantastic electronic resources at my finger tips because my university pays for it. The companies that collect, digitize, and make available all those resources have deemed that someone, somewhere, has to pay for the privilege of using those resources. Should all of that be open access? Maybe. But it's not.

I can look up articles and snag the PDFs for free because the university pays for it. If you or someone else wants one of those articles, I could just send you my copy. Otherwise, you'd have to pay $X to get a copy. Sort of like how you have access to the JC database & could look up 1000 horses a day if you wanted to, in theory, but everyone else has to pay $35 a pop. I've 'broken' rules by sending on a PDF or two to friends, but I'm NOT doing it on a major BB for many people. Is it always 'fair'? Is it 'fair' that undergrads sometimes have to shell out dough for photocopied packets because those are the rules? After all, we could just scan them in for download, right? Well, we COULD, and we sometimes do when dealing with small enough chunks of information, but there are rules that govern ACCESS to materials and we have to abide by those.

The point is that the JC database, like JSTOR, is a controlled database that the company has deemed is pay-to-play. Like it or not, thems the rules. It has nothing to do with doggie treats that are given out as freebies and part of store policy.

I've met plenty of generous, heart warming people in my life & don't need a group hug. Regardless of whether YOU like it or not, the JC thinks their database needs to be a controlled resource and your employer apparently agrees. No different than thousands of other companies out there who make masses of information available at the click of a button - IF you (or someone you work for) is willing to pay for it. Fair? Maybe not. But until you're running the JC database and can make the rules, well, that's life.

grayarabs
Jan. 19, 2008, 03:24 PM
Years ago before the internet - a TB mare came into our barn - she was just lovely - I knew her name - wanted more info - called the JC - and for a very small fee they sent me a hard copy of her pedigree (Ole Miss Kappa).
There are TB's in the fast lane so to speak - breeders/races/ etc worth millions of dollars.
Then there are those of us that have nothing to do with the high end of the TB's - other than to watch them on TV. Usually we only come in contact with them when they are no longer racing - looking for homes -etc. Generally we are not rich - have nothing to gain money-wise by helping them - in a way we are taking care of many horses that have been thrown away - doing it on a shoe-string budget. I doubt that the big names TB folks are coming on here getting info because they heard it was free. I don't remember what it costs to have the JC run a tat check - per horse - $35? To me that is a bit steep - particularly when you are just trying to find an identity on a horse that fell on hard times - that you are trying to help. I asked on here some time ago for help with a tattoo - at the time I did not really even know how to get the info from the JC - just call them? online?
No idea what it even cost. I was just glad that someone on here could help me - it was exciting to get the info - for me - and I think Tir also loves to help the TB's get their identities. Really - what fun!!!! Lots of folks on here get excited when she has helped identify a horse - not just the person asking. It is fun solving a mystery and helping a
horse. Ah - but money is the bottom line. Thinking about this. Suffice to say I would rather ask Tir here - share with others the excitment of re-homing a TB than call the JC.
Regardless - the fees the JC and other breed organizations charge are really too high.
Curious - and not that it matters - what is the JC worth $-wise?

grayarabs
Jan. 19, 2008, 03:41 PM
Someone touched on this but in a different meaning I think - but it would be nice to pay a smaller fee for the research and have the money go to a fund for re-homing TB's.
I don't know - is the JC connected with the TRF or any other organizations involving ex racers? Is it already set up somewhere that some of the tattoo research money is
earmarked for assisting TB's in rescue/etc?

tirnanog
Jan. 19, 2008, 06:44 PM
this is turning into something like the a thread on the topic of horse slaughter. No matter what you say, no matter how you try to explain something, the die-hards will come back and color you wrong.

I am sure you know how the majority here feels about this situation and we know who looks petty in this whole debacle. ;)



You are right. I've had my fun. I really just wanted to see how they would turn those silly analogies around just to avoid acknowleging a kind deed. The lengths people will go to sometimes amazes me.

I do know how the majority of people feel about all this and I am grateful that so many people take in the ex racers and try to do the best for them.

Thank goodness there are alot more good people in the horse industry than bad but it's kind of fun calling out the nasties:winkgrin: .




This is unfortunate because it encourages the person who went on the tirade to think they did the right thing because it was effective.

Kind of like when you step out of the way of a pushy horse.

The next person who is the focus of their frustration and spleen will face a greater challenge.



You, too, are right. Unfortunately, it is unavoidable. These kind of people are firmly rooted in there position. It's a shame it comes at the expense of others. I wish they could just take the blinkers off and let the simple act of one person helping another be a positive experience for those involved. Some people simply must have something to complain about in their lives. It is the sole reason some people get up in the morning.

hitchinmygetalong
Jan. 20, 2008, 09:40 AM
One last question, tirnanog, if you don't mind.

We've all come to the conclusion that there is a fee for a Jockey Club tattoo search.

Who paid the fee for those tattoo searches you "gave away"?

grayarabs
Jan. 20, 2008, 01:22 PM
Someone mentioned getting tattoo info on other breeds. With Arabians - do you call AHA?
What do they charge?
The Arabian Registry has online info - I think you can pay for a day's research - month or
year. I am guessing the yearly fee is about $50. Day rate about $10.
During that time you can research unlimited horses. I have no idea if this is how you get tattoo info on them. Regardless - those fees are reasonable.
If I were a TB researcher - wanted unlimited access to info - is that even possible like with the Arab registry? - what would the annual fee be?

pandorasboxx
Jan. 20, 2008, 02:11 PM
Arabians that have raced are tattooed with their registration numbers. If you have the tattoo then you have their registration number and can look it up under the Datasouce.

The AHA Datasource has all registration information available online for all registered horses including the breeders, past owners, show and race results, any reported open show records, markings, freeze brand details, offspring and pedigree back to the earliest known desert ancestors. I'm uncertain if you can call the AHA office to get that info since its so readily available online and is a subscription service.

A year subscription is $75.00, a monthly subscription $24.95 and a one day is $9.95, all with unlimited searches. I have a yearly one.

Many people on the Arab forums regularly look up information for someone that doesn't have a subscription to the Datasource. Generally if one has a need for multiple lookups its more convenient to subscribe and save the hassle of asking. One or two times, everyone is happy to oblige.

It helps that Arab folks are very interested in pedigrees and love to help connect a horse to its heritage especially in rescue situations.

2ndyrgal
Jan. 21, 2008, 12:03 PM
T,
We never said you weren't a nice person and didn't do good deeds, help old people, small children and animals. We said it was wrong of you to get your knickers in a twist because someone complained about it. That said, I'm against welfare for people who think that making babies is a good enough reason to get a check. Yes, horses are expensive. If you seriously cannot afford the $35 that the JC charges you (and it's their sandbox, they can charge whatever they want) then you should probably rethink horse ownership to begin with. And really, while it's nice to know who the most recent "nonwinners of a ham sandwich" was back in the day, most of the time (geldings) it doesn't make any difference at all. Really. Ok, so you did a good thing and gave Dobbin a home. Ride him and enjoy him, you aren't racing him anyway, if you bought a mare and you want to breed her and she doesn't have papers, well, just don't, cause if she was worth breeding, you'd have the papers. If something was so unsuccessful at the track that someone in the industry didn't think it was worth breeding, then don't. T, you weren't very wrong in doing the original searches, we get it, really, you are a hero, many thoroughbreds would never know who their daddy's were if it weren't for you and I'm sure that because their identities are now know, their lives are greatly enriched for it. You were just silly in getting twisted because someone complained. People don't generally complain about things that employers ask you to quit doing if they aren't a tiny bit in the right. On to the next bitch session.

Buffyblue
Jan. 21, 2008, 12:28 PM
T,
You were just silly in getting twisted because someone complained. People don't generally complain about things that employers ask you to quit doing if they aren't a tiny bit in the right. On to the next bitch session.

What I find as silly here is that anyone would have such a fit over a person doing something nice for someone else. Sounds like a lot of jealousy over nothing. And to actually report it to the nice person's employer is just WRONG.

hitchinmygetalong
Jan. 21, 2008, 01:06 PM
What I find as silly here is that anyone would have such a fit over a person doing something nice for someone else. Sounds like a lot of jealousy over nothing. And to actually report it to the nice person's employer is just WRONG.

Unless the money for the tattoo (it is spelled t-a-t-t-o-o, by the way, folks) search was coming out of the OP's pocket, or the OP was doing them with her "resource's" blessing, then the OP was stealing. It is not WRONG to report a crime.

Buffyblue
Jan. 21, 2008, 02:01 PM
Unless the money for the tattoo (it is spelled t-a-t-t-o-o, by the way, folks) search was coming out of the OP's pocket, or the OP was doing them with her "resource's" blessing, then the OP was stealing. It is not WRONG to report a crime.


I know you're not talking to me about spelling now...especially since I did not even use the word "tattoo" in my post. Apparently what you are referring to as a "crime" might just as easily be considered a "fringe benefit."

hitchinmygetalong
Jan. 21, 2008, 02:10 PM
Apparently what you are referring to as a "crime" might just as easily be considered a "fringe benefit."

I seriously doubt that.

minnie
Jan. 21, 2008, 04:56 PM
At this point, all I can say is "wow, just wow". If I ever become so self-righteous and feel I must police ever person's action and report anything other than rape, murder or some other such harmful occurence, PLEASE someone BITCHSLAP me and tell me to go get a life!

witherbee
Jan. 23, 2008, 11:54 AM
The JC does not keep track of TB ownership (as posted one one of the earlier pages of this thread). I wish they did - would make it MUCH easier to keep track of my babies! Unfortunately, I think it would be really hard to get buyers and sellers to send in the changes in a timely manner, and it would just add more administrative work that does not directly relate to racing. I do understand why they don't offer some of the extra information that I would like to see.

I agree that people forget this is a RACING registry, so the information is only what's needed for racing. A lot of horses fall through the cracks in ALL breeds - too hard to keep track of owners unless the horse is actively racing or showing and having the databases up to date is mandatory in order to race/show. As we know, most people change the horse's name when it is done racing, and show people change names all the time. It would be tough to administer, but would be good if you could at least have the option of tracking ownership somewhere.

As for tattoo lookups - as it's been mentioned here, there is a fee ($35 for basic, $50 for deluxe), but, if you have to try multiple tattoo numbers due to fading/illegible ink, it could get VERY expensive. If you need to do so for more than one horse, and who that horse is might affect whether they get sold or not, it CAN be important to that horse's life. I agree that the "Gee, wouldn't it be nice to know what Donbbin's real name is" requests are no big deal (important to the owner, but not charity-worthy IMO), but it sure was nice for Tirnanog to help with the others. I have found the JC to be very helpful whenever I've called them with issues, but I'm sure they get impatient when they recieve calls from non-racing people who don't want to pay the fees for information...

caffeinated
Jan. 23, 2008, 01:43 PM
As for tattoo lookups - as it's been mentioned here, there is a fee ($35 for basic, $50 for deluxe), but, if you have to try multiple tattoo numbers due to fading/illegible ink, it could get VERY expensive.

Last I checked, if the research yields information that is not a match, they don't charge you. Could be wrong, maybe that changed...

flshgordon
Jan. 23, 2008, 01:51 PM
At this point, all I can say is "wow, just wow". If I ever become so self-righteous and feel I must police ever person's action and report anything other than rape, murder or some other such harmful occurence, PLEASE someone BITCHSLAP me and tell me to go get a life!

AMEN!!! What the hell is wrong with some of you? I've never seen such a gathering of people who think they are perfect and beyond reproach. It makes me sick to my stomach :no:

hitchinmygetalong
Jan. 23, 2008, 02:00 PM
AMEN!!! What the hell is wrong with some of you? I've never seen such a gathering of people who think they are perfect and beyond reproach. It makes me sick to my stomach :no:

When I was a kid, I used to get into trouble for getting into the cookie jar. My father was a VERY strict disciplinarian and the punishment was not pleasant.

While I learned to regret getting caught, it took me years to figure out that what I really should have regretted was taking the cookies in the first place.

tirnanog
Jan. 23, 2008, 05:54 PM
Hitch -
If you had "stolen" the cookies (which can only be done if you were told not to take them, and you did any way, otherwise ,it couldn't be considered "stealing") then the punishment shouldn't be pleasant.

Did you steal the cookies for yourself? Were you hungary or just liked the thrill of stealing or did you steal for someone else? Was that person hungary or just greedy and cheap?
So, because you only regretted getting caught for so many years, what made you finally get it?
Wasn't it made clear to you that the cookie jar was only available with permission? Or maybe it was completely off limits to you. Or were you allowed to have all the cookies you wanted but were not allowed to share them? Or were you allowed to share them until some other kid went crying to your "strict" father and told him how unfair it was that you were giving some of their cookies to some of the kids.

Did your "unpleasant punishment" come because your father didn't want the big crybaby brat make a big stink out of it and found it easier just to tell you to cool it a bit because the big crybaby brat wouldn't shut up and became soo uncontrollably annoying?




[QUOTE]While I learned to regret getting caught, it took me years to figure out that what I really should have regretted was taking the cookies in the first place.

Was that years of therapy?
You really need to let that stuff go and leave it in the past. You will feel sooo much better. :yes:




Who paid the fee for those tattoo searches you "gave away"?


Since my info doesn't come directly from the JC, I really don't know. It's a program I use but there is no reference to the JC in it. I will ASSume that the program gets its info from the JC but by the time it gets to me, it may 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand. The same program provides me with QH, Paints, Arabs, APPs, & Mules Tattoos. And I know that the JC doesn't provide info to those breeds. Again, I will ASSume that the name on the bottom of my check is the one who has obtained the program which I use to get the info I get.

Does that help?

tirnanog
Jan. 23, 2008, 08:13 PM
I came across a situation today:

A TB who ran 3 times, was discovered to have been tattooed wrong. I believe it was someone from the JC who made the discovery but not until the horse already ran 3 times. So in the process of tracking down the last known trainer, it was discovered that the horse had been sold. It's actually been sold twice and the last buyer bought the horse for showing, not racing. When the JC was notified that the horse supposedly isn't going to be used for racing anymore they said not to worry about it then.

So, out there somewhere, is a person who owns a horse with a tatoo who, if and when they want more info on it, won't be able to find it because the tatoo that is on their horse's lip isn't the number on his registration papers. Pitty.

Jaegermonster
Jan. 23, 2008, 08:27 PM
How did they not catch that at the track? Don't they check that when they run?
Will this horse's races affect the "real" horses race record?

tirnanog
Jan. 23, 2008, 08:38 PM
Someone wasn't doing their J.O.B. They do get checked in the Paddock right before the race but someone just wasn't paying attention. Actually more than 1 someone. The horse ran at 2 different tracks so that was 2 different lip flippers that missed it.

I don't know if there is a different horse with that tatoo number on their registration papers or not. I could look it up but.......that's the kind of stuff that opened up this whole can of worms:winkgrin:.

tirnanog
Jan. 24, 2008, 06:50 AM
I like you Pandora:)

Moderator 1
Jan. 24, 2008, 07:37 AM
Feel free to continue the debate if you wish, but don't resort to name calling. Thanks.

tirnanog
Jan. 24, 2008, 09:07 AM
Now my last post doesn't make sense since Pandora's post was deleted.:(

As far as the horse with the wrong tattoo, there is another horse out there with the same tattoo number who is still racing.

hitchinmygetalong
Jan. 24, 2008, 09:39 AM
Hitch -
If you had "stolen" the cookies (which can only be done if you were told not to take them, and you did any way, otherwise ,it couldn't be considered "stealing") then the punishment shouldn't be pleasant.
Agree. And it wasn't. It only took once and I learned to NOT take cookies from the cookie jar. I'm a fast learner.


Did you steal the cookies for yourself? Were you hungary
"Hungary" is a country. "Hungry" is the reason I took the cookies.


So, because you only regretted getting caught for so many years, what made you finally get it?
Maturity. Some people refer to it as "growing up".


Wasn't it made clear to you that the cookie jar was only available with permission?
Yep.


Or maybe it was completely off limits to you. Or were you allowed to have all the cookies you wanted but were not allowed to share them? Or were you allowed to share them until some other kid went crying to your "strict" father and told him how unfair it was that you were giving some of their cookies to some of the kids.
Not sure what your point is there. Sounds like you're attempting some kind of psychological game, which isn't working.


Did your "unpleasant punishment" come because your father didn't want the big crybaby brat make a big stink out of it and found it easier just to tell you to cool it a bit because the big crybaby brat wouldn't shut up and became soo uncontrollably annoying?
Your reference to me as "the big crybaby brat" is quite ... amusing. I assure you, nothing could be further from the truth. But this thread isn't about me, despite your efforts to deflect the blame for the loss of your "free services" from the true cause. If you weren't doing anything wrong to begin with, your employer wouldn't have any reason to stop you, would they?

But I see that there will be no meeting of the minds on this issue, so I gracefully withdraw from the debate. Carry on, all. :D

luvmytbs
Jan. 24, 2008, 12:39 PM
A couple of years ago I was at an out of state track, helping a trainer friend with a horse he had entered. I was there for the pre-race vet check and noticed the vet checked the tat as well, comparing it to her paperwork.

I asked her, if there was a way she could research a tat for me of an OTTB I had, and she said, well sure. They kept records of the horses' information for some time and she could look it up. Unfortunately, the horse I was researching was 24 yo at the time and she had to laugh, that it would be highly unlikely they kept his info for that long. Considering the fact that he had run before the computer age, I had to agree with her. :D

So obviously there are resources with tat info, which are not JC related.