Thorn Song the Stallion and the story of Frankenstein

Discussion and analysis of thoroughbred stallions.

Moderators: Roguelet, WaveMaster, madelyn

da hossman
Allowance Winner
Posts: 412
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:08 am
Location: KY

Postby da hossman » Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:41 pm

A condition of every insurance policy is that the insurance company will "take possession of the horse" if they pay a mortality claim while the horse is still living. Thus it is the insured's decision (not the insurance company's) whether to accept the mortality payment or not. As LB points out, at that point the insurance company assumes all expenses and is the party doing everything possible to save the horse (while the insured cashes a check).

In the case referenced by foxtale it is likely an ASD claim, but I would like to hear exactly what the scenario was.

When Nureyev fractured his hock in a paddock accident the insurance company was willing to pay a mortality claim (and euthanize him) but the owners were not ready to give up on the horse. His recovery was remarkable, and he was a horse that seemed to "give up" at several times during the process. Nevertheless Nureyev did make it and did cover mares again, much to his owners' relief and subsequent financial gain.

But before anyone cries foul about a company or individuals trying to save a horse that has potential residual value, consider that recovery from a life-threatening injury or starvation is difficult, unpleasant and often painful for any horse. Would it not be kinder to euthanize starving horses recovered from negligent owners rather than nursing them through a few more days? Many horses are already past the point of no return but many people ("true believers") would keep them alive as long as possible regardless of their condition.

My point is that these decisions are extremely difficult for anyone, and will never be objective for some people ("true believers"), so this thread could become similar to Louis's endless threads on HTR. Until one is in that exact position one cannot truly understand the agony of it. In the end we have to live with the decisions we have made for ourselves. Perhaps we should respect the difficulty of the decisions made by others and the lasting baggage carried by any who have been forced by circumstance into making such decisions.

And yes, I have faced this scenario more than once.
A difference of opinion is what makes horse racing and missionaries.

Will Rogers

User avatar
FOS
Freshman Sire
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 1:44 pm

Re: Thorn Song the Stallion and the story of Frankenstein

Postby FOS » Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:50 pm

hi oliverstoned

oliverstoned wrote: First of all I have to admit I didn't know you could collect on equine mortality insurance on an undead horse.

Not often, but as-a-result-of/under certain conditions/circumstances...yes.

For example...underwriters have paid In Full any number of claims (some significant) re wobbler syndrome, claims that they did not require death/euthanasia prior to payment; although agreed upon transfer of title was.

In the case of BC Juvenile Fillies winner Countess Diana (Deerhound), it was determined she had a level/grade of wobbler syndrome that met/surpassed policy criteria for payment. The claim by WinStar was paid, underwriters took possession of the mare, and at the time she was ultimately euthanized (post unsuccessful surgery) she was the property of Lloyds.

oliverstoned wrote:Here's how it all went down, the insurance company handed Mr. Zayat a fat check and said hand the horse to the Doctor.

The Doctor (as you call him) is Dr Doug Herthel. He himself (Thorn Song's attending specialist/surgeon) reported that EVERY conventional treatment was exhausted over a period of months.

For what it's worth...and I think it's worth plenty...Dr Herthel is one of the premier and most highly regarded and respected veterinary surgeons/specialists in the country. Bloodhorse.com reported that by October, Herthel said the prognosis for Thorn Song was so bleak that his team and an independent veterinarian, Dr. Van Snow, had decided there was little hope for survival.

Dr Herthel was quoted as saying "(Thorn Song) was deemed to have almost a zero chance of survival. He underwent intensive treatment and we exhausted every possible conventional treatment there was. There was little chance he would live a quality life, so we decided to put him down. That’s when I called Mr. Zayat’s office."

Dr Doug Herthel's knowledge and skills are not only of national renown but also international renown. Arguably he's as good as it gets. That said... I've never heard (and have never heard from anyone) even a whisper or the slightest suggestion that his integrity, character and credibility are anything but beyond reproach. Bottom line...Dr Herthel and the veterinary team made the decision to euthanize Thorn Song after they (as stated by Dr Hethel) "exhausted every possible conventional treatment there was."

Coming from Dr Herthel, that leaves me satisfied that nothing clandestine went down. Seems to me it's likely that underwriters viewed it all similarly (as I do)...after all, they paid $2.75mil to Mr Zayat, and allowed Dr Herthel to experiment on Thorn Song with a stem cell procedure. Dr Herthel himself stated “I thought there would still be a less than 10% chance for him even if we tried stem cell,”

The rest is history...and if you'd like to read what was reported...click here :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: to retrieve the Blood-Horse article titled Thorn Song Gets a Second Chance at Life

Best to ya.

Respectfully

oliverstoned
Restricted Stakes Winner
Posts: 929
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:17 pm
Location: Florida

Postby oliverstoned » Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:18 pm

Hello FOS,

Just to be clear I meant no disrespect to Dr Doug Herthel by referring to him as "the Doctor", I was only trying to spoof Frankenstein.

I have the utmost repect him for bringing Thorn Song back from the brink. I hope they release a picture of Thorn Song and share all they have learned from treating TS.

User avatar
FOS
Freshman Sire
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 1:44 pm

Postby FOS » Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:30 pm

hi oliverstoned

oliverstoned wrote:Hello FOS,

Just to be clear I meant no disrespect to Dr Doug Herthel by referring to him as "the Doctor", I was only trying to spoof Frankenstein.

I have the utmost repect him for bringing Thorn Song back from the brink. I hope they release a picture of Thorn Song and share all they have learned from treating TS.

I appreciate your passion for the game and love for the horses...it comes right thru the screen.

I too hope Thorn Song has a quality life ahead of him. How lucky for him that he's been (and apparently still is) under the care of Dr Herthel. I just don't know if there's anyone better in the country than him.

Reality is...Zayat sent him to Dr H, gotta give credit when/where due.

Best to ya.

Respectfully

User avatar
Jorge
Moderator
Posts: 6234
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 4:48 pm

Postby Jorge » Sun Feb 14, 2010 6:51 pm

Wish THORN SONG His Blessing. Keep on hoping.

http://www.pedigreequery.com/thorn+song

The last say always belong to God. But keep in mind that faith opens the treasures of God.

By the way what a beautiful lower half pedigree eh?
Auspicious broodmare potential!

Linda_d
Starters Handicap
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:01 pm
Location: Jamestown, NY

Postby Linda_d » Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:16 am

da hossman wrote:A condition of every insurance policy is that the insurance company will "take possession of the horse" if they pay a mortality claim while the horse is still living. Thus it is the insured's decision (not the insurance company's) whether to accept the mortality payment or not. As LB points out, at that point the insurance company assumes all expenses and is the party doing everything possible to save the horse (while the insured cashes a check).

In the case referenced by foxtale it is likely an ASD claim, but I would like to hear exactly what the scenario was.

When Nureyev fractured his hock in a paddock accident the insurance company was willing to pay a mortality claim (and euthanize him) but the owners were not ready to give up on the horse. His recovery was remarkable, and he was a horse that seemed to "give up" at several times during the process. Nevertheless Nureyev did make it and did cover mares again, much to his owners' relief and subsequent financial gain.

But before anyone cries foul about a company or individuals trying to save a horse that has potential residual value, consider that recovery from a life-threatening injury or starvation is difficult, unpleasant and often painful for any horse. Would it not be kinder to euthanize starving horses recovered from negligent owners rather than nursing them through a few more days? Many horses are already past the point of no return but many people ("true believers") would keep them alive as long as possible regardless of their condition.

My point is that these decisions are extremely difficult for anyone, and will never be objective for some people ("true believers"), so this thread could become similar to Louis's endless threads on HTR. Until one is in that exact position one cannot truly understand the agony of it. In the end we have to live with the decisions we have made for ourselves. Perhaps we should respect the difficulty of the decisions made by others and the lasting baggage carried by any who have been forced by circumstance into making such decisions.

And yes, I have faced this scenario more than once.


Well said, da hossman!

User avatar
Jorge
Moderator
Posts: 6234
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 4:48 pm

Re: Thorn Song the Stallion and the story of Frankenstein

Postby Jorge » Tue Aug 05, 2014 9:31 pm

Another posting on the now (Aug, 6, 2014) deceased Thorn Song can be read at:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=28968&p=322996#p322996