Open response to USTA’s Joe Faraldo

Open Response to Joe Faraldo, Chairman of the Board USTA.

In response to Joe Faraldo’s editorial in Hoofbeats Magazine’s March 2022 edition, I feel compelled to
write this rebuttal and challenge his misogynistic hit piece concerning freeze branding. I am certain I
speak for a substantial portion of this industry who are the silent majority.

Mr. Faraldo’s timing is that of a skilled politician, which I find insulting. His biased opinions reflect an out
of touch demagog, who among others, prefer to operate from a top-downmantra of I know better than
each of you.

Allow me to take you through Mr. Faraldo’s hit piece of an opinion in his own words.

Faraldo: “The argument centers on the purported need to have ease of identification in the “kill” pen,
thus, assisting those engaged in the valid enterprise of saving members of our breed.
Me: That is correct, but there is NO such thing as “purported need.” Protecting human lives as well as
equine is the objective in these situations. It’s disingenuous to state otherwise and clearly shows your
lack of understanding of what everyone in this situation faces.

Faraldo: “Yet in reality this allows those engaged in the enterprise to, more often than not, select a
more renowned horse who did not earn a future in the industry’s premier breeding sheds…”
Me: The is no evidence to support your contention that horses that are selected to be removed/saved is
based upon “star status.” If you are referring to the most recent case of “In A Safe Place,” the Dam of
Foiled Again, there were many people who were involved with these horses who had no idea that this
mare was going through the kill pen. What saved her life is an astute horseman who set off the alarms
via the freeze brand. The sport came awfully close to having lost one of its grandest mares if it were not
for the freeze brand. There is a zero percent chance that she would have been identified and surely
would have received a death sentence. If this does not shake you to the core, you need to step aside,
because you are doing everyone in this industry a great disservice.

Faraldo: To paraphrase: “I wish all foals, current racehorses and retirees could be saved….What
responsibility does each of us have…some would say none.”
Me: It’s a given that not all standardbreds can be saved from the slaughterhouse, however, saving even
one horse’s life does matter to most all of us in this business. As referenced above, this is not based
upon star status and selective determinations have to and will continue to happen. It’s not a judgement
call I would ever care to make, but I have to respect those who at least attempt to make a difference.

To summarily dismiss these horsemen is again disingenuous to both the horseman and the sport and
shows just how out of touch you (and some directors are). Further, I agree that there is no obligation to
save a horse that you bred or raced. But I will suggest most of them would be appalled to learn of the
situation and there are many who would at least attemptto offer support, whether financial, through
connections or other means.

Faraldo: “obscured freeze branding” vs. Microchip.
Me: No, a microchip is not the be-all-end-all that you profess it to be. There are horsemen who have
had problems with the chips. Their stories are plenty, you just choose to dismiss their concerns as some
kind of one-off deal. They may be few and far between, but they do exist, and I do not see you or the
USTA researching the root cause of these anomalies or seeking a solution. Technology is fallible and
outdated before it ever comes to market and yet the USTA decided to wait an additional 10 years before
implementing the chips. You state the USTA followed the other breeds and livestock, to what end? I am
not sure you understand what the term“gold standard” means as it relates to scientific modeling. I’ll
simplify it for you.

A hypothetical ideal “gold standard” test has a sensitivity of 100% (it identifies all individuals with a welldefined process; it does not have any false-negative results) and a specificity of 100% (it does not falsely
identify a condition; it does not have any false-positive results). In practice, there are sometimes no true
gold standard tests.

Faraldo: “The USTA’s job is to provide for a clear, distinguishing means of identification…”
Me: You contradict your own words. Clear and distinguishing go hand in hand. You cannot view a
microchip without specialty equipment, nor can you distinguish one bay horse from another by
appearance alone. The freeze brand is unique to the breed, why would you want to follow suite with
other breeds and livestock? I’m genuinely shocked you did not propose cattle ear tags and implement
them. (A bit of sarcasm in case this went over your head).

Faraldo: “Many who are now advocating didn’t even bother to attend district meetings”
Me: Aaah, it took you a while for you to get here, but like any good politician you did not disappoint.
We now see the musician blame the instrument for his lack of talent. Let us place blame at the members
feet, we (directors) again are not complicit. The lack of transparency and sense of urgency may have had
something to do with it.

So, Joe, exactly what do the numbers look like when it comes to buying/paying/inserting the microchip
vs. freeze branding? Could it be the USTA receives a backdoor stipend on the chip? (Not accusing, just
asking for transparency). What is the real wholesale cost of the chip?

Here, I will answer it for you. I can tell you from some light research it is about $4.71 cents per chip and the vets charge between $35-$60. Correct? And that Liquid Nitrogen runs between $0.011 – $0.050 per liter and the techs already have the equipment which has been paid for. So why are you charging members for adding the Freeze Brand?

That’s a legitimate question.

Further, let’s reverse the USTA’s logic, let’s make the freeze brand part of the registration but charge
members for the microchip. Would the USTA receive the same income? Would you have willing support
from the membership? I’d find that point to be the most interesting. I would love to hear your take on
this one. I’d venture to say your income would be negatively affected. Prove me wrong.

Me: I’d love to see the last 3 years independent financial audits of the USTA, where and how the
memberships money is spent including the General Ledger’s, cashflow statements as well as budgets.
Transparency remember.

Faraldo: “We offer our members a choice…The USTA should not mandate an extra cost simply to placate
those who exuberance is either misplaced or just disingenuous.”
Me: Quite possibly the line that sent me over the edge to write this rebuttal. Accusing the majority of
members of “Misplaced exuberance and being disingenuous”! Wow, just wow! I remind you of #6 of
the USTA’s Mission Statement on your own website and I will write this verbatim for you “Insist on the
humane treatment of Standardbreds”. It is at this point that I have to request that you step down as
Chairman of the Board of the USTA as your mission is to guide the organization does not proffer opinion
pieces to sway a critical vote. A vote where lives are at stake, for which you discount so easily.

So, I leave you and the USTA board of Directors with this, each member, director, owner, breeder,
trainer, driver, groom, and affiliated parties need to do the right thing. It is proven weekly that freeze
brands save lives. Not all lives can or will be saved, but it is currently the best option for everyone
involved who chooses to make saving standardbreds their life’s work.

For most everyone in this sport, this is a labor of love and to discount the lives of all involved is the most disrespectful thing you can do.

Do the right thing and #standforthebrand. Lives really do depend on it.

Respectfully,
Michele Bonacci
Standardbred Owner