That doesn't look very close to the ankle anyways.

At least to me.

Trainers and vets are correct and admirable to keep what's going on with their horses absolutely, completely private. Only the owners can legally release information. A vet can't even verify a particular animal has been admitted or seen.

When you walk through a vet hospital (if you are alllowed back there, accompanied) any names you see on stalls are often aliases. I've seen entire owner & horse aliases, too, on charts, to protect privacy of an ownership group or horse from talkative techs and stall cleaners.

When you purchase a horse privately, you are responsible for having your vet suss out any problems. The seller and seller's vet is required to tell you nothing (but cannot outright lie, you can get them for that). With stock that can be sold for hundreds of thousands, millions, of dollars, you bet the trainer, help, and vet better keep private things private.

That said: I wish the US would change and become more like Japan, Australia, regarding what information has to be released and accounted for to the gambling public. Far greater accountability elsewhere.

No big deal on a normal horse but a big deal on the undefeated Derby favorite.
Don't you think that an issue that warranted an ultrasound or joint injection of any kind is a pretty significant at this point especially considering the horses abnormally light racing and training schedule?

They were obviously doing an ultrasound to assess the surgery that was covered up...:confused:

Three pages of discussion and a million all over the web. Has anyone had the guts to just ask Pletcher?? I don't believe anything happened, but what do I know. Even if he lied about it, I'd like to put him in a position to squirm a little.

True, but as an agent for the owner the trainer is generally the mouthpiece for all but the most outspoken owners. Repole strikes me as the type who'd be pretty open with comments but Todd is anything but. I certainly wouldn't ever expect any vet to say a word about a horse they treat, but trainers are usually the outlet for such info.

You can ask Todd all you want but you won't get an answer. He'll tell you thatthe horse appears to have a GI infection (what exactly is that in a horse?) and that he's still on schedule for the Derby. He's under no obligation to tell anyone anything and he's not going to. If he had any idea of doing so, he would have long ago.

Would he go the "didn't happen" route, or "no comment" route? I would really just like to hear somebody press him, but they would never get another piece of information anywhere down the road.

Only if they found something. They may have been just searching, guessing by the ultimate diagnosis. We don't know. Would be nice if our racing rules were as open as other countries.

Exactly. Pletcher should be that way, unless given direct instructions otherwise by the owner. What owner would do that? Why? It's always only to the detriment of your own interests.

That's the horse business, whether they cost $500 or $5 million.

You only look if there is problem, no?
I dont know what other countries you are referring to?

Just trying to figure out who's going to play Todd Pletcher in the upcoming Oliver Stone movie called "One To Nine"

Madame Toussad could save them a bunch of money on a legit actor and nobody would notice the difference.

:tro:

more fuel to the conspiracy theory:


http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ra...mo-disclosure/

It's actually kind of odd to see a shaved area on a racehorse. We'd see a lot more hairless patches out there if every horse that had undergone such procedures had been clipped.

Eskendereya's legs were clipped last year in the Wood.

:zz: Look more closely on a daily basis. Very common. It's just that the Derby horses are the only ones that get this kind of attention from the general public.

I think that's a well-written article.

The American racing public would freak if it knew it was betting on a field of horses that had these histories, below - even though they are indeed doing so on a daily basis without knowing.

I do wish we were more open in our histories of horses we gamble upon, but I don't know how to go about that with the way racing is run in this country.

Considering all the below horses have had their conditions resolved and have passed the vet and will be running, how would people, as gamblers, change their bets if given the below information about American horses? This is from the public past performance information on just one field of horses, one race.

(dates are listed)
Unacceptable performance.
Lame left hind: fractured lateral splint.
Substantial blood in the trachea after racing.
Rider reported horse became disunited in its action near the 200M and eased it down.
Lame left fore.
Lame left fore fetlock.
Castration.
Unacceptable performance.
Sore lumbar back.
Lame right fore.
Left fore tendon injury.
Lame right fore: tendon injury.
Right fore capped elbow.
Left fore capped elbow.
Lame right fore knee.
Right fore knee arthroscopic surgery.
Lame left fore foot.
Lame right fore.
Substantial mucopus in the trachea after racing.
Substantial mucopus in the trachea after racing.
Substantial mucopus in the trachea after finishing track work, withdrawn from race.
Substantial mucopus in the trachea after track work, withdrawn from race.
Substantial mucopus in the trachea after racing.
Right fore early tendon injury.

I know in Singapore and Hong Kong, much credence is given the weight of horses, which is taken on day of entry and published in the form, along with all previous recorded weights in their line.

If we're talking about horses that make an appearance in the paddock (ie, entered to race), then I think you are incorrect.

I suppose it could be a regional thing...either that or trainers are well-versed in alternative uses for shoe polish...