Originally Posted by freddymo

The point is not to dis anyone as buying a yearling is exciting and risky at any level. The point is to praise someone who did well even if he took the first sip of cream off the top. I really hope Chuck and Bob win a g1 with any of their stuff. Heck just because Chuck and I dont see eye to eye certainly doesnt mean I don't wish him anything but the very best.

Originally Posted by GPK

Did you know that this summer at Saratoga it was the first time EVER that more than HALF the races were carded for the turf? 195 of the 365 races. You think that plays into the hands of a turf specialist trainer like Linda? All 20 of her winners were on races scheduled for the grass.
20 winners at Toga this summer.
11 @ 5 1/2 furlongs on the turf
2 off the turf winners
7 turf route winners.

Originally Posted by freddymo

When you are an owner of horses and you are earning money the invoices are a lot easier to pay then if you are blow thru 300k a year without much success. Who gives a F about invoices when you are earning.. Stop it give the man his due

Originally Posted by gales0678

kev,

can you give Linda's turf breakdown for the fall meet at BEL , she is not listed on the NYRA website

Originally Posted by freddymo

You are starting to be Stalkerish? She won a bunch of 5f races.. they dont card them at 5 and few at 6 now. Think about it logically, consider the majority of stock at SPA and trainers, do you think most are pointing toward winning 5f turf sprints? You think the major trainers and owners are gunning to get there stock a win in a BS 5f 30k claimer? Give the gal credit she kicked ass she has found a niche and drove a bulldozer thru it.. Congrats.. You figure horses that run well at 5f on the grass in the summer should be equally suited for a 1mile 70 on the INNER in a few weeks?

maybe you think she was cheating? They all save Jerkin and Simon cheat

Originally Posted by freddymo

In my world its pretty simple, if the ruling body isnt specifically testing for a dangerous substance then clearly it can not be illegal.

Originally Posted by Scav

I wasn't being negative on McPeek that much, I was just pointing out something I consider extreme on his part. I think it would be much smarter for him to be selling 80% for the total sale price instead of marking up the horse up. I would have no issue with him keeping 20% and recouping his expense.

All this is really means nothing because the guy is doing really well right now. Lets see where alot of these two year olds are late in their 3 year old year though. Personally, I would rather have a horse progress and be around for 20 starts, then have them blow their load within their first two starts and be a 10nw3 claimer by November of their 3 year old year.

Originally Posted by gales0678

i let it go after chuck told me to , then gpk brings it up again this AM , what i'm not allowed to respond mr slot czar?

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

So, you were OK with Biancone using cobra venom? After all, we're told that there's currently no test for it.

Originally Posted by freddymo

Just kidding

Originally Posted by freddymo

20 starts what horses race 20 times anymore? That is like 30 months of training after the first start.. 20 starts your funny..

BTW how is McPeek going to sell other partnerships to the same people if he isnt winning early? Think about it the point is to get people to win money and reinvest it in new stock how does winning late help? There is a method to winning early beside the fun joy and profit..lol
You figure those 2 and 3 year old wins at Keeneland in allowance and stakes company dont personally work for you? Yeah I see your point winning stakes at Keeneland must suck.

Originally Posted by Scav

That was never my point. His recent Keeneland meet probably had his phone ringing off the hook.

Originally Posted by Scav

I wasn't being negative on McPeek that much, I was just pointing out something I consider extreme on his part. I think it would be much smarter for him to be selling 80% for the total sale price instead of marking up the horse up. I would have no issue with him keeping 20% and recouping his expense.

All this is really means nothing because the guy is doing really well right now. Lets see where alot of these two year olds are late in their 3 year old year though. Personally, I would rather have a horse progress and be around for 20 starts, then have them blow their load within their first two starts and be a 10nw3 claimer by November of their 3 year old year.

Originally Posted by freddymo

Cobra venom is most likely dangerous for a horse to run on. ANYTHING that would endanger a horses welfare is WAY off base.

Originally Posted by phystech

Exactly what is your point, then?

You don't think it is right for the guy to do all the leg work on a horse he buys at a sale and then not be compensated for that legwork and any expenses he incurs? If he is selling the shares after he has made the purchase, you expect him to bear all the risk on the horse and not be rewarded for taking the risk? Who buys shares in the horse if it dies the night he takes it home? Who buys the shares if the horse dies before he sells all of the shares? Who shoulders that financial burden?

Ultimately, it is up to the share buyer to decide whether it is worth the markup being paid, isn't it?

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

So now you're drawing the following distinction: (1) if they can't test for it but it would endanger a horse's welfare, it's not OK; versus (2) if they can't test for it but it would not endanger a horse's welfare, it's OK.

Isn't the question of whether something would endanger a horse way too subjective a standard? After all, there are plenty of legal therapeutic medications that, if abused, could endanger a horse's welfare.

Originally Posted by freddymo

10nw3 claimers at Penn run for 23k 40% premium if you are a Pa bred.. I will have one in such a race in a few weeks.. gotta love slots lol

Originally Posted by freddymo

10nw3 claimers at Penn run for 23k 40% premium if you are a Pa bred.. I will have one in such a race in a few weeks.. gotta love slots lol

Originally Posted by freddymo

BTW I posted that if the meds endangered the horse they shouldnt be used and the state is obligated to test for them.

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

The issue, in the terms that you previously framed it, isn't whether the state should be testing for them. Rather, the issue is whether it's OK to use something simply because they are not testing for it.

Ten years ago, they didn't have a test for EPO. Now they do, and evidence suggests that EPO's use is harmful to the horse. That there was not a test for it ten years shouldn't mean that the trainers that used it back then were doing something that was OK.

Originally Posted by Scav

Freddy, you are missing out right now. The state to hit right now is Indiana, 50 BSF and you run 3rd in a 70k stakes race. That is jackpot city...

Originally Posted by freddymo

Belterra is my spot! Love Jeff Rubys Steakhouse.. AWESOME food amazing service, very solid wine list 3 1/2 stars! I have never won a friggin dollar on that evil boat but love the place for Derby weekend.. Indiana Breds geez that is really ridiculous.. Get those slot bucks while you can. Shop is closing up soon enough.

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

The issue, in the terms that you previously framed it, isn't whether the state should be testing for them. Rather, the issue is whether it's OK to use something simply because they are not testing for it.

Ten years ago, they didn't have a test for EPO. Now they do, and evidence suggests that EPO's use is harmful to the horse. That there was not a test for it ten years shouldn't mean that the trainers that used it back then were doing something that was OK.

Originally Posted by Cardus

Oh really, Freddy?

Originally Posted by freddymo

Well I guess its ok if I do it to myself just not ok if someone does it to a horse..lol

Originally Posted by Kasept

The lack of furor is because McLaughlin is perceived as likable, innocuous and, most utterly mystifying, somehow above reproach. That was my point originally. There's a shocking double standard about who gets vilified when these incidents come up. The well-packaged, most blatant edge-takers somehow skate in the public eye while the Oil Can Harrys are heaped on in an orgy of outrage.

Originally Posted by freddymo

In my world its pretty simple, if the ruling body isnt specifically testing for a dangerous substance then clearly it can not be illegal. There are laws on the books that are valid, those are the ones enforced, you know tested for etc. You elect to avoid medication which you know will be beneficial to your stock because you have concerns that in 2037 there might be enforcement of a ridiculous law without teeth? More power to you if you can make folks money and earn a living being concerned about 2037 testing in 2010 congrats.

So let me get this right.. People use certain meds that the State Authorities have deemed illegal yet they did as such under the broad spectrum of "Anything Unnaturally Occuring", they failed to set guideline on use and allowable amounts(how could they they have no clue what it is they are talking about) and deemed ANY existence in ANY quanitity offensible eventhough guidelines haven't been established. I guess they figure they can set the guidelines after they figure out what indeed they are looking for. So you figure these people are cheaters because they are using meds that the state hasn't given any friggin structure on at all.. So you figure you will self police yourself and you will determine in Chucky's world what is Aspirin vs. Heroin. More importantly, your definitions as such will be the guidelines for whom you call smug cheaters and whom you call squeaky clean. Anything else you would like to share with us? How about an 11th commandment? Thou shall live by Chuck's self righteous self serving views.. . Again always root for you and your success just because I think your completely insane doesnt mean I dont wish you and yours the very best of success and luck.

Originally Posted by Sightseek

OK, you win Chuck - he totally sucks as a blood-stock agent and a trainer and you're like the best EVAH. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You people are nuts. I said was skeptical that he won with a bunch of "50k types" at the last Kee meeting, you offer up a list of mostly long gone horses and suddenly I said all these things? Where did i say he sucks? Where did i say anything about me? Incredible. I am still skeptical that he won a bunch of races last meet with a bunch of 50k types and nothing you have shown with the exception of 1 horse says otherwise.

Originally Posted by freddymo

He actually did win with a bunch of yearling purchases under 100k. Mind you I never question your horsemanship or talents as a trainer.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/810/001/018.htm

Here are the rules Freddy. Yes my "self righteous, self serving views" happen to be the rules of racing in at least one state.

Originally Posted by philcski

This too, for sure. Some, like Vaders or Beatties (pick one) are universally reviled, others like Asmussen, Dutrow, and Pletcher are polarized, and a select few are placed above like McLaughlin and Frankel despite their errors in judgement.

Makes the select few who DON'T cheat, like Mandella and Shirreffs, look even better.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I am not the point here nor am I the point in most threads. I never said anything about Mcpeek negatively or positively. Because I train horses doesnt mean that everything I said is to be taken in the context of me. Far from it. I have more words put into my mouth here than I put food in it in real life, which is a tough thing to do.

Originally Posted by freddymo

Your posts came across poorly, perhaps it wasnt your intention.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I read through them. They were pretty clear.

Originally Posted by freddymo

Well if one trainer reps that "the vast majority" are retired after a guy just knocked the friggin cover off the ball this fall..It seems a bit suspect.. How about the guy has been solid gold but he went thru quite a few to find a few diamonds? Maybe that is what you were thinking but failed to acknowledge he kicked butt with a bunch of VERY moderately priced yearlings.

Originally Posted by freddymo

I am quite sure you watched the Keeneland meet. I am quite sure you watched McPeek win with everything. I didn't need to look at a list to tell me what went on three weeks ago neither did you. So your post is what a comment on the list?

IF? you read the thread I was simply posting that McPeek had a big meet.. Gales commented that he was on vacation and it was his assistants doing the work(good for McPeek).. Then Scavs chimes in on McPeeks cut on partnership(jealous) then you suggest incorrectly for a change about McPeeks stock purchase prices. I didnt need a list all I needed to do was read the friggin form daily and watch the meet. Sightseek posted the list for whatever friggin reason but clearly he was takin back by your lack of insight on McPeeks success and IMO shouldnt have dragged your business into it. Your business is your business but whatever you have a lot to say so I guess you have to be willing since your business is somewhat public to deal with the critisms(your a big boy you handle yourself fine). ANYHOO who gives a dam about the list the conversation was about McPeek, his work habits (gales) his Chop (Scavs) and his success (FMO).. the assertion that McPeek stock is retired suggests what? He burned them out ? The drugs killed them? The stock was crap? Oh you we just clarifing that the list didnt accurately represent that McPeek had just crushed Keeneland of course we should have guessed.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Let me repeat myself so this is clear. I never said anything about Ken McPeek other than suggest that his horses at the recent Keeneland meet were better than 50k types. You were the one who brought the guy up. Sightseek was the one who had her little temper tantrum after I pointed out her list wasn't relevant (those are horses from his entire training career, not the last meet at Keeneland). If I want to insult or knock Ken McPeek I will do so to him directly. I have no such desire to do so other than to point out his horses may be a little more expensive than you are giving them credit for. He is having a great year and I have nothing bad to say about him here. Nor have I. Since you and sightseek havent backed up your assertion with any tangible evidence I maintain my stance. If you or her or someone else were to provide evidence to the contrary I would say that I was wrong. Get drugs to look it up. Otherwise you are simply making implications about me that simply are not true.