Capping
 

Lot of anti Assmusen and Curlin capping. First two legs, the most common knock was lack of foundation and lightly raced. Now after two races its, hes stressed and cant hold up to the rigors of the TC . It sounds like a bunch are just saying find anything an use it against this horse. This colt is so good that he can regress and still win by open lengths

I think many people had it set in their minds that they wanted to take a negative position against Curlin after that supersonic fast debut win he had. If you look at the other 'raw' and unadjusted Beyer numbers run by horses on the same card that day......

Invasor (118)
Curlin (112)
Nobiz Like Showbiz (108)
Scat Daddy (103)
Cowtown Cat (96)

You'll see how remarkable a debut performance it was. Only Discreet Cat had done anything comparable to that, in debut, in all my time following horse racing.

Curlin was all over the racetrack that day--and really didn't seem to have everything figured out yet either.

I think there's always an assumption that horses who win like that in their debut are injury prone horses, who don't have a strong constitution and who struggle to stand up to the rigors of racing. Horses like Discreet Cat and Ghostzapper being a couple of prime examples...though both were handled with EXTREME conservatisim.

Each horse is their own entity though...and I agree with you...Curlin hasn't always got the kind of respect from the public...that a horse who is simply the most talented in his crop deserves to get.

He's only about four months removed from that big debut win---and, if he stands up and runs his race yet again....he'll be a four-time Graded Stakes winner and a duel-classic winner. Very few horses in history have achieved so much so soon in their career....but, this horse has always shown MAJOR TALENT!...and has been lucky enough to have been born into a fairly low-rated crop of 3yo males.

I think if he was trained by someone else he'd be the most praised horse in training right now, which is silly really.

i think you're right about the first part, but not the second. this guy hasn't had one or two drugs charges, but 22. 22! so, no, it's not silly to feel less than excited about a horse he has.

it's a shame curlin is with him imo. had he been with a trainer who had never had a shadow of a doubt, then yeah, he'd be praised to the heavens.

He was....Helen Pitts had him in his debut.

It's not like he's some chemically enhanced Steve Asmussen move-up.

AND WHO IS THAT?

Exactly.

Randy Moss said today if he was going to bet $100 on the Belmont he would bet $100 Curlin/Hard Spun, cold exacta. Then for a tri put Rags underneath cold.

I love the cold exacta plays. And i love exactas with this format A/B,C at most. in other words, i like to limit my combos down to 1 or 2 horses per race or pass.

Does anyone know what Curlin went for at the sale and was it a yearling or 2yr old? If he was a home bred, was he offered and didnt reach his min?

I just looked in the form 57k at the kee sept 05 sale

I see Curlin as a single in this race. Not sure any three year old can beat him right now, certainly don't think these can.

it's a 2 horse race, for sure. everybody else is running for 3rd.

yeah, i feel bad for pitts. and not saying curlin is chemically enhanced, but i am saying asmussen is less than respected in his chosen field.

who is what? trainers without shadows? no doubt plenty! not all trainers have drug positives-i'd say more don't than do.

see, this is a problem the thought that 'they all do it'. no, 'they' all don't!

the ones that are successful all do everyone one of them

So EVERY trainer is either a cheater or a failure? That is a ridiculous statement, and it is also potentially insulting to at least one very valued member of this board.
You, quite frankly, have no idea what you are talking about.

I agree, but the key word in all of this is "males." I have little doubt that he will beat all of the males in the race today.......but that doesn't mean he is going to win.
I doubted Rags before the Oaks........now I am a believer.

you quite frankley havent been in the horse business

i think you're incorrect.

you know, charlie witthingham, who has a race being run in his honor today, never had a positive. i guess he 'wasn't successful'?

oh yes he did, have positives as have just about any trainer you can name from the modern era, im not saying that its bad, lots of horses need help so they can run pain free.

well, go figure, since i could have sworn the other day, in an article about jenine sahadi (who hasn't had a positive, makes you wonder how her lit de justice did well) in bloodhorse, said he never had.

So you really think that every horse trainer is either a failure or a cheater?

i know that every sucessful horse trainer does what they can to make thier horses feel better, and that can not be done with hay and oats only, just dont happen. i have worked for trainers that have won triple crown races, breeders cup races, and cheap races at cheap tracks, if it wasnt for veterinarians thier wouldnt be any cheap races at cheap tracks.

The choices are not "Hay and Oats only" or downright cheating.
Your original statement - which was made in the context of a discussion about trainers doing things that were clearly against the rules - was that EVERY trainer that is successful does those things.
I just don't think there is any way you could possibly know that. Have you worked with every successful trainer? You are making a pretty strong accusation, and I don't know what evidence you have to support it. There are undoubtedly trainers out there that meet these three criteria:
1) You haven't worked for/with them.
2) They haven't been caught doing anything against the rules of "doping."
3) They have been at least moderately successful.

You basically just called everyone that meets those three criteria a cheater.
I am simply curious as to what exactly your evidence is for that.

9 out of 10 trainers in this country have had positive tests, and if you think that those were the only times they bent the rules,well go ahead and think it.
all these horses have ailments of some kind or the other at times, all of them. to think giving them an apple fixes those ailments is a fairy tail. go to belmont, santa anita, arlington park etc.... any day of the week and from about 10:30 or so in the morning until 2;00 oclock in the afternoon veterinarians are going in and out of stalls in every shedrow at the track. do you think those veteriarians are in there giving those horses pepermints? or maybe a pep talk? my point is being misunderstood i think, these horses need
medication to heal what ever ails them, what % of horses do you think run on steroids? they are legal, so i guess thats ok? its a very high %. why do you think ny didnt allow lasix? it had nothing to do with what lasix did for a horse it was because lasix masks moraphen based medications. they allow it now because trainers didnt want to run in ny without lasix. i dont know why they fine trainers for positives, they should fine the vets, but they dont want to fine the vets because they dont want to play a cat and mouse game with the trainers to see if they have syringes. the people that constantly complain about trainers that "cheat" need to understand that without bending the rules a whole bunch of these claiming races couldnt fill and thier wouldnt be enough horses to run all these race cards. cant have it both ways

Yes this was a brilliant response.
I distinctly remember making the following claims:
1) Apples fix every horse ailment.
2) I think that every time a trainer bends the rules he gets caught.
3) The only things vets ever give to horses are mints and pep talks.

Now you have cleared all of that up for me.