| Merlinsky |
04-28-2011 11:07 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
(Post 772134)
i don't understand why sadler thought it was an attack on trainers. how would a potential owner feel if he won a claim and had to pay up on a dead horse. seems like this would help an owner(who would need a trainer), far more than it would hurt a trainer.
|
A partial quote from Sadler: "I resent the tone in here that trainers are trying to drop horses, get them hurt and get them off our hands. To stereotype horse trainers as butchers is unfair."
From what the DRF article said, I heard no stereotype nor an attack solely on trainers. Sounds to me like owners wouldn't be absolved of blame here, and I'm not sure where Sadler's been, but people do drop horses and hope they'll get taken off their hands, knowing those horses might not be in the greatest shape. They might even be unable to race much longer. Trainers may not be hurting them on purpose Tonya Harding style, but come on. Unloading happens. Claiming shouldn't be about betting the horse will make it to the end of the race alive.
I can see positive and negative impacts on claiming races because of this rule--maybe trainers and owners will be more cautious entering a horse they think is at risk of breaking down, but of course field size is already a problem and, ultimately, betting interests could decrease. Couldn't there be a trial period? Put it in place, then it comes up for renewal? A sundown provision of sorts. |
