What's Best for the Horse
 

Is it just me or is anyone else getting tired of hearing that phrase to justify every move anyone makes these days? A horse drops out of the picture for the BC and everyone is quick to say they are glad to see the trainer is doing what's best for the horse. A horse points to a specific race and everyone says they are glad to see he's doing what's best for the horse. Does your agreement come only when u think it's what's best for the horse or do u just automatically assume that they know what's best and even if it's a decision contrary to what u would have made, do u still agree that it's best for the horse?

I was thinking about the situation with Round Pond recently. After the race, they disclosed that she had gone through some issues in training and wasn't 100% for the race. If they had told us about those things BEFORE the race and said they were skipping it because of that, there would have been 1000 post on here with everyone saying they are happy that Matz was doing what's best for the horse. Instead, he ran her anyway. Was that what was best for her? I don't know either way because I'm not around the horse. But then neither are any of u. So how do u know when these trainers are doing what's best for the horse?

Many of u think that Godolphin is doing what's best for Discreet Cat by not throwing him into the BC. I've heard quite a few say that they know the horse and what's best for him and waiting for the Cigar is best. But would u still agree with that if on Monday, when entries are to be taken, Bernardini is injured and they enter Discreet Cat? Unless u are going to be hypocritical, u'd have to continue to say they know the horse and what's best for him right?

Yes, if he goes in the BC, I think that's the wrong decision and not in the horse's best interest.

Round Pond's case is completely different. This was a proven mid-level graded stake filly who needed a PREP for the BC, and got one. Discreet Cat is a potential superstar who also happens to be very fragile and doesn't have much of a foundation for running in any BC race.

If he does go in the BC (which I think we can agree seems very unlikely by now), I will say it's the wrong decision. That's not to say he can't win a BC race, and they can do what they want with THEIR horse, but I'm still not going to agree with the decision.

Thats a suspect list you got there. Ever hear of a horse named Cigar? Any of those horses ever win the classic?

"He went a little quick the other day, so we made a conscious effort to try and get him slowed down," Mettee said. "More than likely he doesn't run for another 30 days from today, he'll have plenty of time to pick it up again."

Mettee said that despite the slower move, he could have Discreet Cat ready to go in the Classic should Bernardini be forced to miss the race for some reason.

"I wouldn't hesitate to come back in four days and do a strong piece of work if we had to if, God forbid, something happened to Bernardini," Mettee said.
______________

These comments were in the DRF. Check out the comments from Mettee. He says he could have him ready for the Classic if for some reason Bernardini is pulled out. So then what he's saying is that they aren't skipping the BC because they think it's what's best for the horse but because they already have another horse for the race. But if for some reason Bernardini doesn't go, all of a sudden DC would be in there. In no way are they looking out for the best interests of the horse. U can't skip the Classic and say it's because he's just not ready for that kind of test at this point and then say u are doing what's in the best interests of the horse but then throw him in if your other horse doesn't go. It just pisses me off when people make whatever decisions they make and then try to file them all under "doing what's best for the horse".

You're confused. I'm not saying if they skip the BC, their INTENTION is to do what's best for the horse. I'm saying that's what they'll be doing. If they don't go in the BC, I believe that's what's best for the horse, regardless of whether that's their intention or not.

When a trainer says he is doing what is best for the horse he is saying the equivalent of when a politician says he is leaving to spend more time with his family. They are lying to cover something. Tagg is guilty of this all the time.

Unbelievable, now Tagg is a liar as well? You are one very sick indivual. How do you arrive at these delusional explanations.

He is no different than all of them. They all tell the media one thing to cover their horses injuries. He doesn't let me hang out around his barn and he isn't my friend. I don't have to lie to defend him. I know they all cheat and lie. It is a dirty sport, just like track and field, cycling, baseball, etc.

YOU KEEP DODGING THE QUESTION ORACLE.

Why is Kenny Rogers a cheater that you hate, but Dutrow is a cheater, but it is ok with him? What a joker you are.

I am not a trainer, so my opinion about whether or not a horse sould or souldn't race truly means squat. I thought not racing him in the BC was a very good idea. I very much hope this horse comes back next year 100% sound and healthy. My position was not that Godolphin/Darley/et al was doing what was best for the horse -- my opinion was ex post facto and I felt this was a very good idea; regardless of the owner and not sitting in judgement of what they were doing.

If Bernardini gets sick, scratches, etc. and they decide to race Discreet Cat -- sure, yes, I would not agree with that. But he is not my horse. Fans can jump up and down and say "he should race" and all that. This is a different issue as far as I am concerned.

Eric

My point here wasn't meant to necessarily point out Discreet Cat and Godolphin but I used him as an example that a lot of these times when trainers/owners are saying they are doing what's right for the horse, they are doing what's right for their business. While there is nothing wrong with that at all, I think too many times they hide behind that "best for the horse" thing. If Godolphin felt it was in the horse's best interest to wait for the Cigar, because of physical condition or whatever, then stick with that. But the fact that they would alter course and send him into the Classic if Bernardini can't go says that the decision to skip the Classic with DC had nothing to do with the best interests of the horse at all.

I look at another horse that's being held out, supposedly because it's in his best interests, The Tin Man. I wonder is it really in his best interests to sit out the BC because physically, he's not ready.......or did they look at the fact that they could be 6/1 to win this race or they could wait and be 3/5 for the Hollywood Turf Cup and then decide it's in his best interests because that would be better for their pocketbook?

I view it as a fine line. You like that they are doing, you just don't like the reason. I am a huge fan of the game and I am not saying that because money is no object, it really doesn't matter, etc. so they should run against each other.

I understand it; both from a business standpoint and from what might be the other side of the coin, the horse standpoint. I am not judging that one is true and the other is a lie.

I think many of us will think about this differently, and some will like it and others will not. I do agree though about racing DC if Bernardini doesn't go. While it may be the "sportsman" coming out, and it does conflict with the previous "what's best for the horse" -- I for one don't like that.

Eric

Very over used term"best for the horse". How about "smartest or most prudent move"How many times do you see both horses that are an entry run?Darley and Godolphin are very close but not the same.