Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
"Running him back in the Travers and then keeping him at that level for another 60 days is unrealistic, as opposed to backing off and targeting it directly."
This quote from Steve Assmussen is frightening. Now races in August are too stressful for races in November? If I was just a fan, I would probably find a new sport because this attitude is not only wrong historically, it is destructive for the sport of our sport. Not only are top horses going to be retired early, they are not even going to be campaigned much while running, just spotted randomly every 60 days or so.
I thought that Nafzger did the right thing by skipping the Belmont because of the grind of 3 races in 5 weeks without a chance for the Triple Crown. But this is entirely different. These are well rested horses that are at a point in their lives where they are maturing and getting stronger. Not running them is not only unsporting, it is disgraceful. And don't place all the blame on the trainers. The owners are as much to blame by captiulating and allowing this to happen. There is very little evidence that this style of training is sucessful in winning Breeders Cup races and as such is disheartening to see so many going down this path.
|
Chuck, I think you made excellent points, and I agree with you on them. However, don't we need to look at the other aspects here as well? While I am not a trainer, and you are, with regard to Curlin -- in this specific case -- here is a colt who showed tremendous natural ability, and very early on. He did what he did in his 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th lifetime starts (after not racing as a 2yo). I agree that this type of mindset is very damaging and it's rampant in the industry, and it's ruining aspects of our industry and sport.
But in this case, isn't there more going on? Yes, he was getting bigger and stronger (I guess), and maturing. But he was asked to do a lot, as much as other horses who had more experience and seasoning. Doesn't that play a role? In an individual case? I guess what I am asking is that in this case -- can you possibly see that for this horse, especially after the Haskell (being that he didn't perform up to some expectation), is it possible that maybe skipping the Travers -- maybe it's possibly the right thing to do . . . a) for this horse in this situation, and b) keeping in mind that there is more than a/the purse at stake. You have 3yo horse of the year, horse of the year, a stallion career, and so on.
Thanks for the insight Chuck. I'll buy a few beers for us tomorrow and we can talk about it (actually, you can talk and I can listen, LOL).
Eric