Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
Let's face it, the bottom line is that owners are to blame for this. You have guys getting in the business strictly to get horses into these events and to pick up a stud deal along the way. They give their horses to 'supertrainers' who need to get to these races a whole lot more than they need to win them. Just getting there is the goal now, getting there and hoping it works out. If you lose then you blame the jock, vet, track surface, heat, wind, post position, rag number, etc. As long as the owners are getting on the trail and make the big events once in a while they will keep the horses with you. If you dont make it there with their horses they fire you and hire another supertrainer. If you do something unconventional (which i guess would be actually racing now) and it doesnt work out you get fired. Once a horse shows potential trainers tend to get cautious. Owners begin to dream, racing advisors start plotting courses, and trainers get nervous because if the horse doesnt turnout, you take the blame. The days of Charlie Whittingham not showing up for 30 years because he only wanted to run if he thought he would win are over and the game is NOT better for it.
|
I don't take this personally, so my response is not meant personally. However, Chuck, in all due respect -- you have multifacted problems, stemming from origins of many places, circular problems, complex problems . . . and as such, the blame does not lie with one party or group. I've often heard about "holding owners accountable" -- yet I've heard so very little about the vets.
This is not a "blame the owner" situation. The generic group we call the "the owner" is part of it without question, and so is the generic group we call "the trainer" and "the farms and breeding industry" and "the vets" and "the pinhookers" and "the racetrack management" and so on.
Eric