Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CSC
Owner's don't have an obligation to run anywhere they don't desire, I think it is just a wish to some of the interested observers of the game to have someone step fwd and take risks in the game, to add some juice to the game. All I know is we would have never had a great story as in Seabiscuit/War Admiral match race if they ran today. Since mostly everyone optically seems interested in protecting their horse's reputations these days.
|
I hear you, and in part I agree. However, I think this is taken to an extreme. We have seen, time and time again, fans, the general public, whatever you want to call it -- hold owners accountable to some nonsensical standard. Tafel with Street Sense, Jackson with Curlin, and the list goes on and on. Another aspect that is nonsensical is the person who emphatically states "If I owned . . . I would . . ." -- yeah, just like people who say if they won the lottery . . . It's an extreme sense of entitlement, feeling cheated, and holding people to some standard that doesn't exist. It often seems like much more than a wish, and it's BS.
Taking risks in the game cost money. It has a price attached to it. Some people don't know and don't understand the price. Others do. It's also not about the money sometimes. It is about whatever the owner wants it to be about. This has always been a business of self expression. As they say, nobody will ever have everybody like it. I have never critisized an owner like Tafel or Jackson because they didn't want to race in a particular race. I never would say they weren't sportsmen or they cheated the fans or anything of the like. The decision not to run is often used as blame for the state of the sport and business. I think the people that blame might be to blame.
Eric