Quote:
Originally Posted by MaTH716
Velazquez had said after, that there were other times when Life at Ten hasn't warmed up well and when the race started she was fine.
Obviously Pletcher was aware that something was off in the paddock and the reports said that 7 vets heard what JV had said in the interview. I'm guessing if one of the vets followed through and checked her out before she went in to the gate, she still would have raced. I'm not sure if Pletcher heard the interview, but it's hard for me to believe that he wasn't aware of it.
So then it would have came down to John Velazquez on his own accord refusing to ride a top filly in one of the biggest races of the year on a national stage for his bread and butter employer who just happens to be arguably one of the best trainers in the world.
I guess everyone should share in some of the Blame, but like the point I tried to make yesterday, who really cares? The money bet on her isn't coming back. As far as the future goes, I'm pretty sure jocks will think twice about reporting the "accurate" conditions of their mounts before these big races. Let's face it, if JV doesn't give the interview then the fallout from this wouldn't have been so great.
|
If he has just alerted a vet that she wasnt warming up great then the onus would have been off of him. He didnt have to refuse to ride her, just have one of the team of vets examine her as she warmed up. If they agreed that something was visably amiss then they in conjunction with the stewards make the call. But if you dont make anyone in an official capacity aware that something might be wrong then the fault lies with you IMO. Like you said it doesnt really matter at this point and the horse was acting sluggish, not lame which would be a lot more common occurence. Of course had the vets/stewards scratched the horse and nothing was found wrong with her I'm sure someone would have been sued for something.