Quote:
|
Originally Posted by King Glorious
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