Dutrow running one off 2 days rest

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Personally this bothers me a lot more than any of his other issues. If you run a horse back off of one days rest and it breaks down you should take 100% of the blame. Being reckless with the life of the horse is unforgivable. This is a disgrace.

If Jeremy Rose got 6 months for essentially "animal abuse," as the Delaware Park stewards called it, what was this? Of course, hard to do something when the State Vet presumably OK'd the horse to race.

[parsixfarms]

Let's not forget that Dutrow is the same trainer who ran Golden Man in stakes on consecutive days at Monmouth and Delaware a few years ago. That horse was never the same afterwards.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

Chuck, Is there a rule that the track/stewards have that they could have enfored not letting him run the horse? Or because it is Dutrow and Monmouth wants him to have a stable there, they pretty much let him do what he wants?

The tracks have to look at this situation. I know that someone will come out and say that it is their horse, they can run him whenever they want, etc. But this almost never works out well. It is a bad situation for bettors also. Were the pp's from Fridays race in the form? Regardless of whether or not the horse breaks down, there needs to be some kind of standard. If the pp's cant make it into the form, the horse should not be allowed to run.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

If Jeremy Rose got 6 months for essentially "animal abuse," as the Delaware Park stewards called it, what was this? Of course, hard to do something when the State Vet presumably OK'd the horse to race.

The state vets on most occasions are not very sharp. Not to mention the fact that a quick prerace look at a horse you have never seen before isnt going to show much unless the issue is obvious.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The state vets on most occasions are not very sharp. Not to mention the fact that a quick prerace look at a horse you have never seen before isnt going to show much unless the issue is obvious.

My point was that it would be hard to penalize a guy for running an unfit/unsound horse, because the association would have egg on its own face (cursory look by its vet was ineffectual). That's why we always hear that it's just "an unfortunate part of the game" when a breakdown occurs.

By the way, Dutrow and Asmussen are now tied for one positive and one breakdown in the past week alone.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Let's not forget that Dutrow is the same trainer who ran Golden Man in stakes on consecutive days at Monmouth and Delaware a few years ago. That horse was never the same afterwards.

Consecutive days? Wow..

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The tracks have to look at this situation. I know that someone will come out and say that it is their horse, they can run him whenever they want, etc. But this almost never works out well. It is a bad situation for bettors also. Were the pp's from Fridays race in the form? Regardless of whether or not the horse breaks down, there needs to be some kind of standard. If the pp's cant make it into the form, the horse should not be allowed to run.

PPs were in DRF, except there was no BSF for the race. I'm not sure what the reporting period is for DRF's trainer stats, but they indicate that this was the 50th horse that Dutrow has run on 1-7 days' rest during that period; he does this quite a bit.

[ELA]

Chuck, you are 1000% right. Something does need to be done about this. This is deplorable. I don't care that the rules might not specifically speak to this. Even without that, I would think it is not outside the scope of the state racing commission, and/or another body to call Dutrow in and speak to him about this and the outcome.

Eric

[Norfolk]

Originally Posted by ELA

Chuck, you are 1000% right. Something does need to be done about this. This is deplorable. I don't care that the rules might not specifically speak to this. Even without that, I would think it is not outside the scope of the state racing commission, and/or another body to call Dutrow in and speak to him about this and the outcome.

Eric

Eric
You are right and this is just going to give PETA and all the others haters something new to talk about.
Joe

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

If Jeremy Rose got 6 months for essentially "animal abuse," as the Delaware Park stewards called it, what was this? Of course, hard to do something when the State Vet presumably OK'd the horse to race.

good question. jeremy should have gotten his days, but trainers seem to always get off easy. a jock gets caught with a buzzer, gets five years. a trainer has overage after overage, and he gets to go to the hall of fame in a few years.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Let's not forget that Dutrow is the same trainer who ran Golden Man in stakes on consecutive days at Monmouth and Delaware a few years ago. That horse was never the same afterwards.

Respectfully Golden Man is still a horse that runs often and is making people money.. He has run a lot more then horses who have been given 90 days to recover from minor injury's..I am not defending Dutrow but your example is actually a declaration of why not as suppose to why?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by ELA

Chuck, you are 1000% right. Something does need to be done about this. This is deplorable. I don't care that the rules might not specifically speak to this. Even without that, I would think it is not outside the scope of the state racing commission, and/or another body to call Dutrow in and speak to him about this and the outcome.

Eric

Eric if you take down Dutrow you have to go for the VET'S license as well IMO.. Don't make the CFO the fall guy when he asked the CEO for permission in advance. BTW the Chairman of the Board, the owner, needs to be examined as well..

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Respectfully Golden Man is still a horse that runs often and is making people money.. He has run a lot more then horses who have been given 90 days to recover from minor injury's..I am not defending Dutrow but your example is actually a declaration of why not as suppose to why?

Actually, he was an up-and-coming 3YO at the time that Dutrow pulled that well-publicized stunt. He was never close to being the same horse afterwards. What is he now, a $10K claimer?

[10 pnt move up]

I am all for running horses more often then the current barns do, but two days rest is not fair IMO to the horse.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Actually, he was an up-and-coming 3YO at the time that Dutrow pulled that well-publicized stunt. He was never close to being the same horse afterwards. What is he now, a $10K claimer?

He was a juice horse then and most likely now and he is sound and races all the time STILL

[jcs11204]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Personally this bothers me a lot more than any of his other issues. If you run a horse back off of one days rest and it breaks down you should take 100% of the blame. Being reckless with the life of the horse is unforgivable. This is a disgrace.

i totally agree a lot of the **** he does either does not bother me or i am sorry to say i just dont care, but this is horrible

[ELA]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Eric if you take down Dutrow you have to go for the VET'S license as well IMO.. Don't make the CFO the fall guy when he asked the CEO for permission in advance. BTW the Chairman of the Board, the owner, needs to be examined as well..

If you are talking about the State Vet, yes, I agree. Unfortunately, there is little that can be done under the current system. I've been at the barn when the State Vet comes to look over the horse. The current system is broken. OTOH, this won't be a priority because it's rare that something like this happens.

As far as the owner -- same ol' same ol'. Many people don't tend to look at the landscape from the owners perspective. Hold owners accountable for what you can. If they hire a trainer, delegate the day to day, what are you going to do here in a case like this -- haul the owner into court? Not under the current system. Everyone will be looking to pass the buck.

Under a redesigned system, I want to see how this could be structured. This is a dangerous and slippery slope. Make the owner ultimately responsible for everything and this game will fall into a more rapid decline than we see today.

Eric

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ELA

If you are talking about the State Vet, yes, I agree. Unfortunately, there is little that can be done under the current system. I've been at the barn when the State Vet comes to look over the horse. The current system is broken. OTOH, this won't be a priority because it's rare that something like this happens.

As far as the owner -- same ol' same ol'. Many people don't tend to look at the landscape from the owners perspective. Hold owners accountable for what you can. If they hire a trainer, delegate the day to day, what are you going to do here in a case like this -- haul the owner into court? Not under the current system. Everyone will be looking to pass the buck.

Under a redesigned system, I want to see how this could be structured. This is a dangerous and slippery slope. Make the owner ultimately responsible for everything and this game will fall into a more rapid decline than we see today.

Eric

I agree with the issues you pose. But do you honestly think the owners (Jay Em Ess) will make Dutrow accountable in any meaningful way for this incident? I won't be holding my breath.

[saratoga guy]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Actually, he was an up-and-coming 3YO at the time that Dutrow pulled that well-publicized stunt. He was never close to being the same horse afterwards. What is he now, a $10K claimer?

I think you're overstating the case.

Dutrow claimed Golden Man in Jan 2005 for $60K. The previous September the horse was running for $12.5K.

Subsequent to the claim the horse won a NW1 and then was an OK -- albeit distant (12 lengths) -- third in the Peter Pan.

Then he ran his back-to-back races.

So it's kind of hard to make the argument that he was a real up-and-comer in the 3YO ranks that summer.

[jcs11204]

Originally Posted by saratoga guy

I think you're overstating the case.

Dutrow claimed Golden Man in Jan 2005 for $60K. The previous September the horse was running for $12.5K.

Subsequent to the claim the horse won a NW1 and then was an OK -- albeit distant (12 lengths) -- third in the Peter Pan.

Then he ran his back-to-back races.

So it's kind of hard to make the argument that he was a real up-and-comer in the 3YO ranks that summer.

def. agree with that, i would never say Golden Man was a up and comer.... i remember when he ran him in those races, i forget where though... i want to say deleware for sure and maybe monmouth