friesan fire excuse

[Bobby Fischer]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i seriously doubt that his grabbed quarter was bad at all-he lost no training time, so it couldn't have been serious. if it was serious, then they had no business running him back. i think that injury was overblown and had no bearing on his derby loss.
the horse ran 1 1/16th in his last derby start. how they thought that as a final prep, and seven weeks to the derby was the way to get that colt prepared to run 10f i don't know-imo that's a far bigger reason for his lackluster performance than any supposed quarter injury.

the injury was pretty much secondary in the derby to the trip (which technically did happen to include getting stepped on and later kicked).

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Bobby Fischer

the injury was pretty much secondary in the derby to the trip (which technically did happen to include getting stepped on and later kicked).

he may have had a cut here or a scrape there-but it wasn't worth mentioning, and certainly wasn't an excuse considering the following two weeks.
oh--but there was the 'miraculous healing'-i forgot that part. i think jones spouted off just after the race because he felt humiliated, and made things out to be far worse than they appeared. reminds me of when smith got off a horse-maybe giacomo-after a loss and said he thought the horse displaced. felt he had to give a reason. the trainer said nothing like that had happened, that the horse was fine.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Danzig

makes me wonder about that seven week break before the derby. wonder if there was something cooking back after his last, and that's why they had the big break? i really wondered then if everything was all bright and shiny, that they really intended to do all that.

The seven week layoff was something put out there by Jones almost immediately after the race, and it had more to do with Jones not wanting FF to regress off a huge new best. The idea being that a small bounce was inevitable if he ran back in one more prep and then he'd bounce to the moon in the derby.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

The seven week layoff was something put out there by Jones almost immediately after the race, and it had more to do with Jones not wanting FF to regress off a huge new best. The idea being that a small bounce was inevitable if he ran back in one more prep and then he'd bounce to the moon in the derby.

that worked out well. thanks. i thought they had considered another start and then decided against it.

[Bobby Fischer]

Originally Posted by Danzig

he may have had a cut here or a scrape there-but it wasn't worth mentioning, and certainly wasn't an excuse considering the following two weeks.
oh--but there was the 'miraculous healing'-i forgot that part. i think jones spouted off just after the race because he felt humiliated, and made things out to be far worse than they appeared. reminds me of when smith got off a horse-maybe giacomo-after a loss and said he thought the horse displaced. felt he had to give a reason. the trainer said nothing like that had happened, that the horse was fine.

i think you are the missing the point. No one can draw any conclusions about the 7 week layoff, from the performance in the derby because the trip was so bad.

[sumitas]

That's a challenge horse racing has ...to detect these types of fractures before a race so that the horse can be scratched and prescribed rest .

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Bobby Fischer

i think you are the missing the point. No one can draw any conclusions about the 7 week layoff, from the performance in the derby because the trip was so bad.

the only thing i've mentioned regarding the seven week layoff was the remark that maybe that indicated a problem with the horse physically that they didn't tell us at the time. but indian charlie says that's not the case. i think there are several reasons why friesan fire didn't run well-the layoff didn't help in my opinion. i think the main reason he finished far back is that the race went quicker early than many he had run this year, so of course he'd get left behind. the guy wrote in bloodhorse when making his pick (this was the magazine so i can't look up his name, exact quote because i'm at work) but he referenced the faster pace expected in the derby than what FF had faced in La this spring, that it caused doubt in his mind because of that.
at any rate, it's hard to say for sure exactly what is going on with all the trainers speak. all the horses do well before, but they're full of excuses after. but, my main point was that too many are blaming injuries suffered in the running of the derby-and my question is just how serious could they possibly have been since it didn't knock him out of training or running two weeks later? it's my opinion based on what they did after that the injury was dramatically overblown.
the horse ran well training up to the preakness, so i would imagine the injuries occurred during the running of the race.

[HaloWishingwell]

These owners and/or trainers will make up any excuse to keep there value as a stallion from falling. His injury in The Derby was not enough to be an excuse for his poor showing otherwise he would have been given time off. Or don't they care about their own animal? But there might have been something developing from it that just turned it to a full blown injury after coming back just two weeks later from a rough run Derby. As for his "good" workout. How taxing could it be to breeze five furlongs compared to actually race a longer distance in stressful competition. The Preakness should have been passed on and instead finished FF off.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by docicu3

Respectfully disagree sir....about 2 weeks post fracture the osteoblasts start to repair a fracture and a visible line of repair is evident on plain film. The finding is not subtle. A fracture with a fragment is one of the easiest findings to read on an XRay. In my heart of hearts I just have a feeling that the fans and the betting public were taken for a ride on this one....the horse should never have seen the track at Pimlico.

Seriously - I'll be glad to show you radiographs where the stress fracture doesn't show (and I'm not talking about chips, detached or not, but stress fracture lines). You point out one time frame, above - in the time in the two-three weeks before osteoblasts start to repair a fracture and form a visible line of repair. In the digital radiographs of bucked shins where the microfractures are not detectable on radiograph, but are suspicious on scintigraphy. The horse carpus and tarsus can be extremely difficult to read, even using manipulativable digitals, for subtle stress fractures.

If the horse was a bit "off" after the Derby, and they radiographed the second day after the Derby - and even repeated the rads the day before the Preakness to be sure - it's entirely possible the stress fracture couldn't be appreciated.

I didn't see if they mentioned where the stress fracture was located - anybody? (I know they said where the chip was)

You know, chip fractures are sometimes left in and ignored unless they cause trouble, too. Depends a bit on location, etc.

I am very interested in what will happen when the Ruffian center being built by IEAH in NY opens, as I think that will have MRI or scintigraphy (can't remember which). There won't be the travel necessary as exists here in Lexington to get to a facility with that capability.

Cost, however, is the main deterrant for the use of both MRI and scintigraphy.

I'm a ma'am

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i seriously doubt that his grabbed quarter was bad at all-he lost no training time, so it couldn't have been serious. if it was serious, then they had no business running him back. i think that injury was overblown and had no bearing on his derby loss.the horse ran 1 1/16th in his last derby start. how they thought that as a final prep, and seven weeks to the derby was the way to get that colt prepared to run 10f i don't know-imo that's a far bigger reason for his lackluster performance than any supposed quarter injury.

Didn't he also come out of the Derby, not only with the quarter grab, but with cuts on three legs, and a piece of vetwrap from another horses' leg wrap in his shoe? This horse was validly banged up in the Derby, from what I've read <g>

[Riot]

Originally Posted by sumitas

That's a challenge horse racing has ...to detect these types of fractures before a race so that the horse can be scratched and prescribed rest .

You do realize that's readily possible?

But as a horse owner, would you be willing to pay several hundreds of dollars every couple of weeks to check it out?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Didn't he also come out of the Derby, not only with the quarter grab, but with cuts on three legs, and a piece of vetwrap from another horses' leg wrap in his shoe? This horse was validly banged up in the Derby, from what I've read <g>

one more time.

if his injuries were so dammed serious, why did he miss NO training and run back in two weeks?! either they did him a disservice in running him back, or his 'injuries' were overblown. i don't know why i'm still having to explain that point.

there is no way he was that banged up considering the fourteen days after.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

one more time.

if his injuries were so dammed serious, why did he miss NO training and run back in two weeks?! either they did him a disservice in running him back, or his 'injuries' were overblown. i don't know why i'm still having to explain that point.

there is no way he was that banged up considering the fourteen days after.

You might consider that your two options are not the only possibility.

If you are a horse are running in a race, and your legs are getting repeatedly struck and stung by horseshoes, other horses legs, you might back off and not do your best at that moment, too. Yet come out of the race cut and bruised, even with a stinging quarter grab, but pretty much are okay in a day or so when the cuts heal and the immediate bruising to the bone is cooled and the anti-inflammatories are on board. Especially when they check you out and you x-ray sound.

I don't know why I'm having to explain this point.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

I don't know why I'm having to explain this point.

I wouldn't mind if you stopped, ma'am.

I think my brain has a stress fracture now. But I don't have the money to find out.

[Riot]

My apologies for not being on the conspiracy bandwagon. Carry on

[Danzig]

i think this is the main reason friesan fire lost (from bloodhorse, may 2nd edition):

...he (ff) hasn't shown the ability to run better than 1:13 for three-quarters in either two-turn race. (the derby 3/4 time was 1:12).

and: based on the numbers, he must take a big step forward.


what amazes me is that the guy who wrote that picked friesan fire to win-it seems from reading the rest of the write-up, that choice was due to the pedigree, and the fact that jones got hard spun to a runner-up finish. my reply would be that this horse is no hard spun.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

You might consider that your two options are not the only possibility.

If you are a horse are running in a race, and your legs are getting repeatedly struck and stung by horseshoes, other horses legs, you might back off and not do your best at that moment, too. Yet come out of the race cut and bruised, even with a stinging quarter grab, but pretty much are okay in a day or so when the cuts heal and the immediate bruising to the bone is cooled and the anti-inflammatories are on board. Especially when they check you out and you x-ray sound.

I don't know why I'm having to explain this point.

probably because i'm stubborn and hard-headed. and til your post, no one had put it that way. thanks.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

probably because i'm stubborn and hard-headed. and til your post, no one had put it that way. thanks.

But that's why we're friends - takes one to know one

[chucklestheclown]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

I think my brain has a stress fracture now. But I don't have the money to find out.

It amazes me that owners would not want to spend $1000 on testing a million dollar horse, especially in the midst of the Triple Crown. More importantly, were those Desert Party's wraps in his shoe?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by chucklestheclown

It amazes me that owners would not want to spend $1000 on testing a million dollar horse, especially in the midst of the Triple Crown. More importantly, were those Desert Party's wraps in his shoe?

it was pioneer of the niles as far as they know-he had a hole in one of his bandages.