Not again ....

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Eric,

I do not understand the "it's easy to be a critic" tack here. Why is it so hard to understand that some people would not subject his horse to something that, perhaps not illlegal, is not in the horse's best interest? I'm certain that I would not operate in the same alleged way as those owners listed above.

Please clarify the "Everybody is entitled their business the way they want" line. Does that mean that owners can operate as they want within or without the rules? I don't think that you mean that, but that's how it came across.

No, of course it didn't mean that. Come on now, be reasonable.

The critic tack is in my mind part of the problem. Some people wouldn't subject a horse to something . . . OK. I'll buy that. And some will. Period. That is almost, in today's environment, a moot discussion. What isn't moot are the rules, or lack thereof. That's what matters.

This is also a circular discussion. If someone doesn't like the fact that Jess Jackson, who speaks for integrity in the game, has chosen Steve Assmusen as a trainer -- let them boycott his operation. Don't board your mares at his farm, don't visit his consignment or buy horses from there, and so on. Anything else? Boycott the states that don't have rules to our satisfaction? Don't bet on the horses? Where is this conversation going?

If someone doesn't like the way Jess Jackson runs his business -- what are they going to do about it? Not buy his wine? Or were we talking about horses here?

Change will in fact come from within. I just don't think it will come in the fashion talked about here.

Eric

[ELA]

I don't have a problem with anyone responding. Not at all. I wouldn't enter that arguement, and I never critisize those who do.

In this situation, I think it's pretty simple. Drug, medication, call it whatever you want. There's a rule. A Contessa trained horse came up positive, which is a violation of the rule. There is a trainer responsibility rule. There is a stipulated fine and penalty. He'll pay and serve.

Interesting thought process here though Cardus. Think about this a bit. How many people here at this BB have noticed or commented on how Contessa's results, stats, performance, wins, etc. have gone up over the recent years? Call it X years. How many people here will say it's because he's got something, or got something better, found something, got a new vet, changed the program, or some other rhetoric? Certainly since the rise I refer to, I've read more "juice trainer" comments attributable to him. I've certainly read more criticisms about Contessa.

My point? The same point I made when people said Mott was super-hot at the Spa and started out horribly at Belmont, and now at Aqueduct he's what? 0 for what? Too many people were "looking for reasons" and making a lot of comments. Point being -- there is more, often more to what meets the eye, the limited eye, the eye that often looks to and for negativity and to critisize.

I guess that's the tone of this place, the media and the industry at large. I wonder why we all stick around then, LOL.

Good night all.

Eric

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by merasmag

i will boycott jackson/kendall if i think he's hurtin his horses...and i take it u wouldn't...may i ask how old u r?

I would not say this about many people but this may hurt Jackson

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I would not say this about many people but this may hurt Jackson

this deserves pies......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO