Life at Ten

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by prudery

According to the latest Paulick report, the possible " solution " to the LAT incident is to gag the jockey pre-race .

So, a problem in communication is " solved " by cutting off crucial communication .

So much for the responsibility to the welfare of horse and jockey and the wallets of those who wager .

So much for culpability and responsibilty .

Thus if the horse breaks down with your money on its back--everyone gets hurt, and the bureaucratic press machine will call it one those unfortunate things that happen in racing--part of the game .

Jerry Bailey was the first to notice that something wasn't right with LaT and he went straight to Johnny V. with the question. Is Mr. Paulick suggesting that jockeys not say anything to anyone or that they not say anything on live tv?

I find the latest decision by Veitch/KHRC to be much more disconcerting.

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/li...ake-no-action/

[HaloWishingwell]

They are suggesting " man up,shut the fukk up, hand over your money,bend over and have a nice day!"...you got to love the leaders of the fraud called a sport.

[prudery]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

Jerry Bailey was the first to notice that something wasn't right with LaT and he went straight to Johnny V. with the question. Is Mr. Paulick suggesting that jockeys not say anything to anyone or that they not say anything on live tv?

I find the latest decision by Veitch/KHRC to be much more disconcerting.

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/li...ake-no-action/

Paulick wasn't suggesting it in the article " hear no evil, see no evil " ,he reported that the KHRB was considering a rule to gag the jockey pre race .

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by prudery

Paulick wasn't suggesting it in the article " hear no evil, see no evil " ,he reported that the KHRB was considering a rule to gag the jockey pre race .

This was also reported in today's NY Daily News. I actually don't disagree, but that certainly shouldn't be the only thing that comes out of this. Jerry Bailey asking Castellano and Borel about their fight while they are mentally preparing themselves for the race as well as properly warming up the horse is absurd. Bailey can make any observations he wants to, but once the jockeys are on the track, leave them be.

[prudery]

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

This was also reported in today's NY Daily News. I actually don't disagree, but that certainly shouldn't be the only thing that comes out of this. Jerry Bailey asking Castellano and Borel about their fight while they are mentally preparing themselves for the race as well as properly warming up the horse is absurd. Bailey can make any observations he wants to, but once the jockeys are on the track, leave them be.

The fight should not have been discussed, but I do not agree that a jockey should not be allowed to discuss a problem with a horse .

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by prudery

The fight should not have been discussed, but I do not agree that a jockey should not be allowed to discuss a problem with a horse .

If the jockey has a problem with his horse the only person he should be talking to is the vet.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

If the jockey has a problem with his horse the only person he should be talking to is the vet.

What specifically are you against in regards to talking to the jocks before the race? I'm for more information available to people...not less. I have to think at least a few people heard what Velazquez said and changed or cancelled their bets.

They were the lucky ones. Ultimately it is up to us to decide what we view as valuable information. But, as we have seen, sometimes as bettors we can't rely on officials to protect us from this sort of thing happening again.

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

What specifically are you against in regards to talking to the jocks before the race? I'm for more information available to people...not less. I have to think at least a few people heard what Velazquez said and changed or cancelled their bets.

They were the lucky ones. Ultimately it is up to us to decide what we view as valuable information. But, as we have seen, sometimes as bettors we can't rely on officials to protect us from this sort of thing happening again.

Maybe if he was as straightforward with the vet as he was with Geraldo Bailey the horse would have been scratched and EVERYONE would have gotten their money back. Did it sound like Johnny V thought the horse should run to you?

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

Maybe if he was as straightforward with the vet as he was with Geraldo Bailey the horse would have been scratched and EVERYONE would have gotten their money back. Did it sound like Johnny V thought the horse should run to you?

Of course not and I agree with you that he should have said something to the vet. A lot of people dropped the ball here.

But I don't see what the problem is with talking to Bailey and you didn't answer the question.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

This was also reported in today's NY Daily News. I actually don't disagree, but that certainly shouldn't be the only thing that comes out of this. Jerry Bailey asking Castellano and Borel about their fight while they are mentally preparing themselves for the race as well as properly warming up the horse is absurd. Bailey can make any observations he wants to, but once the jockeys are on the track, leave them be.

To be fair this only takes about 10 seconds

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

To be fair this only takes about 10 seconds

I would just like to think that my jock would be thinking about the task at hand. Do you see Albert Pujols giving interviews before his at bats? It is really not that important in the grand scheme of things, whether Bailey should or shouldn't be talking to jocks. What is important is that the solution to the problem at hand is not barring the jockeys from talking.

[Patrick333]

Owner: Life At Ten Should Have Been Scratched

In the latest salvo in the imbroglio over the Nov. 5 Breeders’ Cup Ladies’ Classic (gr. I), the owner of Life At Ten said the filly should have been scratched prior to the race at Churchill Downs.

“Life At Ten, without equivocation, should have been scratched from the race,” a statement released by owner Candy DeBartolo and her racing manager, David Vance, said.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...been-scratched

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

I would just like to think that my jock would be thinking about the task at hand. Do you see Albert Pujols giving interviews before his at bats? It is really not that important in the grand scheme of things, whether Bailey should or shouldn't be talking to jocks. What is important is that the solution to the problem at hand is not barring the jockeys from talking.

You are making a big deal out of something that happens what, 4-5 times a year?
Johnny should be commended for telling the truth and that a few people were able to save their money. I didn't see the interview and had her bet, I just view it as an unfortunate incident sometimes happens in racing.
I'm not sure if she was ever checked out by the vets at the gate or not, but has anything come back from her post race checkup?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

I would just like to think that my jock would be thinking about the task at hand. Do you see Albert Pujols giving interviews before his at bats? It is really not that important in the grand scheme of things, whether Bailey should or shouldn't be talking to jocks. What is important is that the solution to the problem at hand is not barring the jockeys from talking.

I would prefer my jockeys not think too much. They seem to do much better when they react to the situation presented to them as the race unfolds. If they haven't figured out the plan or how they want to ride the race by the time they get on, well, you know...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Patrick333

Owner: Life At Ten Should Have Been Scratched

In the latest salvo in the imbroglio over the Nov. 5 Breeders’ Cup Ladies’ Classic (gr. I), the owner of Life At Ten said the filly should have been scratched prior to the race at Churchill Downs.

“Life At Ten, without equivocation, should have been scratched from the race,” a statement released by owner Candy DeBartolo and her racing manager, David Vance, said.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...been-scratched

20/20

[MaTH716]

John Veitch, chief steward for the state of Kentucky, said neither Velazquez nor trainer Todd Pletcher notified the state veterinarians about any concerns over Life At Ten prior to the race. He said the protocol is for the veterinarian to be notified and that he or she will in turn notify the stewards.

If this is indeed the truth, I think that it was very foolish on the connections part.
Maybe Chuck can answer this, but are there any visable symptons from the Salix that the Vet would have been able to see to justify scratching the horse from the race?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

John Veitch, chief steward for the state of Kentucky, said neither Velazquez nor trainer Todd Pletcher notified the state veterinarians about any concerns over Life At Ten prior to the race. He said the protocol is for the veterinarian to be notified and that he or she will in turn notify the stewards.

If this is indeed the truth, I think that it was very foolish on the connections part.
Maybe Chuck can answer this, but are there any visable symptons from the Salix that the Vet would have been able to see to justify scratching the horse from the race?

The salix thing is a longshot theory. A horse acting sluggish would be tough to scratch as the 2nd choice in a 3 million dollar race. Even had Velasquez notified the vets I dont know that they would have scrathced the horse unless it appeared lame. Why JV didnt at least say anything to the vets is the biggest mystery.

[Linny]

I see more passing of the buck than anyplace but Washington. Pletcher knew clearly that the horse wasn't right when she was in the paddock. He still chose to pass her along to Johnny. Johnny's works for TAP who works for the owner and thus is low on the employment food chain. He doesn't want to "out" TAP so instead he tells Jery Bailey that the mare is not right.
ESPN producer, hearing the conversation alerts the stewards but honestly, what "standing" has she to call for an inquiry? Now, by speaking to Jerry (and the millions of viewers) JV feels he has "alerted" the world of a problem, he too has passed the buck.

Now the owner jumps into the fray. She's miffed, wants her $60k starting fee back, but she jumps in at the level of the stewards. I would presume (and here I don't know for certain) that she was in the paddock before the Distaff and observing the mare and aware of Todd's concerns. Funny, she wasn't so worried about her $60k when she thought the mare might "warm up" out of her funk and win her share of $2 million! She feels the stewards committed malpractice (as do I) but places no blame on her trainer who was aware that LAT was not right. When it comes to meds, the trainer is the "ultimate insurer." What about unhealthy horses? Who is responsible for them?

Clearly the stewards dropped the buck once it was passed to them (by Amy Zimmerman of ESPN!) and they took no action. They clearly feel that getting caught in their inaction was a bigger problem than their inaction.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Linny

I see more passing of the buck than anyplace but Washington. Pletcher knew clearly that the horse wasn't right when she was in the paddock. He still chose to pass her along to Johnny. Johnny's works for TAP who works for the owner and thus is low on the employment food chain. He doesn't want to "out" TAP so instead he tells Jery Bailey that the mare is not right.
ESPN producer, hearing the conversation alerts the stewards but honestly, what "standing" has she to call for an inquiry? Now, by speaking to Jerry (and the millions of viewers) JV feels he has "alerted" the world of a problem, he too has passed the buck.

Now the owner jumps into the fray. She's miffed, wants her $60k starting fee back, but she jumps in at the level of the stewards. I would presume (and here I don't know for certain) that she was in the paddock before the Distaff and observing the mare and aware of Todd's concerns. Funny, she wasn't so worried about her $60k when she thought the mare might "warm up" out of her funk and win her share of $2 million! She feels the stewards committed malpractice (as do I) but places no blame on her trainer who was aware that LAT was not right. When it comes to meds, the trainer is the "ultimate insurer." What about unhealthy horses? Who is responsible for them?

Clearly the stewards dropped the buck once it was passed to them (by Amy Zimmerman of ESPN!) and they took no action. They clearly feel that getting caught in their inaction was a bigger problem than their inaction.

Pletcher said that she was training well all week. It wasn't like she was favoring a leg and turned up lame. Apparently she had an allergic reaction, or at least that's what the story is. But was there a chance it could have been the crowd and or the first time running under the lights? I think that could have been a possibility. Does that warrent a scratch in a 5 million dollar race?

Like Chuck said, hindsight is 20/20. The only issue is why wasn't the track vet alerted to check her out.

[Linny]

The mare who is usually under stout restraint from several handlers was standing in the paddock looking like an old wagon horse. I could see it from Albany NY and TAP was standing next to her.

She may have looked like a monster at 9am on Friday but by that evening she was clearly not right. (Anyone with children can attest to how fast "the bug" can hit.) I am nowhere near the horseman that Todd is but if my usually peppy and eager horse doesn't pop his head out the door as soon as I open it (see my avatar) or he stands totally still for tacking up, or carries his head low I know something is wrong.

Whether it was some sort of virus or a reaction to Lasix or anything else, TAP should have brought it to the attention of more than just JV.

Interesting too is that she was pulled from the sale. TAP was concerned about asking bidders to buy when her health was questionable. He wasn't as worried about the $1.7m the bettors spent on her or the owners $60k starting fee a day earlier.