Pletcher to have no horses in the Travers

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Just a month or so ago, it looked like the Travers could be loaded...now it's the Jim Dandy all over again.

I like Street Sense, but there are just too many options for horses to be able to duck one another now.

The options are the same but nowdays the elite choose not to participate. Though the "he may bleed" excuse was original. It is funny how the media portrayed the Curlin connections to be such sportsmen for running in the Belmont. Now we dont want to overrace him has led to conceding the Travers to Street Sense. Pipe up now Bill Finley. Or are you too busy spending your blood money from the TRF?

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The options are the same but nowdays the elite choose not to participate. Though the "he may bleed" excuse was original. It is funny how the media portrayed the Curlin connections to be such sportsmen for running in the Belmont. Now we dont want to overrace him has led to conceding the Travers to Street Sense. Pipe up now Bill Finley. Or are you too busy spending your blood money from the TRF?

I was thinking the same about their 'sporting' behavior...I guess since half the ownership isn't available for bail anyway they don't need the money.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

It is pretty humorous that all of the people who criticized the Street Sense team for skipping the Belmont has been pretty quiet in regards to Pletcher skipping, Curlin not going and Hard Spun looking like he is going in the King's Bishop. I know we are some time off still, but it seems hypocritical to me.

Great point. My take was that most would be outspoken critics of Street Sense and his connections, most would jump to criticize Curlin and his connections, but Pletcher would get a pass on being criticized here.

Personally, I thought it was BS and ludicrous to criticize Nafzger and Taffel for passing on the Belmont, but that's neither here nor there. I also think Curlin didn't throw anywhere near his best in NJ and passing on the Travers is a call Assmusen should and did make. As far as Pletcher passing, OK, I don't have a problem with it. He can and will manage his horses the way he thinks is best, and he is more qualified than me to do so. I think he is also more qualified than anyone else when it comes to his horses, but that too is neither here nor there as well.

Eric

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cardus

After the great "should Street Sense run in the Belmont Stakes" debate, I've tried to get out of the "(fill-in-the-blank)" should run in such and such a race. Question for you: has there been an instance in which you thought it was BS for a trainer to skip a race?

Great question -- very thought provoking, just in me having to think about giving you an answer. I really tend not to "worry" about other people's business, decisions, etc. -- I concentrate and have enough of my own, LOL. You make an excellent point with regard to the Street Sense debate; although I never viewed it has a debate. I didn't have a problem with the Nafzger/Tafel decision. Sure, like everyone, I would have loved to see him run. However, as I mentioned, I thought it was ludicrous to call them names or to say they don't care about the game, business or sport. I tought it nonsense to criticize them and their decision and say they are not "sporstmen" or anything of the like.

Be that as it may, although I can't think of the specific instance, I am sure there has been a case where my initial thought might have been that it was BS for a trainer to skip a race. But it's their decision. And if I did feel that way, it would have been myopic as well, due to the fact that it's his/her decision and I would have been completely unaware of the facts, circumstances, etc. Am I qualified to make such a decision? No, and I don't think many others are qualified as well.

I make my decisions based upon the input, advice, guidance, etc. from my own advisors -- primarily the trainer in question. If I don't trust that trainer, or his recommendation, then I have a much bigger problem.

Eric

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

It is pretty humorous that all of the people who criticized the Street Sense team for skipping the Belmont has been pretty quiet in regards to Pletcher skipping, Curlin not going and Hard Spun looking like he is going in the King's Bishop. I know we are some time off still, but it seems hypocritical to me.

I don't criticize horses or trainers on here since I got in trouble for the Strong Pretender debacle but believe me, in other places of cyberspace I've been all over Pletcher and now Asmussen. I've never liked Hard Spun but really think they are doing the right thing, they ran him in all three TC races plus the Haskell and he couldn't get it done so now it is time to try and get him a G1.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I agree in regards to Hard Spun. Although with the way the race is shaping up, he might be the only legit speed horse in the race.

Honestly, whenever I am criticizing, it's usually the fan in me speaking out. I realize that the trainers are doing what they feel is right. But it does come off as ducking and dodging. Hopefully a mystery contender comes in late and maybe we'll get a race like the Belmont. Although, I'd be just as happy watching Street Sense win a walkover.

No, the current situation of putting the BC over these prestigious races like the Alabama and Travers is driving me absolutely nuts. Like both aren't possible. The Euros still run in the Arc and then worry about the BC and that is like two weeks out and requires shipping. I hope the trainers that are so concerned with getting a "fresh" horse to the BC rather than a well campaigned and fit one get burnt. Invasor won the BC despite the layoff last year, not because of it. With the training decisions this year you'd feel like trainers don't feel that way.

[boswd]

Like I said earlier in this thread, Nyra or whoever is running Saratoga better take a long hard look at this race this year and ask themselves " Is this what I want the future of this race to be?, One star and a gew G III's and allowance horses?" It's time for them to adapt to the times, it's all about the BC after the Triple Crown. They are going to have to make some changes. It's sad but true.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by boswd

Like I said earlier in this thread, Nyra or whoever is running Saratoga better take a long hard look at this race this year and ask themselves " Is this what I want the future of this race to be?, One star and a gew G III's and allowance horses?" It's time for them to adapt to the times, it's all about the BC after the Triple Crown. They are going to have to make some changes. It's sad but true.

I don't see what NYRA could possibly do. They could shell out another $1 million and we'd still likely have the same field. Short of paying Monmouth to move the Haskell up one week or moving Travers back to the less desirable Labor Day Weekend (which trainers will then skip because it doesn't leave them enough time to get another start before the Classic) there is really nothing they can do. As long as the trainers are taking the attitude that running second in the Travers with an AGS or Rags is worse than not running at all nothing will change. Second in these big races should still be regarded as an achievement. This is where I think a point system to determine Eclipse Awards will help. Make it so that running second in the Travers is truly better than skipping the race from an Eclipse perspective. As it is now winning a few races and playing duck duck goose is the best way to win an Eclipse.

[Thoroughbred Fan]

This whole thread is from the Trivial Pursuit "Who Gives A ****" Edition. Todd Pletcher isn't even a very good trainer. He just gets most of the top bloodstock.

Now, the real question is, with 35,000 foals per year, why can't we find enough decent ones to fill these classic races?

Answer, breeders have bred out almost all of the stamina and durability for Thoroughbreds.

The thread should ask why are there only ever five good horses per generation.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Thoroughbred Fan

This whole thread is from the Trivial Pursuit "Who Gives A ****" Edition. Todd Pletcher isn't even a very good trainer. He just gets most of the top bloodstock.
Now, the real question is, with 35,000 foals per year, why can't we find enough decent ones to fill these classic races?

Answer, breeders have bred out almost all of the stamina and durability for Thoroughbreds.

The thread should ask why are there only ever five good horses per generation.

Another great revelation -- Pletcher isn't even a very good trainer, LOL.

Believe me, I am no fan of Todd Pletcher. However, to make a case that he isn't a good trainer is nonsense. If the guy came out of nowhere, didn't pay his dues, got lucky, picked up some strong backing from a client or maybe two, didn't have the background or credentials -- well, that would be one thing.

This is not the case here. And, everyone who has been around this game for a long time knows this as well. Like him or not, good for the business or not, and so on.

Eric

[ELA]

Originally Posted by boswd

Like I said earlier in this thread, Nyra or whoever is running Saratoga better take a long hard look at this race this year and ask themselves " Is this what I want the future of this race to be?, One star and a gew G III's and allowance horses?" It's time for them to adapt to the times, it's all about the BC after the Triple Crown. They are going to have to make some changes. It's sad but true.

Of course it's sad, bit it doesn't have to be true. Yes, there are many drastic changes needed in our business and sport. However, this is not a NYRA issue -- it's an industry issue, and in this case, it's a Todd Pletcher issue. Sure, track management must look at how trainers, owners, etc. are viewing the BC, but that doesn't mean it's right and it doesn't mean the entire racing structure should fold to the BC, or because of a myopic view. There needs to be a more integrated and coordinated effort and view.

Bob Fox recently did a piece on ATR and he was saying how "these races" -- the Whitney, the Travers, and others, are not prep races -- they are great races on their own, on stand-alone basis. Look at the horses who raced in the Whitney and the Travers, let's look at the Invasor's and Bernardini's and the others as well. They are prestigeous races that will add value to a stallion's resume. Don't get me wrong, I am not inferring that either of these horses should get voted iron-horse of the year or anything of the like.

This is about Todd Pletcher wanting to get better results at the big dances. Don't get me wrong, I am not President of his fan club, however, he is going to manage his horses and his barn as he sees fit. It's about making what he views as the right decisions -- not about what people view as popular. Continue to think that Pletcher or anyone else will make decisions based upon popularity and you will continue to be not only naive but also very disappointed.

Eric