IEAH group

[The Bid]

Ive personally had a poor experience with IEAH, but find that pretty commonplace in racing.

Them being disliked for straight success is foolish. There are many other reasons to dislike them. What they have done in racing in such a short period of time is very difficult to do, regardless of the amount of money you have. The Arabs have unlimited funds and they havent came close to having the best Turf Miler, Derby winner, and arguably best sprinter in the country all at once. Think about that for a minute.....No matter how much you like, dislike, or cant stand them, and Im in that final group, the feat is remarkable.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by The Bid

Ive personally had a poor experience with IEAH, but find that pretty commonplace in racing.

Them being disliked for straight success is foolish. There are many other reasons to dislike them. What they have done in racing in such a short period of time is very difficult to do, regardless of the amount of money you have. The Arabs have unlimited funds and they havent came close to having the best Turf Miler, Derby winner, and arguably best sprinter in the country all at once. Think about that for a minute.....No matter how much you like, dislike, or cant stand them, and Im in that final group, the feat is remarkable.

What the NY Yankees have done is remarkeable too, but that doesn't stop people from disliking Steinbrenner, or Jerry Jones and the Cowboys. Even assuming all of IEAH's horses are clean, it still doesn't mean you have to "like" them..and that is probably good for horse racing. You need hereos and villians to stir up interest outside the core.

[Better Than Honour]

they are bad for the game just like the arabs are bad for the game. they buy other people's horses after they start racing. this trend of top horses being taken away from trainers is disturbing. curlin, big brown, and all the ieah horses were all trained by somebody else originally. it too reminds me of the yankees just going around and buying up the best talent.

the major concern though with ieah is that they are trying to make the sport profitable and it isn't that easy. you wonder where they will cut corners and what they will be willing to do to turn a profit for their owners if they hit a tough patch, which they will.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Better Than Honour

they are bad for the game just like the arabs are bad for the game. they buy other people's horses after they start racing. this trend of top horses being taken away from trainers is disturbing. curlin, big brown, and all the ieah horses were all trained by somebody else originally. it too reminds me of the yankees just going around and buying up the best talent.

the major concern though with ieah is that they are trying to make the sport profitable and it isn't that easy. you wonder where they will cut corners and what they will be willing to do to turn a profit for their owners if they hit a tough patch, which they will.

If you are an owner or trainer and don't reach for the phone if you see Sheik Mo or IEAH in the Caller ID, then you are a better man than most

[philcski]

Originally Posted by GBBob

If you are an owner or trainer and don't reach for the phone if you see Sheik Mo or IEAH in the Caller ID, then you are a better man than most

If they call and want the Colonel for $500k... YOURS.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by philcski

If they call and want the Colonel for $500k... YOURS.

Phil..based on your weekend, I'm expecting that offer from YOU

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Better Than Honour

they are bad for the game just like the arabs are bad for the game. they buy other people's horses after they start racing. this trend of top horses being taken away from trainers is disturbing. curlin, big brown, and all the ieah horses were all trained by somebody else originally. it too reminds me of the yankees just going around and buying up the best talent.

the major concern though with ieah is that they are trying to make the sport profitable and it isn't that easy. you wonder where they will cut corners and what they will be willing to do to turn a profit for their owners if they hit a tough patch, which they will.

Isn't that the point?

I really don't get how you can label the buyers of horses-in-training bad for the sport. It might be bad for fans who don't get to see the level of quality graded stakes fields there were 20 years ago but fans, for better or worse, have no legitimate constituency in the financing of the sport, other than takeout.

On takeout and even on the issue of meds regulation, where I do think fans/bettors have a legitimate stakeholder position, I have not seen any traction whatsoever on any efforts to effect change. I thought Jerry Brown was talking about doing interesting things 6-9 months ago but I haven't seen anything develop.

Maybe with the Louvre opens in Abu Dhabi, the horse hungry Sheikhs (not "the arabs") will find something else to obsess over. But the contraction of ownership of top tier horses is nothing new. Sangster paid $13 Million for a filly 20-25 years ago, which in 2007 dollars would dwarf what The Green Monkey brought. It will probably cycle away eventually from what it is now.

Frankly, there is a reason horses change hands when they are bought. Kathy O'Connell is a good trainer but she's no Todd Pletcher. Same for Helen Pitts-Assmussen and Reynolds-Dutrow. There's never a guarantee but who wouldn't want to take their shot with a trainer responsible for winning Eclipse Awards?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Isn't that the point?

I

Maybe with the Louvre opens in Abu Dhabi, the horse hungry Sheikhs (not "the arabs") will find something else to obsess over. But the contraction of ownership of top tier horses is nothing new. Sangster paid $13 Million for a filly 20-25 years ago, which in 2007 dollars would dwarf what The Green Monkey brought. It will probably cycle away eventually from what it is now.

This I agree with

Frankly, there is a reason horses change hands when they are bought. Kathy O'Connell is a good trainer but she's no Todd Pletcher. Same for Helen Pitts-Assmussen and Reynolds-Dutrow. There's never a guarantee but who wouldn't want to take their shot with a trainer responsible for winning Eclipse Awards?

This is so wrong

[Split Rock]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Frankly, there is a reason horses change hands when they are bought. Kathy O'Connell is a good trainer but she's no Todd Pletcher. Same for Helen Pitts-Assmussen and Reynolds-Dutrow. There's never a guarantee but who wouldn't want to take their shot with a trainer responsible for winning Eclipse Awards?

Talk about sheep....wow is that an ignorant comment. I cannot believe people that follow racing can be so buffaloed. Of course Helen Pitts is no Assmussen. She is an honest trainer and Assmussen isn't.

The reason IAEH bought Big Brown is because they knew the horse was legit because it was trained by Kathy O'Connell and knew "the miracle worker" Richard Dutrow would get the horse to play the piano.

C'mon dude....wake up here. Assmussen, Dutrow and Pletcher win a lot of races because they use substances others do not have access to or the money to be able to have access to. It's not very complicated.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Split Rock

Talk about sheep....wow is that an ignorant comment. I cannot believe people that follow racing can be so buffaloed. Of course Helen Pitts is no Assmussen. She is an honest trainer and Assmussen isn't.

The reason IAEH bought Big Brown is because they knew the horse was legit because it was trained by Kathy O'Connell and knew "the miracle worker" Richard Dutrow would get the horse to play the piano.

C'mon dude....wake up here. Assmussen, Dutrow and Pletcher win a lot of races because they use substances others do not have access to or the money to be able to have access to. It's not very complicated.

Actually, it is pretty complicated, and if you think it's only those three that are serious offenders, you need to open your eyes. Big Brown was trained by Pat Reynolds before the purchase, by the way.

[Split Rock]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Actually, it is pretty complicated, and if you think it's only those three that are serious offenders, you need to open your eyes. Big Brown was trained by Pat Reynolds before the purchase, by the way.

Yes. Pat Reynolds. Doesn't matter. The point is the same.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Split Rock

Talk about sheep....wow is that an ignorant comment. I cannot believe people that follow racing can be so buffaloed. Of course Helen Pitts is no Assmussen. She is an honest trainer and Assmussen isn't.

The reason IAEH bought Big Brown is because they knew the horse was legit because it was trained by Kathy O'Connell and knew "the miracle worker" Richard Dutrow would get the horse to play the piano.

C'mon dude....wake up here. Assmussen, Dutrow and Pletcher win a lot of races because they use substances others do not have access to or the money to be able to have access to. It's not very complicated.

Yes, I am a sheep. Or, at least a fan of decent shish kabob. You sure showed me. All this time I didn't know Kathy O'Connell was Big Brown's prior trainer. You must excuse my cluelessness, if you are beneficent enough, as you are the only person who knew this.

I shall alert the appropriate media.