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.

[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 .

[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 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.