NYT: Drugs & I Want Revenge

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I'm bummed I didn't have time to get back to this thread sooner- entertaining read.

Lots of the betting public has no idea what to do with timed workouts, PPs, etc. Does that mean they should be ditched? It's up to the bettor if he or she wants to do the work to learn what the info means (as anyone who can read a racing form had to at one time), but at least make the information public, so they can use it if they want. No one forces a bettor to watch a horse's previous races, but the info is out there if they want it.

As for the possibility of abuse, geez louise, you will ALWAYS have cheaters. Or do you believe the idea for lip tattoos came BEFORE the idea of switching horses in races? You set up the rules and penalties for those who break the rules, and do the best you can to police. But in the end, is more information better than less? Absolutely, especially when you're talking about the bettors, who are the consumers of this product. It's up to them whether they choose to use it or not, but they deserve more information, not less.

Assuming that all this information deserves to be made public (a point that I don't concede), where would you put all this information? If we were to include a horse's vet records in the PPs, the DRF would probably cost $100. Also, a lot of the meds are given 24-48 hours before the race, so how would that disclosure work?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Assuming that all this information deserves to be made public (a point that I don't concede), where would you put all this information? If we were to include a horse's vet records in the PPs, the DRF would probably cost $100. Also, a lot of the meds are given 24-48 hours before the race, so how would that disclosure work?

Can you imagine the lawsuits that will arise when a guy claims a horse who doesnt pan out and his lawyer starts picking apart the previous trainers/owners vet reports?

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Can you imagine the lawsuits that will arise when a guy claims a horse who doesnt pan out and his lawyer starts picking apart the previous trainers/owners vet reports?

I'd just sue the insurance company.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I'd just sue the insurance company.

They are preying on our sick and elderly...oops wrong section.

This guy writes a nice piece on the article

http://fuguefortinhorns.blogspot.com...ork-times.html

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

This guy writes a nice piece on the article

http://fuguefortinhorns.blogspot.com...ork-times.html

If only Joe Drape would read the above.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Riot

If only Joe Drape would read the above.

Yeah, but now the NTRA/Breeders Cup announces a handicapping seminar as part of its "Tweeters Cup" at Santa Anita, and who do they have as one of their panelists? Joe Drape. I'm sure that his early season selection of (the supposedly drug-free) Mafaaz as his top Derby candidate qualified him for his spot on this panel. And we wonder why people question the leadership of the sport?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Yeah, but now the NTRA/Breeders Cup announces a handicapping seminar as part of its "Tweeters Cup" at Santa Anita, and who do they have as one of their panelists? Joe Drape. I'm sure that his early season selection of (the supposedly drug-free) Mafaaz as his top Derby candidate qualified him for his spot on this panel. And we wonder why people question the leadership of the sport?

The NY Times seemingly has an institutional policy that its writers must sensationalize at any opportunity any chance to knock the sport of horse racing. Drape has hardly hidden his own leanings with his "reporting", William Rhoden (who is a complete windbag) has taken numerous shots at racing over the years despite having virtually no knowledge of what he is talking about and one of their feature Bloggers is Jim Squires who recently wrote an book about racing full of factual errors, ridiculous innuendo and plain nonsense. Bill Finley was also a longtime racing writer for the Times and he rarely lets an opportunity to knock racing escape him.

I doubt the Times actually cares about racing enough to order an edict to knock it. But the tone of negative articles about racing that emanate from that rag is enough to make you take notice.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I'd just sue the insurance company.

LOL. I'm not falling for it this time!

[Cannon Shell]

http://thoroughbredbrief.wordpress.c...p-and-control/

Very well presented piece

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://thoroughbredbrief.wordpress.c...p-and-control/

Very well presented piece

Your mother always wanted you to be a lawyer

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Your mother always wanted you to be a lawyer

I may eventually go down the Darrel Vienna route

[chucklestheclown]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://thoroughbredbrief.wordpress.c...p-and-control/

Very well presented piece

I think you have answered your own question about the law by reading this piece about a decision handed down months ago.
As to insurance companies, horses are property-chattel-and that is what title insurance, et al is for.

The first link you brought up included this:
IEAH is simply saying that it bought into a horse -- for a princely sum -- and was not kept informed of the condition and welfare of their living, breathing investment until such point that he was scratched from the Derby and the colt's unsoundness was undeniable. In fact, IEAH claims it asked Lanzman directly about a Derby Eve rumor that the colt would be scratched and that Lanzman was dishonest by denying the rumor, a claim Lanzman denies.
That makes for a good story. Such claims lead one to question the honesty and transparency of the back side at America's racetracks, and whether even the richest owners who have millions invested are really kept up to speed with what's going on with their horses. And actually, the writer does a very good job of detailing the facts and claims that IEAH has presented regarding that aspect of the case.

IEAH is not an entity I am proud to see represent horseracing for the US. But in this case it appears they are right, legally and morally.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by chucklestheclown

I think you have answered your own question about the law by reading this piece about a decision handed down months ago.
As to insurance companies, horses are property-chattel-and that is what title insurance, et al is for.

The first link you brought up included this:
IEAH is simply saying that it bought into a horse -- for a princely sum -- and was not kept informed of the condition and welfare of their living, breathing investment until such point that he was scratched from the Derby and the colt's unsoundness was undeniable. In fact, IEAH claims it asked Lanzman directly about a Derby Eve rumor that the colt would be scratched and that Lanzman was dishonest by denying the rumor, a claim Lanzman denies.
That makes for a good story. Such claims lead one to question the honesty and transparency of the back side at America's racetracks, and whether even the richest owners who have millions invested are really kept up to speed with what's going on with their horses. And actually, the writer does a very good job of detailing the facts and claims that IEAH has presented regarding that aspect of the case.

IEAH is not an entity I am proud to see represent horseracing for the US. But in this case it appears they are right, legally and morally.

All horses are sold without guarantee to their physical condition unless specifically mentioned. IEAH had an opportunity to have a vet of their choosing examine the horse prior to purchasing their portion of the horse. If they did so and their vet passed the horse then what claim do they have? There is no lemon law regarding horses and the vet records that we have seen are pretty clear. Not to mention that IEAH is privy to their own billing records which shows what has been done to the horse. If they want to have a different arrangement with the vet it is up to them to express that.

I would love to see the bill of sale for the purchase.

And there is no title insurance for horses. The only insurance you can get for racehorses is mortality and it seems as though IWR is still alive.

Morally it seems as though IEAH wants to back out of its agreement because it didnt work out for them as opposed to any rightful claim they have.

The moral of this story is be careful with who you do business with....for both sides.