Life At Ten: An "update" coming

[TouchOfGrey]

Is this guy seriously comparing the Life at Ten situation to what happened to Barbaro? Is there something I'm missing here?

The Stewards' Responsibility

That there was a major foul-up at Churchill Downs on Nov. 5 there is no doubt, but it is not nearly the tragedy that occurred in the 2006 Preakness Stakes at Pimlico.

<snip>

That rider Edgar Prado, trainer Michael Matz, the stewards of the Maryland Jockey Club and the track veterinarians collectively allowed Barbaro to run in the Preakness calls the actions of all concerned into question. A little history helps to explain why.

Barbaro was a horse with sensitive underpinnings. Perhaps this was why Matz started his career on turf, an easier surface than dirt. His first three races were on grass. His first six races were also well spaced, allowing him plenty of time to recover after each outing.

Barbaro had 46 days between his maiden score at Delaware and his victory in the Laurel Futurity. It was another 43 days before his third start, a vcitory in the Tampa Bay Derby. He would make his dirt debut in the Holy Bull Stakes, in which he wore front bandages for the only time, off just a 34-day absence, then won the Florida Derby off a 56-day layoff. Barbaro would then go in the Kentucky Derby after a 35-day rest.

The average number of days off for Barbaro in his first six races was 43 days, just a tad over six weeks. But as the winner of the Kentucky Derby, he was expected to run on just 14 days notice in the Preakness. Was that too short for him? Subsequent events suggest that it was.

And so does Barbaro's warrm-up prior to the Preakness. He was difficult going down to the start. Then, once loaded, he broke through the gate. Was Barbaro trying to tell us something, as horses frequently attempt to do when they are not right? Was he in distress, being asked to do something, i.e., run on just 14 days notice, and perhaps not fully recovered from his Kentucky Derby exertions? We will never know, but what we do know is that after having broken through the gate, Barbaro was immediately reloaded for the start. A few seconds later, his racing career, and ultimately his life, were at an end.

Why didn't the gate vet have a closer look at Barbaro after he had broken through the gate? Was there pressure on keeping the Derby winner in the race in front of 100,000 people and a national television audience? Or did trainer, rider, stewards and vets really believe that all was right with Barbaro on the day?

The Barbaro tragedy should have alerted stewards in every jurisdiction to monitor suspect pre-race behavior more closely. That that has not been done is evident in the case of Life At Ten.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by TouchOfGrey

Is this guy seriously comparing the Life at Ten situation to what happened to Barbaro? Is there something I'm missing here?

The Stewards' Responsibility

That guy is unsufferable. He is a genius who has 20/20 vision after the fct like so many of the other "experts" in this business. In effect his "evidence" about Barbaro is a joke.

He started on the turf? Dont most horses by Dynaformer start on the turf? How is his success on the turf related to his being injured in a race 6 months later?

His inference that the 14 days turnaround contributed to Barbaro's injury which may or may not be true but this same writer is never afraid to take potshots at American trainers for spacing of races.

The idea that in 30 seconds or 5 minutes on a racetrack in front of 110000 thousand screaming people that a vet, (any vet not just a state vet who may not even have that much practical experience) can conduct a proper or even effective examination of a horse is just ridiculous. The same with LAT. If they had examined her and she did not exhibit signs of lameness there is very little chance that she would have been scratched unless the jockey absolutely insisted he wouldn't ride the horse. Hell the best vets in the business examined the horse after the race and didnt find much of anything.

The fact of the matter is that Velasquez should have said something to the vet and Veitch should have acted on the info he received to have the horse examined prior to the race. Even if they had, there is still big chance that finding nothing specific they would still have let her run.

[freddymo]

"The problem is that something was amiss with Life at Ten before the race and nothing was done, not that this became public knowledge." Crist

So on point in so few words

[TouchOfGrey]

Life At Ten Case Drawing To A Close

[Merlinsky]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...exceeds-100000

I thought you had to be a politician to have this much money spent on accomplishing so little.