Uncle Mo Surgery Conspiracy

[Linny]

Originally Posted by Riot

Trainers and vets are correct and admirable to keep what's going on with their horses absolutely, completely private. Only the owners can legally release information. A vet can't even verify a particular animal has been admitted or seen.

True, but as an agent for the owner the trainer is generally the mouthpiece for all but the most outspoken owners. Repole strikes me as the type who'd be pretty open with comments but Todd is anything but. I certainly wouldn't ever expect any vet to say a word about a horse they treat, but trainers are usually the outlet for such info.

[Linny]

You can ask Todd all you want but you won't get an answer. He'll tell you thatthe horse appears to have a GI infection (what exactly is that in a horse?) and that he's still on schedule for the Derby. He's under no obligation to tell anyone anything and he's not going to. If he had any idea of doing so, he would have long ago.

[Thunder Gulch]

Originally Posted by Linny

You can ask Todd all you want but you won't get an answer. He'll tell you thatthe horse appears to have a GI infection (what exactly is that in a horse?) and that he's still on schedule for the Derby. He's under no obligation to tell anyone anything and he's not going to. If he had any idea of doing so, he would have long ago.

Would he go the "didn't happen" route, or "no comment" route? I would really just like to hear somebody press him, but they would never get another piece of information anywhere down the road.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Linny

True, but as an agent for the owner the trainer is generally the mouthpiece for all but the most outspoken owners. Repole strikes me as the type who'd be pretty open with comments but Todd is anything but. .

Exactly. Pletcher should be that way, unless given direct instructions otherwise by the owner. What owner would do that? Why? It's always only to the detriment of your own interests.

That's the horse business, whether they cost $500 or $5 million.