|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
10-27-2006, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
What I find interesting is that the harness business has made a lot more progress than the thoroughbred business. Look at what NJ did with the recent people they caught. Monster fines, 10 year suspensions, potential lifetime suspensions -- and this is not the first time they've done it. They did it years ago as well. Have they totally cleaned up the game? No of course not.
However, on the other side of the coin, I do think there is a bit of the "martyr" element here. It's not all the time but it's there some of the time. People who often cannot compete look to blame others instead of themselves. Now I am not saying that is a major part of it, but I will say this -- I am not going to name names (so don't bother asking), however, I have a trainer in NY who has trained several horses for us over the course of the past 5 years or so. The vet bills with this trainer are minimal compared to other trainers we've used. They are minimal compared to friends of mine who have horses with other trainers. . Now this is a high-percentage trainer who shoots really well. Very strong. But -- he races his horses where they can win. He is very aggressive when placing his horses. He gives his horses the time needed and doesn't push the envelope in racing or over-racing them. And when a horse can't cut it or isn't competitive, he tells us so and tells us it's time to move on. There are trainers in this business who produce results and don't rely on the vet to be the major contributory factor in producing those results. Eric 
|
|
#2
10-28-2006, 02:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's pretty obvious that some trainers are "stretching the rules" as far as they possibly can.
I can buy the fact that one trainer might have a great streak, or even has a knack for claiming horses, like Frankel used to back in the day, and be 30% or so first off the claim. I cannot buy the fact that there are 2-3 of these 30-50% first off claiming trainers at almost every racetrack today. To me, that statistic by itself is the most obvious in finding who the most likely "rule stretchers" are. Now some people will say they are just better trainers, read the condition books better, and train for more aggressive owners who aren't afraid to lose their horses via a lower claiming price. That is believable to me and I can buy it to a point. Where my suspicion starts to arise again is when I see many of the old school trainers struggle today. These are the trainers who for a VERY long time were successful and seemed to have an idea of how to train consistent winners. Now they can barely hit the board, even though they still get quality stock. Why is this happening?? Are these trainers getting old, maybe. Did they forget how to train, I doubt it. Are they less likely to "stretch the rules" and/or put their owners and the owners property in compromising positions, IMO, absolutely.
|
|
#3
10-28-2006, 02:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
i'd imagine a lot of positives are due to trainers giving meds at the absolute last moment to get a horse 'clean' by race time, and of course not all horses metabolize at the same rate, so sometimes they pop positive.
any meds that aren't truly performance enhancing or masking drugs really shouldn't be lumped into the same category as those that are. lasix is given for no reason, at it was always percieved to be an enhancer, so no one wants to run without--that's crazy. there needs to be a national governing body, they need to go over all medications, and their rules. lasix and all other drugs should not be handed out like candy to these horses--or better yet, they should all be illegal. wow, now wouldn't that get rid of a lot of unsound horses, and their offspring?! that would leave only those hardy enough, and deserving, to run and carry on the breed. lol never happen. if people think poly is the anti-christ, just think if meds were cut off.
|
|
#4
10-28-2006, 06:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
Hybrid Mode
