KHRC scapegoating of John Veitch (Multiple thread merge; Update)

[Danzig]

so the sacrificial lamb has finally been 'slaughtered'. i have yet to understand why the responsibility wasn't on the trainer in this situation in addition the jock-who paid a fine.


'Sent off at odds of 7-2, Life at Ten, owned by Candy DeBartolo, was discovered to be lethargic in the saddling area and again on a the racetrack warming up. That observation was relayed to ESPN on live television by jockey John Velazquez, who never persevered with the filly once the gates opened.'


since when is a trainer not responsible for his horse?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so the sacrificial lamb has finally been 'slaughtered'. i have yet to understand why the responsibility wasn't on the trainer in this situation in addition the jock-who paid a fine.


'Sent off at odds of 7-2, Life at Ten, owned by Candy DeBartolo, was discovered to be lethargic in the saddling area and again on a the racetrack warming up. That observation was relayed to ESPN on live television by jockey John Velazquez, who never persevered with the filly once the gates opened.'


since when is a trainer not responsible for his horse?

What can the trainer do? I have never seen a horse scratched for being lethargic in the paddock, ever. Once she went to the track the trainer can't really do anything. I'm not quite sure what the Stewrds were supposed to do either because according to all reports there were no lameness issues and there is very little chance that the vets suggest a scratch for a horse that is sound behind the gate. Obviously we have the luxury of knowing how it turns out but imagine the uproar from people had they scratched a horse who was one of the choices in a 3 million dollar race who nothing was found wrong with afterwards? I dont know the pick3 or pick 4 rules in KY but the post time fav lost the race so there would have been a lot of handwringing over tht especially when the next day Pletcher announced that she was fine.

Veitch simply wasn't politically skilled enough to survive in the KHRA run by political operatives who are tasked with a mission by the ivory tower crowd. Supposedly the biggest beef is he wouldnt bury the hatchet in Bernie Flint who had a positive test at Ellis Park because there was some mitigating evidence that the positive wasnt valid. Underwood wanted Veitch to drop the hammer on Flint anyway and Veitch wouldnt do it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What can the trainer do? I have never seen a horse scratched for being lethargic in the paddock, ever. Once she went to the track the trainer can't really do anything. I'm not quite sure what the Stewrds were supposed to do either because according to all reports there were no lameness issues and there is very little chance that the vets suggest a scratch for a horse that is sound behind the gate. Obviously we have the luxury of knowing how it turns out but imagine the uproar from people had they scratched a horse who was one of the choices in a 3 million dollar race who nothing was found wrong with afterwards? I dont know the pick3 or pick 4 rules in KY but the post time fav lost the race so there would have been a lot of handwringing over tht especially when the next day Pletcher announced that she was fine.

Veitch simply wasn't politically skilled enough to survive in the KHRA run by political operatives who are tasked with a mission by the ivory tower crowd. Supposedly the biggest beef is he wouldnt bury the hatchet in Bernie Flint who had a positive test at Ellis Park because there was some mitigating evidence that the positive wasnt valid. Underwood wanted Veitch to drop the hammer on Flint anyway and Veitch wouldnt do it.

it just seemed to me from comments pletcher made that she wasn't herself and he knew it..
i guess my main beef is that they went after veitch, when pletcher,imo, knew more about the situation. did they assume veitch was watching tv and saw the interview??

and yes, no doubt there'd have been an uproar had they scratched her. look at the trainer, jock, etc when they scratched that euro horse this year-and she had a physical injury.


but i guess captain hindsight strikes again, this time in kentucky.

[Merlinsky]

Listening to ATR today, I couldn't help but go "preach it, brother Steve!" Love it when he gets riled up about injustice. Some people need to be torn a new one.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it just seemed to me from comments pletcher made that she wasn't herself and he knew it..
i guess my main beef is that they went after veitch, when pletcher,imo, knew more about the situation. did they assume veitch was watching tv and saw the interview??

and yes, no doubt there'd have been an uproar had they scratched her. look at the trainer, jock, etc when they scratched that euro horse this year-and she had a physical injury.


but i guess captain hindsight strikes again, this time in kentucky.

They went after Veitch because they wanted to scapegoat him to get rid of him. There is nothing to really go after Pletcher about.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

They went after Veitch because they wanted to scapegoat him to get rid of him. There is nothing to really go after Pletcher about.

Don't you think it was a colossal screw-up, under the circumstances, not to have sent Life At Ten, a 3-1 second choice who was essentially eased by her rider, to the test barn?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Don't you think it was a colossal screw-up, under the circumstances, not to have sent Life At Ten, a 3-1 second choice who was essentially eased by her rider, to the test barn?

Let's say it was a mistake. Does that mean he should lose his job? Have you, or anyone you know, made a mistake at work without losing employment?

I get the idiocy I have read on the internet. Most horseplayers are glad to see a Steward lose their job. It makes them feel better for all the times the have felt wronged by a Stewards decision. So they say something dopey about this situation without thinking. I get it.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Let's say it was a mistake. Does that mean he should lose his job? Have you, or anyone you know, made a mistake at work without losing employment?

I get the idiocy I have read on the internet. Most horseplayers are glad to see a Steward lose their job. It makes them feel better for all the times the have felt wronged by a Stewards decision. So they say something dopey about this situation without thinking. I get it.

Of course, an individual doesn't lose his or her job every tim he or she makes a mistake. But there are "mistakes" and then there are "MISTAKES."

We could have a lengthy discussion as to whether the failure to have Life At Ten tested under the circumstances - or any of the other alleged "mistakes" made by the stewards during last year's Breeders' Cup - would have justified a "for cause" termination. Of course, that's not the issue any longer, assuming published reports are correct, that this was a "without cause" termination (of a political appointee).

I, for one, do not rejoice in John Veitch losing his job. However, I do not think it is accurate to suggest that he was completely without fault in the Life At Ten affair. Nor do I think it fair to suggest that to suggest that those who have been critical of his handling of the Life At Ten situation are simply disgruntled horseplayers.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Don't you think it was a colossal screw-up, under the circumstances, not to have sent Life At Ten, a 3-1 second choice who was essentially eased by her rider, to the test barn?

It would make sense to do so yes. But I dont know that Veitch is soley responsibile for determining who goes to be tested outside of the winner and 2nd place finishers. There were 2 other stewards as well. And lets be honest there is virtually no chance that testing would have found anything to put the blame on.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It would make sense to do so yes. But I dont know that Veitch is soley responsibile for determining who goes to be tested outside of the winner and 2nd place finishers. There were 2 other stewards as well. And lets be honest there is virtually no chance that testing would have found anything to put the blame on.

I appreciate that we are looking at this situation with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. In addition to testing the first few finishers, wouldn't normal protocol call for the testing of a beaten favorite or a short-priced horse who essentially threw in a "non effort"? Your point about why they have focused solely on Veitch and not the role of the other two stewards is well taken.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

They went after Veitch because they wanted to scapegoat him to get rid of him. There is nothing to really go after Pletcher about.

so they used this as an excuse? that makes it even worse. wow. how ridiculous. now it makes sense why they didn't bother with pletcher.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Veitch simply wasn't politically skilled enough to survive in the KHRA run by political operatives who are tasked with a mission by the ivory tower crowd.

Good people seldom are. They're too busy doing their job.