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

[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.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

. 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.

I think that would be stupid as well. Who said that?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

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.

Again lets not forget that we are judging knowing the outcome. At the time I thought that the horse must be lame or have a physical issue to have been pulled up after racing so sluggishly. You wouldnt think to send a lame or sore horse to the spit box. I don't know what his thinking was and obviously to cover his ass he should have sent her there but that wouldnt have solved anything.

I still have to put the onus on Velazquez. He is the one on the horse and he had been on her previously. Why he felt it was ok to say that she wasnt warming up well to a national tv audience and not mention something to the vets is beyond me. And I still dont think they would have advised scratching her.

[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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

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.

Normal protocol would though this situation was anything but. Everything is shrouded in secrecy as to who they test outside of the mandatories but I have had 30-1 shots run like 30-1 shots that get called for special tests before as well. Other than covering his ass I dont think a negative test would change the public perception of this mess.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Normal protocol would though this situation was anything but. Everything is shrouded in secrecy as to who they test outside of the mandatories but I have had 30-1 shots run like 30-1 shots that get called for special tests before as well. Other than covering his ass I dont think a negative test would change the public perception of this mess.

A negative test may not have changed a lot of the public perception, but the failure to test a horse trained by Pletcher only added fuel to the fire.

[robfla]

Veitch appeals firing, asks to be reinstated as steward

Former chief Kentucky racing steward John Veitch, 66, on Wednesday appealed his firing on the grounds of age discrimination, among other reasons. He is requesting that he be reinstated and awarded damages........

http://www.kentucky.com/2011/11/30/1...g-asks-to.html

[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.