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

[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.