There are many horses who have won a great deal of money -- who many (and I refer to well-respected horsemen) feel, are of the opinion, etc. that the horse was minsmanaged. In certain cases this may be an exercise in futility, others perhaps not. Eventually though it all ends up supposition because the horse raced where he raced.
As far as a horse being mismanaged, here in this forum, we could really only talk about where the horse was placed. As far as the training side of mismanagement -- no offense to anyone -- that is merely a bunch of armchair trainers, internet and self-proclaimed experts, etc. talking nonsense about something that for the most part they know nothing about. If Chuck Simon wanted to give his opinion, that's another story, but that's also another discussion.
I have found that sitting on the front-side, and sitting in judgement of decisions -- some of which are -- made on the back-side, is extremely easy and extremely foolish. The arguement here is a perfect example of the core issue though. This horse would have won more money if he had been with a better trainer; and many better trainers tend to pick better sopts. Yes, they are better trainers, but their results also come from being more aggressive.
Eric
|