Lukas down to 40 horses

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The numbers are staggering. People don't just make this stuff up. Some of the major insurers will not insure his horses because of the numbers.

i wish i had a dollar for every time this shows up...i knew as soon as this thread started this, and you, would show.

dwl is older, with up and comers stealing his thunder-especially those who trained under him, such as pletcher and mcglaughlin. it's a dog eat dog world out there, and dwl was at the top for years. YEARS. it's time he slowed down, altho he still shows flashes of the talent/brilliance that got him to the top...it happens to everyone. look at nascar for instance. richard petty wasn't called the king for nothing. he went downhill in the latter part of his career. happens to them all. nfl--brett favre. michael jordan pre-baseball was better than mj pro-baseball. it's life.

does lukas break down more than mandella? mclaughlin? pletcher? mcgaughey?
if, as rupert suggests, breakdowns are caused by breeding instead of training, why blame lukas for breaking down horses? what does it prove that some insurance company refuses to insure Lukas. I did not know it was the trainer that got the insurance. thought it was the owner.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ratherrapid

does lukas break down more than mandella? mclaughlin? pletcher? mcgaughey?
if, as rupert suggests, breakdowns are caused by breeding instead of training, why blame lukas for breaking down horses? what does it prove that some insurance company refuses to insure Lukas. I did not know it was the trainer that got the insurance. thought it was the owner.

Yes, he breaks down way more than any of those guys percetage wise.

What does it prove about the insurance companies? The insurance companies have all the numbers. They know the exact number of horses that he has insured and the exact number that have died and had to pay the policy on.

The owners buy the insurance policies but the insurance companies will ask you who your trainer is. If it's a trainer who is not profitable for them to insure, then they probably won't insure the horse.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, he breaks down way more than any of those guys percetage wise.
What does it prove about the insurance companies? The insurance companies have all the numbers. They know the exact number of horses that he has insured and the exact number that have died and had to pay the policy on.

The owners buy the insurance policies but the insurance companies will ask you who your trainer is. If it's a trainer who is not profitable for them to insure, then they probably won't insure the horse.

and you have this study, right? or a link?

as for insurance co's--they'd cover your soul after you sold it to the devil as long as you could afford the premium. low risk, low premium, high risk-high premium.
funny, you're the only poster i've ever seen on here or elsewhere make these claims. funny also that i've never seen proof of it anywhere. you'd think that publications such as bloodhorse, who doesn't seem imo to shy away from touchy subjects, would be all over a story about a high profile, hall of fame trainer who can't get insurance coverage.