Curlin's connections

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Personally I am very happy for Satish Sanan, a man who loves the game, has put enormous amounts of money and effort into racing, has been robbed for untold millions, had the nerve to stand up for himself and what was right, and continues undaunted to support the game. Personally I hope his success continues.

I certainly think that what Sanan and Jackson are trying to do in terms of cleaning up the sales end of the business is laudable. However, people in "glass houses" who claim that they are trying to "clean up the game" should try to avoid even the appearance of condoning shady behavior. In this regard, their selection of Asmussen as their trainer leaves a lot to be desired.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I certainly think that what Sanan and Jackson are trying to do in terms of cleaning up the sales end of the business is laudable. However, people in "glass houses" who claim that they are trying to "clean up the game" should try to avoid even the appearance of condoning shady behavior. In this regard, their selection of Asmussen as their trainer leaves a lot to be desired.

I believe that ego not integrity was the fuel that fueled the flame to "clean up the sales business". Two extremely successful guys got burned and needed to do something to fix those bruised egos. Not that anything they are doing will have much effect anyway. You cant legislate morality.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I believe that ego not integrity was the fuel that fueled the flame to "clean up the sales business". Two extremely successful guys got burned and needed to do something to fix those bruised egos. Not that anything they are doing will have much effect anyway. You cant legislate morality.

I don't know enough about them to render judgment on what has motivated their "clean up the business" crusade. Assuming what you say is correct, however, I hope that the message is not disregarded simply because of who the messengers are, because we all know there are plenty of aspects of the sales that need to be cleaned up. Some of the obvious problems (i.e., conflicts of interest, use of steroids, etc.) are things for which regulations can - and should - be drafted.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I don't know enough about them to render judgment on what has motivated their "clean up the business" crusade. Assuming what you say is correct, however, I hope that the message is not disregarded simply because of who the messengers are, because we all know there are plenty of aspects of the sales that need to be cleaned up. Some of the obvious problems (i.e., conflicts of interest, use of steroids, etc.) are things for which regulations can - and should - be drafted.

I agree with you but it is hard to "prove" these things especially when a lot of the people who are drafting the rules, are the ones who are the reason for their existence. The steroids thing is a no brainer though.

[parsixfarms]

No question. The sales companies have little incentive to restrict steroids, for if they did, the commissions they receive would likely fall.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Not that anything they are doing will have much effect anyway. You cant legislate morality.

Unless you live in California, then you can try like hell.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I believe that ego not integrity was the fuel that fueled the flame to "clean up the sales business". Two extremely successful guys got burned and needed to do something to fix those bruised egos. Not that anything they are doing will have much effect anyway. You cant legislate morality.

Chuck, that's a very good point. The original motivation might have been a blow to one's ego, and perhaps the results may be a very good thing. Others as well have also joined. I don't think it is just morality though. However, while that may be part of the mix, I think the sales integrity task force and related initiatives are taking an excellent approach. By developing standards, guidelines and protocols that the industry itself -- at least the inclusive part of the industry -- authors, they can accomplish several things. First, they are looking to establish a level or environment of self governanence, at least to an extent. That environment, once established, can be adopted by an organization that might have the bite behind the bark. That is something that is lacking in other parts of our industry as well. On the other hand, they can raise the bar and set a new standard for ethics, integrity, professionalism, etc. I think this is a "lead, follow or get out of the way" approach and mindset. This too is something that is needed in other aspects.

Those that do not join, operate by, and so forth would be easily identifiable -- and would be making a statement that they don't subscribe to this newly established set of standards. Now, that's OK. However, different people -- buyers that is -- will have different standards. It might be independent in nature, but readily accepted at a point in time.

People talk of a racing czar. Of course that won't work unless the true power to enforce, govern, etc. comes with it. Perhaps it's the Jockey Club or the RCI group that is the catalyst.

Technology has a shorter and shorter life cycle every day. Planned obscelesence is innate. Technoligical change brings about evolution and revolution. Maybe we will see the same thing in our industry and sport.

Eric

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ELA

Chuck, that's a very good point. The original motivation might have been a blow to one's ego, and perhaps the results may be a very good thing. Others as well have also joined. I don't think it is just morality though. However, while that may be part of the mix, I think the sales integrity task force and related initiatives are taking an excellent approach. By developing standards, guidelines and protocols that the industry itself -- at least the inclusive part of the industry -- authors, they can accomplish several things. First, they are looking to establish a level or environment of self governanence, at least to an extent. That environment, once established, can be adopted by an organization that might have the bite behind the bark. That is something that is lacking in other parts of our industry as well. On the other hand, they can raise the bar and set a new standard for ethics, integrity, professionalism, etc. I think this is a "lead, follow or get out of the way" approach and mindset. This too is something that is needed in other aspects.

Those that do not join, operate by, and so forth would be easily identifiable -- and would be making a statement that they don't subscribe to this newly established set of standards. Now, that's OK. However, different people -- buyers that is -- will have different standards. It might be independent in nature, but readily accepted at a point in time.

People talk of a racing czar. Of course that won't work unless the true power to enforce, govern, etc. comes with it. Perhaps it's the Jockey Club or the RCI group that is the catalyst.

Technology has a shorter and shorter life cycle every day. Planned obscelesence is innate. Technoligical change brings about evolution and revolution. Maybe we will see the same thing in our industry and sport.

Eric

All of what you said is very true and well worded.

However I would say that a similar senario to what will occur and has been going on is getting together all the prisoners in jail, asking them to write new laws since they are so familar with the ones they broke, and then releasing them because they know best how to operate under the new rules since they wrote them.

When it comes down to it, money and greed will bring down the house of cards that the bloodstock business has become.

The "integrity" issue will always be a thorn in the side of the business of horse racing. It is hard for many people, myself included, to understand how you can call for integrity in one aspect of the business but employ a trainer that has had many problems with it. I understand that he is not in a popularity contest or running for office, but the sight of Jackson and Assmussen sitting together at the Keeneland sale while the former was taking his pleas to the KY legislature and the latter was in the middle of the longest drug suspension of a major trainer in recent times, was ironic in the very least.

I undestand that Assmussen runs a huge operation and as such is apt to have more "mistakes" than others, but where do you draw the line? 22 is ALOT of mistakes.

There are some things about all of the owners(except Bolton)that are not public knowledge that are not endearing in the least. Not that other people in the game are all saints but when it comes right down to it, it IS a pretty hard group to feel any joy for.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

All of what you said is very true and well worded.

However I would say that a similar senario to what will occur and has been going on is getting together all the prisoners in jail, asking them to write new laws since they are so familar with the ones they broke, and then releasing them because they know best how to operate under the new rules since they wrote them.

When it comes down to it, money and greed will bring down the house of cards that the bloodstock business has become.

The "integrity" issue will always be a thorn in the side of the business of horse racing. It is hard for many people, myself included, to understand how you can call for integrity in one aspect of the business but employ a trainer that has had many problems with it. I understand that he is not in a popularity contest or running for office, but the sight of Jackson and Assmussen sitting together at the Keeneland sale while the former was taking his pleas to the KY legislature and the latter was in the middle of the longest drug suspension of a major trainer in recent times, was ironic in the very least.

I undestand that Assmussen runs a huge operation and as such is apt to have more "mistakes" than others, but where do you draw the line? 22 is ALOT of mistakes.

There are some things about all of the owners(except Bolton)that are not public knowledge that are not endearing in the least. Not that other people in the game are all saints but when it comes right down to it, it IS a pretty hard group to feel any joy for.

Chuck, I very much appreciate and respect your opinion. With that in mind, I think the issue here is a very global one. I don't view this as the prisoners writing new laws. I don't see that happening at all. If we view Sanan and Jackson as the "prisoners" in that analogy, is it because they chose Assmusen as a trainer? Cot Campbell and Barry Irwin because they utilize Todd Pletcher? I understand your point, I really do, however, Sanan wasn't taking this much criticism when he was with Baffert -- and didn't Baffert have a somewhat controversial positive test? Frankel? Lukas? Unfortunately, this cannot be black and white.

As far as the bloodstock business, in my opinion, this is where the inmates might be running the facility, or at least having a major say in what's going on. I might not have the intensity you do when we are talking about a trainer, but I might have the same intensity if we were talking about an owner. Thus, I can certainly understand your point.

Feeling joy is one thing -- but putting up your money is something else. Many people have skeletons in their closets. A man like Jackson or Sanan, just due to their stature, operations, business activities, etc., they are bound to be the subject of scrutiny.

Anyway, I think when it comes to rooting or feeling joy, it is going to be a case of to each their own. However, when it comes to the efforts of trying -- success or not -- to bring integrity to any aspect of the game; regardless of the person's choice of trainers, we need to look at the efforts. Are they sincere? Maybe this is just the beginning. I think a great deal remains to be seen.

Thanks for the comments. It allows me to look at things from a different perspective. That gives all of us a more well rounded and in-depth opinion and knowledge.

Eric

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ELA

Chuck, I very much appreciate and respect your opinion. With that in mind, I think the issue here is a very global one. I don't view this as the prisoners writing new laws. I don't see that happening at all. If we view Sanan and Jackson as the "prisoners" in that analogy, is it because they chose Assmusen as a trainer? Cot Campbell and Barry Irwin because they utilize Todd Pletcher? I understand your point, I really do, however, Sanan wasn't taking this much criticism when he was with Baffert -- and didn't Baffert have a somewhat controversial positive test? Frankel? Lukas? Unfortunately, this cannot be black and white.

As far as the bloodstock business, in my opinion, this is where the inmates might be running the facility, or at least having a major say in what's going on. I might not have the intensity you do when we are talking about a trainer, but I might have the same intensity if we were talking about an owner. Thus, I can certainly understand your point.

Feeling joy is one thing -- but putting up your money is something else. Many people have skeletons in their closets. A man like Jackson or Sanan, just due to their stature, operations, business activities, etc., they are bound to be the subject of scrutiny.

Anyway, I think when it comes to rooting or feeling joy, it is going to be a case of to each their own. However, when it comes to the efforts of trying -- success or not -- to bring integrity to any aspect of the game; regardless of the person's choice of trainers, we need to look at the efforts. Are they sincere? Maybe this is just the beginning. I think a great deal remains to be seen.

Thanks for the comments. It allows me to look at things from a different perspective. That gives all of us a more well rounded and in-depth opinion and knowledge.

Eric

Eric
Great post. I might just clarify that I was not referring to Jackson and Sanan individually as the prisoners who wrote the laws but the people who these new rules were intended for who have found themselves on many of the committes and task forces that have been formed. There is no doubt that they were ripped off. There is no doubt that they have tried to do something positive. But a lot of the people in the room with them are foxes in the henhouses.
CS

[wac]

Amazing that this article would appear after what i posted on this site. LIke i said these are not people that I want to root for and as I said in my original post curlin is all that is wrong with horse racing.

[philcski]

I just watched the HBO Real Sports special on drugs in the game and wouldn't ya know it, the guy that took the most heat on the broadcast...

Steve Asmussen.

Ain't that a coincidence.

A sobering reminder: he's tested positive 22 times (including one horse that was 750 TIMES the legal limit) and finished ITM 21 of those times. He acted like he had been framed!!!

[sumitas]

he's more positive than Rickie Williams and look how harsh they are with him.

[ALostTexan]

With the 3YO's, does it even matter anymore whether it is a G1 or a G2/3? I don't see the G1's having much importance between them anymore, especially with the rising purses in 2's and 3's at places like Delta Downs.

Yet another reason to change the Graded Earnings requirements for the Derby, bringing back the prestige of winning a Grade 1...

ALostTexan

[ArlJim78]

Nothing but sour grapes and a smear. This article was a crappy hitpiece filled with innuendo.

“Curlin's owners are a large and controversial lot, a glossy group of multimillionaires with the green to chase their equine dreams”.
Really? What makes these millionaires “glossy”, and different from all other millionaires in the sport? Isn’t that what every owner in the sport does, use their green to chase equine dreams? And what is wrong with the ownership being a large group?

Jess Jackson – “could be a sorehead that doesn’t know his place”. Wow, what a stinging indictment.

Satish Sanan – “spent millions in the racing game”, OMG! How outrageous. Of all the nerve.

the original owners were lawyers who are being sued. Apparently not found guilty of anything yet but certainly since they're being sued the author feels its okay to claim they're part of some "dark cloud" hanging over Curlin.

Also Assmussen looked agitated on HBO. Well that's the last straw. How dare he look agitated while being filmed on HBO's hit-piece, oops, documentary on drugs in racing. At least he went on camera.

BS journalism if you ask me, better suited for the Enquirer. Try only to lurk around and pick holes in people that have a success.

[ALostTexan]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Nothing but sour grapes and a smear. This article was a crappy hitpiece filled with innuendo.

..................


BS journalism if you ask me, better suited for the Enquirer. Try only to lurk around and pick holes in people that have a success.

Couldn't agree more. This crap takes away from a quality horse than ran a great race...

ALostTexan

[sumitas]

ummmm, i think the article was about the humanoid connections; not Curlin.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Nothing but sour grapes and a smear. This article was a crappy hitpiece filled with innuendo.

“Curlin's owners are a large and controversial lot, a glossy group of multimillionaires with the green to chase their equine dreams”.
Really? What makes these millionaires “glossy”, and different from all other millionaires in the sport? Isn’t that what every owner in the sport does, use their green to chase equine dreams? And what is wrong with the ownership being a large group?

Jess Jackson – “could be a sorehead that doesn’t know his place”. Wow, what a stinging indictment.

Satish Sanan – “spent millions in the racing game”, OMG! How outrageous. Of all the nerve.

the original owners were lawyers who are being sued. Apparently not found guilty of anything yet but certainly since they're being sued the author feels its okay to claim they're part of some "dark cloud" hanging over Curlin.

Also Assmussen looked agitated on HBO. Well that's the last straw. How dare he look agitated while being filmed on HBO's hit-piece, oops, documentary on drugs in racing. At least he went on camera.

BS journalism if you ask me, better suited for the Enquirer. Try only to lurk around and pick holes in people that have a success.

I would like to set aside the Steve Assmusen element for a moment. This article speaks to Curlin's connections -- and a major component of that, and the article, are the owners. This right here is one of the major problems we have in this industry and this sport -- and that is the mainstream media.

Jess Jackson has put forth a great deal of efforts to bring to this industry something that we have never had before -- integrity! It is not only needed in the sales/auction/bloodstock arena, but other arenas as well; vis a vis the drugs in horse racing arena. For the author to trivialize, critisize, cast aspersions, and mock the efforts of Jess Jackson, he is gulity of showing no class and being nothing more than ignorant to the real issues. I don't care how many Pulitzer Prize awards he may have won or what is accomplishments are. His ignorance to this sport and industry stands alone with this article.

Satish Sanan also has been involved in bringing integrity to our industry. If men such as these are not successful, this will be, and has been to an extent, a major contributory factor in the decline of our industry and sport. Integrity, as a vision and destination, knows no borders. It may start in one area, but you could be assured that these efforts will continue with success. Nothing breeds success like success!

"Street Sense owned a cleaner story line. There was the sage 65-year-old trainer in Carl Nafzger, the trusted single owner in James Tafel and the local jockey as national hero that became Calvin Borel. Rooting for Street Sense was as easy as his running style.

With Curlin, it's much less so."

Thank you for the aspersion of setting the stage for what is to come.

Why is Curlin's owners a large and controversial lot? Because the author said so? Because they chose Steve Assmusen as a trainer? If they are to be condemned for this and this alone, then this industry is in such trouble. People who would critisize these owners as controversial are not looking beyond a trainer selection, when in fact there is so much more than that going on.

There are far too many hecklers in the stands. At least people like Sanan and Jackson don't sit in the stands and heckle like this author. They got in the game and played all out.

"Curlin's owners are a large and controversial lot, a glossy group of multimillionaires with the green to chase their equine dreams. We're not exactly talking Sackatoga Stables here, those lovable high school chums who owned 2003 Derby winner Funny Cide."

Is this the standard for owners to be measured by? I am sure we will soon see Jess Jackson and Satish Sanan selling beer, posters, books, and everything else. I am not condemning Sackatoga -- great story -- however, let's not make owning a Classic winning horse and not being the "wealthy owner" who paid a high price as one's automatic nomination to sainthood.

"Instead, we have Jess Jackson, the white-haired Kendall-Jackson winery and Stonestreet Farms proprietor who, depending on your view, is either a courageous reformer in the area of horse sales or a sorehead of a newcomer who doesn't know his place."

Doesn't know his place? The author is casting a net of foolishness and is mocking the efforts of someone who has a vision to make our sport and industry better. I would like to know what the author has done in this regard -- other than heckle.

I guess it's OK for Nafzger to compliment and acknowledge Curlin, but not for this author.

He closes his article by saying:
"Our job is to reconcile our questions about the connections with our appreciation for the horse. That might be the tougher of the two."

Really? Who gave him this job? And why is this "our" job?

We have a potentially great rivalry here -- 1-2-3 finishers in the Derby and Preakness, and now maybe all 3 heading to NY for the Belmont. Why aren't we hearing about that from this so called author. I say it's because he doesn't have the level of sophistication and knowledge to write such an article -- but can only write a "National Inquirer" type of piece.

This author has insulted every horse owner, fan, bettor and everyone involved in this great sport and industry.

Eric

He didn't insult me. How dare you?

[sundaysilenceforever]

Originally Posted by ELA

I would like to set aside the Steve Assmusen element for a moment. This article speaks to Curlin's connections -- and a major component of that, and the article, are the owners. This right here is one of the major problems we have in this industry and this sport -- and that is the mainstream media.

Jess Jackson has put forth a great deal of efforts to bring to this industry something that we have never had before -- integrity! It is not only needed in the sales/auction/bloodstock arena, but other arenas as well; vis a vis the drugs in horse racing arena. For the author to trivialize, critisize, cast aspersions, and mock the efforts of Jess Jackson, he is gulity of showing no class and being nothing more than ignorant to the real issues. I don't care how many Pulitzer Prize awards he may have won or what is accomplishments are. His ignorance to this sport and industry stands alone with this article.

Satish Sanan also has been involved in bringing integrity to our industry. If men such as these are not successful, this will be, and has been to an extent, a major contributory factor in the decline of our industry and sport. Integrity, as a vision and destination, knows no borders. It may start in one area, but you could be assured that these efforts will continue with success. Nothing breeds success like success!

"Street Sense owned a cleaner story line. There was the sage 65-year-old trainer in Carl Nafzger, the trusted single owner in James Tafel and the local jockey as national hero that became Calvin Borel. Rooting for Street Sense was as easy as his running style.

With Curlin, it's much less so."

Thank you for the aspersion of setting the stage for what is to come.

Why is Curlin's owners a large and controversial lot? Because the author said so? Because they chose Steve Assmusen as a trainer? If they are to be condemned for this and this alone, then this industry is in such trouble. People who would critisize these owners as controversial are not looking beyond a trainer selection, when in fact there is so much more than that going on.

There are far too many hecklers in the stands. At least people like Sanan and Jackson don't sit in the stands and heckle like this author. They got in the game and played all out.

"Curlin's owners are a large and controversial lot, a glossy group of multimillionaires with the green to chase their equine dreams. We're not exactly talking Sackatoga Stables here, those lovable high school chums who owned 2003 Derby winner Funny Cide."

Is this the standard for owners to be measured by? I am sure we will soon see Jess Jackson and Satish Sanan selling beer, posters, books, and everything else. I am not condemning Sackatoga -- great story -- however, let's not make owning a Classic winning horse and not being the "wealthy owner" who paid a high price as one's automatic nomination to sainthood.

"Instead, we have Jess Jackson, the white-haired Kendall-Jackson winery and Stonestreet Farms proprietor who, depending on your view, is either a courageous reformer in the area of horse sales or a sorehead of a newcomer who doesn't know his place."

Doesn't know his place? The author is casting a net of foolishness and is mocking the efforts of someone who has a vision to make our sport and industry better. I would like to know what the author has done in this regard -- other than heckle.

I guess it's OK for Nafzger to compliment and acknowledge Curlin, but not for this author.

He closes his article by saying:
"Our job is to reconcile our questions about the connections with our appreciation for the horse. That might be the tougher of the two."

Really? Who gave him this job? And why is this "our" job?

We have a potentially great rivalry here -- 1-2-3 finishers in the Derby and Preakness, and now maybe all 3 heading to NY for the Belmont. Why aren't we hearing about that from this so called author. I say it's because he doesn't have the level of sophistication and knowledge to write such an article -- but can only write a "National Inquirer" type of piece.

This author has insulted every horse owner, fan, bettor and everyone involved in this great sport and industry.

Eric

How extremely well said. Maybe you could copy and paste this as a part of a letter to the editor and/or idiot who wrote the piece?