Curlin's connections

[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.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by sumitas

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

ummmm, no one has suggested otherwise.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by sumitas

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

I just thought it was about the human connections. I completely missed the humanoid aspect.

I thought it was about the decepticons. Doesn't Megatron own Curlin?

[ArlJim78]

they're not cyborgs, living tissue over metal endoskeletons?

[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?

[ELA]

If you take it as an insult, so be it.

Eric

[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?

[SentToStud]

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

Well said.

I guess it goes to show that there are hacks in every business.

[ARyan]

Originally Posted by ELA

I would like to set aside the Steve Assmusen element for a moment.

Eric

Why put that aside?

Steve Assmusen has made his own bed, then refuses to be accountable for his actions. To me he is no better then Jayne Vaders, Murray Rojas, Scott Lake and others. In my opinion these are the folk who give this game a black eye. Instead of the small fines, and "days" where they continue to run things from a cell phone, they should be suspended for life after so many times testing positive.

How many times can you slap someone on the wrist?

Sorry for the rant, but I have been angry about this since the momment I saw Assmusen in the winner's circle last Saturday. I think Curlin is an incredible horse, I just wish he had a trainer that didn't get to where he is with a needle.

Honestly, who would not have rather seen Helen Pitts in that circle last Saturday?

[ELA]

Originally Posted by ARyan

Why put that aside?

Steve Assmusen has made his own bed, then refuses to be accountable for his actions. To me he is no better then Jayne Vaders, Murray Rojas, Scott Lake and others. In my opinion these are the folk who give this game a black eye. Instead of the small fines, and "days" where they continue to run things from a cell phone, they should be suspended for life after so many times testing positive.

How many times can you slap someone on the wrist?

Sorry for the rant, but I have been angry about this since the momment I saw Assmusen in the winner's circle last Saturday. I think Curlin is an incredible horse, I just wish he had a trainer that didn't get to where he is with a needle.

Honestly, who would not have rather seen Helen Pitts in that circle last Saturday?

I wasn't dismissing it completely and I certainly didn't say that. I was putting Assmusen aside to speak to the larger issue of the connections which the majority of the article spoke to. That's all.


Eric

[ARyan]

Originally Posted by ELA

I wasn't dismissing it completely and I certainly didn't say that. I was putting Assmusen aside to speak to the larger issue of the connections which the majority of the article spoke to. That's all.


Eric

I know, I was just venting...

I did not try or mean to throw you under a bus...


Sorry...

[ELA]

No apologies neccessary. I completely understand.

Eric

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

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


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.

.

Shirley Cunningham is one of those lawyers who trolls for clients with TV ads ("Were you injured in an accident? Get the money you deserve!") He and some others recruited clients for a Phen-fen class action suit, then kept the greater part of the settlement as their fees. Clients claimed foul. Big scandal here in Central KY.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

Shirley Cunningham is one of those lawyers who trolls for clients with TV ads ("Were you injured in an accident? Get the money you deserve!") He and some others recruited clients for a Phen-fen class action suit, then kept the greater part of the settlement as their fees. Clients claimed foul. Big scandal here in Central KY.

Yeah I read about it. I guess it's not illegal for a lawyer to advertise on TV so I don't know why things like that are pointed out.

I read about the suit and understand that its ongoing. I guess the courts will decide and if they wronged their clients they will pay dearly for it. As I understand it these were the original owners and now are only perhaps minority owners.

I just don't like the tone of the article which painted the whole group with a broad brush as if they were all despicable criminals, lumping everyone together under this so-called dark cloud.