Since I have been unwittingly dragged into the conversation...I think that it is logical to think that a horse like Perfect Drift may have been able to accomplish more if in the barn of a high percentage trainer like the ones mentioned. Of course it is probably wrong but it is logical. Horse racing history is full of horses who moved to a different location or trainer and moved way up. But there are also many examples of good horses being moved to "high profile" trainers who have regressed. The worst thing about the % is that they really mean so little in a positive way for the owners who hold them so dear. One thing that the higer % guys seem to do is win fast and often for a short period and then the horses quickly regress and retire or move on. They also tend to make decisions that are based on a short term plan usually based upon the common good of their win % first and foremost. The funny thing is that the owners seem to run to these guys as fast as they can and usually wind up no better off than they were before except with a much larger bill. I dont blame the trainers for that type of thinking because it is obvious that is what most owners look for even if it is only a small piece of the puzzle.
Murray is not a close friend of mine but he is a nice man. He himself would probably admit that he is not the worlds greatest trainer. But he has done an exceptional job with this horse in my opinion. Of course I am of the belief that he was never more than a good grade 2 horse that overachieved on many occasions.
That being said it is painfully obvious that the horse has lost more than a step and though he may be sound enough to run, he just isn't a stakes quality horse anymore.
|
07-09-2007, 03:18 PM
Threaded Mode