Big Brown and Winstrol....questions

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

How did you come to the conclusion that it is "nonsense and BS" that some insurance companies won't insure Lukas horses? It is not nonsense or BS. It is fact. I know of specific companies that won't insure his horses. Try calling some of the big companies such as Kirk.

It's nonsense and BS. It is not a fact. You can know specific companies all you want. First, I said "every" -- you said "some" and as I am sure you would agree, monster difference there. Second, this has nothing to do with DWL. I can get insurance today on any horse in his barn, financial and health justification just like any other horse trained by any other trainer. I can find companies that won't write/issue coverage on horses trained by other trainers. Doesn't mean a thing. Third, Kirk, if we are talking about the same Kirk, is in the role of a broker, not an underwriting correspondent that will issue coverage and assume risk on their own paper.

Like Dutrow, and many other successful people in our industry, Lukas, will often be a target. Easy, hard, doesn't matter.

Eric

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ELA

It's nonsense and BS. It is not a fact. You can know specific companies all you want. First, I said "every" -- you said "some" and as I am sure you would agree, monster difference there. Second, this has nothing to do with DWL. I can get insurance today on any horse in his barn, financial and health justification just like any other horse trained by any other trainer. I can find companies that won't write/issue coverage on horses trained by other trainers. Doesn't mean a thing. Third, Kirk, if we are talking about the same Kirk, is in the role of a broker, not an underwriting correspondent that will issue coverage and assume risk on their own paper.

Like Dutrow, and many other successful people in our industry, Lukas, will often be a target. Easy, hard, doesn't matter.

Eric

What do you mean that it has nothing to do with DWL? It has everything to do with DWL. The reason that some insurers won't insure his horses is because he has had an inordinate number of breakdowns in terms of percentage compared to other trainers. The insurance companies that won't insure his horses will tell you that.

For anyone out there that has any doubt about this, you can find out for yourself. Try calling a few insurance companies and tell them that you just bought a 2 year old at a 2 year olds in training sale. Tell them that you haven't decided on a trainer yet, but you wanted to know if the trainer you choose will have any bearing on whether or not they will insure your horse. Then tell them that that one of the guys you are considering is Lukas and see what they say. I will bet you that many of the insurers will tell you that they will not insure your horse if he is the trainer.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

What do you mean that it has nothing to do with DWL? It has everything to do with DWL. The reason that some insurers won't insure his horses is because he has had an inordinate number of breakdowns in terms of percentage compared to other trainers. The insurance companies that won't insure his horses will tell you that.

For anyone out there that has any doubt about this, you can find out for yourself. Try calling a few insurance companies and tell them that you just bought a 2 year old at a 2 year olds in training sale. Tell them that you haven't decided on a trainer yet, but you wanted to know if the trainer you choose will have any bearing on whether or not they will insure your horse. Then tell them that that one of the guys you are considering is Lukas and see what they say. I will bet you that many of the insurers will tell you that they will not insure your horse if he is the trainer.

What do I mean -- what I mean is that it has nothing to do with DWL. There are plenty of companies that will insure his horses -- period. The issue is that I said a claim was made that said "ALL" and you commented on it by saying "SOME" -- I didn't see you responde to that. Obviously, if companies will insure his horses than it has nothing to do with DWL.

I would also look to have a company decline coverage, put in writing that they are declining coverage because the horse is trained by DWL. We've all heard the so called "claims" that he has higher %'s of breakdowns -- yeah, more "claims". Proof would be nice. Also, what kind of BS insurance are we talking about here. Breakdowns? How about mortality.

Like I said, nonsense and BS. Let's all get together and call insurance companies -- not brokers -- and we can come back here and celebrate that DWL can't get insurance from ALL insurance companies.

Carry on.

Eric

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ELA

What do I mean -- what I mean is that it has nothing to do with DWL. There are plenty of companies that will insure his horses -- period. The issue is that I said a claim was made that said "ALL" and you commented on it by saying "SOME" -- I didn't see you responde to that. Obviously, if companies will insure his horses than it has nothing to do with DWL.

I would also look to have a company decline coverage, put in writing that they are declining coverage because the horse is trained by DWL. We've all heard the so called "claims" that he has higher %'s of breakdowns -- yeah, more "claims". Proof would be nice. Also, what kind of BS insurance are we talking about here. Breakdowns? How about mortality.

Like I said, nonsense and BS. Let's all get together and call insurance companies -- not brokers -- and we can come back here and celebrate that DWL can't get insurance from ALL insurance companies.

Carry on.

Eric

I can't say "all" because I obviously don't know the practices of every single company out there.

In terms of "proof", the insurance companies have proof. They keep track of that type of stuff. If you don't want to believe it that is fine with me. You are the same guy that didn't believe that racing boards will check phone records and bank accounts to make sure that suspended trainers aren't still getting paid while they are suspended and aren't still having contact with the barn.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I can't say "all" because I obviously don't know the practices of every single company out there.

In terms of "proof", the insurance companies have proof. They keep track of that type of stuff. If you don't want to believe it that is fine with me. You are the same guy that didn't believe that racing boards will check phone records and bank accounts to make sure that suspended trainers aren't still getting paid while they are suspended and aren't still having contact with the barn.

No, I am not. I believe a racing board could, might, would and has. I just don't believe they will every time, nor that they have the right to do that every time. I don't think a racing board can do this autonomously and have the authority, sans court order, unless you agree to it, it's on a stall application, etc.

Isn't this how Dutrow got caught? As far as the bank records though, that is what DE had in mind, and was going to "suspend" owners as a result. I said "no way, never would happen" and like I said, would have fought it. I had already met with legal counsel and in a matter of a day or two, they dialed back.

Eric

Originally Posted by ELA

What do I mean -- what I mean is that it has nothing to do with DWL. There are plenty of companies that will insure his horses -- period. The issue is that I said a claim was made that said "ALL" and you commented on it by saying "SOME" -- I didn't see you responde to that. Obviously, if companies will insure his horses than it has nothing to do with DWL.

I would also look to have a company decline coverage, put in writing that they are declining coverage because the horse is trained by DWL. We've all heard the so called "claims" that he has higher %'s of breakdowns -- yeah, more "claims". Proof would be nice. Also, what kind of BS insurance are we talking about here. Breakdowns? How about mortality.

Like I said, nonsense and BS. Let's all get together and call insurance companies -- not brokers -- and we can come back here and celebrate that DWL can't get insurance from ALL insurance companies.

Carry on.

Eric

How about this.

Is there a indication that a horse is less likely to
be insured under D.wayne than other top trainers?

I am assuming DWL is still considered a top trainer
even though his barn is much smaller than in the past.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by pgardn

How about this.

Is there a indication that a horse is less likely to
be insured under D.wayne than other top trainers?

I am assuming DWL is still considered a top trainer
even though his barn is much smaller than in the past.

I don't know. Is it possible? Sure. Is it probable? I would say no. Also, you would probably get a lot of arguements from people regarding DWL still being considered a top trainer, LOL.

This is a larger discussion, but when we talk about DWL, we all know the reality of what and who we are talking about.

Eric