Why Lukas went downhill

Rupert Pupkin · #1 09-19-2006, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Flower Alley must have overslept during that barn meeting and never read the memo.

Who knows what they did to FA to get that big effort out of him in the BC Classic. He had just gotten beat by 15 lengths. If you have a horse with an injury and inject them to get one more race out of them, there is a good chance that they will not come back 100%. That is always the risk if you try to get one or two moe races out of a horse that is showing the beginning of a minor injury.

Sightseek · #2 09-19-2006, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Who knows what they did to FA to get that big effort out of him in the BC Classic. He had just gotten beat by 15 lengths. If you have a horse with an injury and inject them to get one more race out of them, there is a good chance that they will not come back 100%. That is always the risk if you try to get one or two moe races out of a horse that is showing the beginning of a minor injury.

He only got beat by 15 lengths prior to the BC because of Pletcher's poor use of a rabbit & Chantel Sutherland.

Rupert Pupkin · #3 09-19-2006, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sightseek

He only got beat by 15 lengths prior to the BC because of Pletcher's poor use of a rabbit & Chantel Sutherland.

Oh that must have been why he lost by 15 lengths. Otherwise he would have been right there. LOL.

Sightseek · #4 09-19-2006, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Oh that must have been why he lost by 15 lengths. Otherwise he would have been right there. LOL.

considering his past performances, yes he should have been:

http://www.drf.com/row/pps/06whitney.pdf

Your earlier post:
"Who knows what they did to FA to get that big effort out of him in the BC Classic. He had just gotten beat by 15 lengths. If you have a horse with an injury and inject them to get one more race out of them, there is a good chance that they will not come back 100%. That is always the risk if you try to get one or two moe races out of a horse that is showing the beginning of a minor injury."

Big effort? He performed that day the same as races prior to the rabbit, dumb jock and the gold cup performance. So are you implying that he was on something beforehand, went off in the Gold Cup and then was put back on for the Classic?

I think Pletcher made a mistake not starting FA sooner in the year. He never cited injury as the reason for not starting him in the spring, but the desire to have a fresh horse for the fall.

Rupert Pupkin · #5 09-19-2006, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sightseek

considering his past performances, yes he should have been:

http://www.drf.com/row/pps/06whitney.pdf

Your earlier post:
"Who knows what they did to FA to get that big effort out of him in the BC Classic. He had just gotten beat by 15 lengths. If you have a horse with an injury and inject them to get one more race out of them, there is a good chance that they will not come back 100%. That is always the risk if you try to get one or two moe races out of a horse that is showing the beginning of a minor injury."

Big effort? He performed that day the same as races prior to the rabbit, dumb jock and the gold cup performance. So are you implying that he was on something beforehand, went off in the Gold Cup and then was put back on for the Classic?

I think Pletcher made a mistake not starting FA sooner in the year. He never cited injury as the reason for not starting him in the spring, but the desire to have a fresh horse for the fall.

I agree with you that he was too close to a pretty fast pace that day. I think that could have cost him 3-4 lengths but not 15.

I wasn't implying that the horse was on something in any of his races. I was saying that he probably had a minor issue such as a puffy ankle or that type of thing. They probably didn't think it was bothering him so they had no reason to treat it before the JCGC. When he ran so bad, they realized that it was bothering him so they injected the ankle for the BC Classic. I'm not saying that this is definitely waht happened. I am saying that this type of thing happens all the time and it is likely that this is the type of thing that happened with FA.

Trainers will never tell you about this type of thing. You will never heara trainer in an interview say, "The horse ran better today because we injected his ankle, knee, etc."

kentuckyrosesinmay · #6 09-19-2006, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I agree with you that he was too close to a pretty fast pace that day. I think that could have cost him 3-4 lengths but not 15.

I wasn't implying that the horse was on something in any of his races. I was saying that he probably had a minor issue such as a puffy ankle or that type of thing. They probably didn't think it was bothering him so they had no reason to treat it before the JCGC. When he ran so bad, they realized that it was bothering him so they injected the ankle for the BC Classic. I'm not saying that this is definitely waht happened. I am saying that this type of thing happens all the time and it is likely that this is the type of thing that happened with FA.

Trainers will never tell you about this type of thing. You will never heara trainer in an interview say, "The horse ran better today because we injected his ankle, knee, etc."

Rupert, are you talking about the joint injections that we most likely give to show horses too? Those are perfectly legal in racing aren't they? They have made a tremendous difference in some of the horses that I have ridden. Our vet usually gives them Legend Joint Injections.

Rupert Pupkin · #7 09-19-2006, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Rupert, are you talking about the joint injections that we most likely give to show horses too? Those are perfectly legal in racing aren't they? They have made a tremendous difference in some of the horses that I have ridden. Our vet usually gives them Legend Joint Injections.

Injecting an ankle or joint is perfectly legal.

kentuckyrosesinmay · #8 09-19-2006, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sightseek

considering his past performances, yes he should have been:

http://www.drf.com/row/pps/06whitney.pdf

Your earlier post:
"Who knows what they did to FA to get that big effort out of him in the BC Classic. He had just gotten beat by 15 lengths. If you have a horse with an injury and inject them to get one more race out of them, there is a good chance that they will not come back 100%. That is always the risk if you try to get one or two moe races out of a horse that is showing the beginning of a minor injury."

Big effort? He performed that day the same as races prior to the rabbit, dumb jock and the gold cup performance. So are you implying that he was on something beforehand, went off in the Gold Cup and then was put back on for the Classic?

I think Pletcher made a mistake not starting FA sooner in the year. He never cited injury as the reason for not starting him in the spring, but the desire to have a fresh horse for the fall.

Sorry for imposing, but I'm sure that there was an injury. Late starts back usually always equate to illness or injury. That is why he has been running so poorly all year. The JCGC performance last year coupled with the BC performance, the late start back, and the poor racing performances this year are all indicators that something went amiss with FA. It's a shame too...

FA has had plenty of time to come back into form this year. Don't you think the reason that he hasn't is because of an injury? In this case, it is most likely a pretty significant injury, because most horses are running with minor ailments anyway and still manage to perform well. His performances have been horrible this year, except for the very first one. They are such fragile creatures...

DiscreetCat=Monster · #9 09-19-2006, 12:36 PM

Padua current stable

Electrify (03 c) Delaware Township - Raspberry Eggcream
Formal Appeal (03 c) Successful Appeal-Sweetbabe
Gleaming Elegance, (03 f) High Yield-Juliet's Way
Magical Baby, (04 f) Forestry-Absolute Magic
Market Share, (04 c) Sky Classic-Ma Petite Mousse
Philanderer, (04 c) Yes It's True-I'll Bedazzled
Ultimat Perfection, (04 f) Tiznow-Western Delight
War Cry, (02 c) Unbridled-Words of War
Yes It's Time, (04 c) Yes It's True-Taunting

Sightseek · #10 09-19-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Sorry for imposing, but I'm sure that there was an injury. Late starts back usually always equate to illness or injury. That is why he has been running so poorly all year. The JCGC performance last year coupled with the BC performance, the late start back, and the poor racing performances this year are all indicators that something went amiss with FA. It's a shame too...

FA has had plenty of time to come back into form this year. Don't you think the reason that he hasn't is because of an injury? In this case, it is most likely a pretty significant injury, because most horses are running with minor ailments anyway and still manage to perform well. His performances have been horrible this year, except for the very first one. They are such fragile creatures...

Sorry, but you could convince me that Santa Claus was real before you could ever convince me that trainers don't start their horses late because of the Breeder's Cup.

A horse running better as a 4 year old is not a golden rule either.

kentuckyrosesinmay · #11 09-19-2006, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Sorry, but you could convince me that Santa Claus was real before you could ever convince me that trainers don't start their horses late because of the Breeder's Cup.

A horse running better as a 4 year old is not a golden rule either.

Some trainers do start their horses late, and some horses are better as three year olds than four year olds. However, most trainers only start horses back late because they don't have a choice due to an illness or injury. FA won his first start back very nicely, and lost all form from there. The horse is not the same horse, and it's not because he doesn't have the talent...