Drug O'Neil keeps on a butchering - Page 2

Scav · #1 08-10-2010, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freddymo

O Neil cant be defended on any level.. On the 8/9 Suffolk card there were 2 Zito Lapenta Mdn's dropping from 20 to 4 claimers both horses were 200 plus k and both were to slow to compete in NY. I also saw an Ex Phipps 4 year old that was out of Finders Fee racing as well.

The real question is does a horse's previous owner need to be responsible for the life of the animal that they purchased or bred and raced? Tough issue in the case of the two LaPenta Zito's yesterday ther were purchased in 08 for real money who knows how much was poored into the training feeding and vetting for these for the last 18 months. It isn't unresonable that each had 100k of added expense until they were claimed away.. Should Lapenta have to inspect or be involved with the horses future because he raised his paddle the highest in a auction in 08? Tough question

It isn't tough, why does a guy like LaPenta even have to run those horses for 4k, why not just retire them to an adaption facility, donate 6 months of care ($1500 roughly at an adaption facility) and clean the books.

These guys are sharp enough to understand that if their trainer is telling them they should run their 6 figure horses for 4k at Suffolk that they aren't very good horses.

2Hot4TV · #2 08-10-2010, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scav

It isn't tough, why does a guy like LaPenta even have to run those horses for 4k, why not just retire them to an adaption facility, donate 6 months of care ($1500 roughly at an adaption facility) and clean the books.

These guys are sharp enough to understand that if their trainer is telling them they should run their 6 figure horses for 4k at Suffolk that they aren't very good horses.

Its a charcter flaw, some call it business.

Scav · #3 08-10-2010, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2Hot4TV

Its a charcter flaw, some call it business.

I don't know LaPenta at all, but it is hard for me to believe that he is in it for the 'business' side of it. It is structured as a business for obvious reasons.

Also, it is much easier to donate and be done with it because you have a specific end date, you don't have to worry about the horse getting claimed, hurt or anything else that can possibly go wrong.

This way you eliminate the day rate and everything that goes with it.

Cannon Shell · #4 08-10-2010, 07:59 PM

In the last 5 years O'Neil has had 23 appear to have broken down. He makes a lot of starts but that is a lot of dead horses. Dale Romans with a similar sized outfit during that same period had 5 break down.

randallscott35 · #5 08-10-2010, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

In the last 5 years O'Neil has had 23 appear to have broken down. He makes a lot of starts but that is a lot of dead horses. Dale Romans with a similar sized outfit during that same period had 5 break down.

Chuck, "It is easier on them." ---o'neill.

Cannon Shell · #6 08-10-2010, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Chuck, "It is easier on them." ---o'neill.

Well to be fair he had I think 4 break down in stakes which in itself is quite remarkable

freddymo · #7 08-10-2010, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scav

It isn't tough, why does a guy like LaPenta even have to run those horses for 4k, why not just retire them to an adaption facility, donate 6 months of care ($1500 roughly at an adaption facility) and clean the books.

These guys are sharp enough to understand that if their trainer is telling them they should run their 6 figure horses for 4k at Suffolk that they aren't very good horses.

Scavs the horses might be ok and perhaps in the hands of a trainer that can focus on them a bit more that might become useful claimers? You have to believe that Zito gave it his best shot but once it became evident that the stock would not be the type that Lapenta cares to campaign perhaps the barn stopped giving their all to get them as perfect as possible.. Not suggesting claiming from Zito is all that bright just that you shouldn't HAVE too retire a 250k 3 year old because one trainer and owner have bigger fish to fry.

Cannon Shell · #8 08-10-2010, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freddymo

O Neil cant be defended on any level.. On the 8/9 Suffolk card there were 2 Zito Lapenta Mdn's dropping from 20 to 4 claimers both horses were 200 plus k and both were to slow to compete in NY. I also saw an Ex Phipps 4 year old that was out of Finders Fee racing as well.

The real question is does a horse's previous owner need to be responsible for the life of the animal that they purchased or bred and raced? Tough issue in the case of the two LaPenta Zito's yesterday ther were purchased in 08 for real money who knows how much was poored into the training feeding and vetting for these for the last 18 months. It isn't unresonable that each had 100k of added expense until they were claimed away.. Should Lapenta have to inspect or be involved with the horses future because he raised his paddle the highest in a auction in 08? Tough question

The big difference between the 2 situations is the Zito horses were never any good, they have been slow from the start. They obviously want to sell them at that price but more importantly from the trainers standpoint, get a win to pad the stats. Since trainers are almost exclusively selected, hired or fired based on win %, Zito figures he can pick up a couple more cheap wins (like C. Clement does every year at Suffolk) as he already was 2 for 3 there. He won one and lost that one and now has 3 more wins to add to the %.

O'Neil drops horses that have been successful at higher levels when they are broke down hoping to get the claimed and maybe even win as well.

There is a big difference between selling slow horses and broke down ones.

And I do not think that it is the responsibility of the owners who bred or bought the horses at auction. It is the responsibility of the current owner and trainer to protect the horse. If they can't spare the couple of grand they shouldnt be in the "business".

randallscott35 · #9 08-10-2010, 06:58 PM

It says a lot about people who are willing to keep their horses with trainers like this.

SCUDSBROTHER · #10 08-10-2010, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

O'Neil drops horses that have been successful at higher levels when they are broke down hoping to get the claimed and maybe even win as well.

There is a big difference between selling slow horses and broke down ones.

"O’Neill said he turned down offers from individuals to buy Burna Dette beforehand because the owner wanted to win the race and hoped to keep the horse."

Can you really, ever again, trust anything coming out of that mouth?

Danzig · #11 08-10-2010, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

"O’Neill said he turned down offers from individuals to buy Burna Dette beforehand because the owner wanted to win the race and hoped to keep the horse."

Can you really, ever again, trust anything coming out of that mouth?

i thought it sounded like absolute bs as well.

freddymo · #12 08-10-2010, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The big difference between the 2 situations is the Zito horses were never any good, they have been slow from the start. They obviously want to sell them at that price but more importantly from the trainers standpoint, get a win to pad the stats. Since trainers are almost exclusively selected, hired or fired based on win %, Zito figures he can pick up a couple more cheap wins (like C. Clement does every year at Suffolk) as he already was 2 for 3 there. He won one and lost that one and now has 3 more wins to add to the %.

O'Neil drops horses that have been successful at higher levels when they are broke down hoping to get the claimed and maybe even win as well.

There is a big difference between selling slow horses and broke down ones.

And I do not think that it is the responsibility of the owners who bred or bought the horses at auction. It is the responsibility of the current owner and trainer to protect the horse. If they can't spare the couple of grand they shouldnt be in the "business".

I agree that the situations are different TOTALLY.. I doubt HoF trainer Zito give a flyin Fcuk about winning a Mdn 4 at Suffolk.. It's just the easiest way to stop the bills to his owner..

Cannon Shell · #13 08-10-2010, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freddymo

I agree that the situations are different TOTALLY.. I doubt HoF trainer Zito give a flyin Fcuk about winning a Mdn 4 at Suffolk.. It's just the easiest way to stop the bills to his owner..

He likes wins like everyone else. Maiden 4's show up in the win column the same as grade 1's.

Payson Dave · #14 08-10-2010, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

He likes wins like everyone else. Maiden 4's show up in the win column the same as grade 1's.

Getting Maxine back off of injured reserves should help his win % improve

randallscott35 · #15 08-10-2010, 08:15 PM

Lets not forget the near breakdown of Lava Man. Who knows how close that may have been after he came back with "the ankles of a 3 yr old" from the voodoo doctor.

tiggerv · #16 08-10-2010, 08:33 PM

It's been a real treat to handicap the horses he sends to CT that can't cut it at Philly or Penn National. I don't remember any breaking down but I could have missed one.

There is actually a lot of money to be made off him since most of his horses go off as heavy favorites or close 2nd choice. Toss the low level claimers and assume the ALW horses are live.

Since Feb1
Starter/Allowance/Stakes - 7 Starts 5-0-1
Claiming 10K+ - 6 Starts 2-3-1
Claiming < 10K - 14 Starts 2-1-1

He has been listed as owner for several that have come to CT directly from SoCal. All have run in claimers and he is 1 for 7. I'm not sure how shipping across the country to run for 11K purses makes sense, but he must be making money off it.