This is a place for friendly and civil discussion of horse racing of all types including handicapping.
Latest 3:20 AM by chroses
Latest Jan-21 by RAESFAN
Latest Jan-21 by DogsUpWired
Latest Jan-19 by DogsUpWired
Latest 9/20/19 by Wintertrian
Latest Jan-16 by DogsUpWired
Latest Jan-13 by RAESFAN
Latest Jan-13 by RAESFAN
Latest Jan-12 by DogsUpWired
Latest Jan-3 by TexSquared
Latest Jan-1 by princeofdoc
Latest Dec-31 by Plus2lbs
Latest Dec-28 by smartyslew
Latest Dec-27 by Plus2lbs
Latest Dec-25 by TexSquared
Latest Dec-24 by SameSteve G
I agree, "trainers by paperwork" isn't a good solution.
The problem is that unless the owners have a very active role and know everything about what is going on in a barn (and many do not as they trust the trainers in a lot of cases and/or they have jobs runnning companies, banks, etc. and don't know what "goes on backside")
I'm not sure it's entirely fair that trainer suspensions are going to keep owner's horses from racing.
I guess you could say that owners need, then, to perform very careful due dilligence on who they place their horses with and not just go for the greed fast money etc. factor.
If I had a list of N.A. based trainers I'd place a horse with, (the big names) Graham Motion and Christophe Clement, Roger Atfield. Then, pretty much any trainer list with few violations who supports the Water Hay Oats Alliance, and those who support the Horse Racing Integrity Act.
After the disaster that was Santa Anita in the spring, it's amazing this has been kept quiet. TWELVE fatalities at Saratoga this meet so far? In fairness it does say 4 were non-racing, but that still leaves 5 in training and 3 in racing action.
Another fatality at SA this week (Zeke 4 year old gelding) from pelvic fracture on training track, had to be put down.
BUt you really gotta laugh at the statement put out by SA, given the Justify thing:
Bolding mine. :)
"Santa Anita will continue to work closely with the California Horse Racing Board and will continue to be transparent with our stakeholders and all of our constituents, including the public, as more facts come in.”
That's because people using BSFs were unable to cap tracks that aren't dirt. Even beyer himself.
Truth is, horses don't care that much what they run on. If synthetic (not tapeta) they have to like it. Otherwise, turf, dirt, tapeta.... horses can run on this stuff and not have to love every inch. People put far too much on this surface stuff.
I know... horses run on turf, beach sand, "dirt" (which is mostly sand with other stuff in the mix), wood chips, gravel roads (as in harness racing), etc. But when the predominant surface we race on, statistically has significantly more fatalities than the other surfaces, doesn't that call for change?
What's more important -- keeping the speed figure guys happy, or killing fewer horses?
(I can hear it now... "none of the above -- zero takeout"...)
TexSquared said...But when the predominant surface we race on, statistically has significantly more fatalities than the other surfaces, doesn't that call for change?
Yes, but the good ol' boys club that has controlled racing media for a long time, and many hard core gamblers who are their fanboys, are not gonna go for that, which is why it hasn't changed. I guess when they "age out" we might see some changes.
TexSquared said...I know... horses run on turf, beach sand, "dirt" (which is mostly sand with other stuff in the mix), wood chips, gravel roads (as in harness racing), etc. But when the predominant surface we race on, statistically has significantly more fatalities than the other surfaces, doesn't that call for change?
Maybe I didn't word it correctly, but I was not disgreeing with you. ;) Quite the contrary.