Tap It In

[cj]

http://www.equibase.com/profiles/Results.cfm?type=Horse&refno=8065511&registry=T&rbt=TB

Sadly, this 10 year old gelding broke down and was euthanized yesterday. He was coming off a THREE year layoff and entered in a 3.5k claimer. Totally disgusting this was allowed to happen. Many people should be held accountable and not just the connections.

[EMD4ME]

http://www.equibase.com/profiles/Results.cfm?type=Horse&refno=8065511&registry=T&rbt=TB

Sadly, this 10 year old gelding broke down and was euthanized yesterday. He was coming off a THREE year layoff and entered in a 3.5k claimer. Totally disgusting this was allowed to happen. Many people should be held accountable and not just the connections.


:( :( :( :( I agree. That is terrible.

[EasyGoer89]

Carrying 127 also.

What do we know about these owners and trainer?

[no breathalyzer]

looks like that's the first horse that ever ran for them connections... unless its a beard ownership .. what a way to be introduced to ownership

[EasyGoer89]

https://mobile.twitter.com/jayemesssam/status/815754446982389760

jayemmess bred this guy way back when.

[Tom]

Carrying 127 also.

What do we know about these owners and trainer?

What else do you need to know about them?
They are bottom feeders. :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

[outofthebox]

https://mobile.twitter.com/jayemesssam/status/815754446982389760

jayemmess bred this guy way back when.They did not breed him. Bought him as a yearling for 110k Broke maiden at Del Mar 20k and was claimed for 4k a couple of races later. Very sad.

[EasyGoer89]

They did not breed him. Bought him as a yearling for 110k Broke maiden at Del Mar 20k and was claimed for 4k a couple of races later. Very sad.

Thanks for the correction.

[Stoleitbreezing]

That's sickening. The horse was off for 3 years and had 3 very slow works leading up to the race. The horse shouldn't have been allowed to race. Is there a rule where the horse has to have more than 3 works after a layoff like this one? I don't think he should have been racing anyways, but perhaps if there was a lengthy work tab the horse must run after a layoff, this unfortunate situation could have been avoided.

[EasyGoer89]

That's sickening. The horse was off for 3 years and had 3 very slow works leading up to the race. The horse shouldn't have been allowed to race. Is there a rule where the horse has to have more than 3 works after a layoff like this one? I don't think he should have been racing anyways, but perhaps if there was a lengthy work tab the horse must run after a layoff, this unfortunate situation could have been avoided.

You have to wonder where the race office was accepting this entry in the first place.

[MONEY]

I believe that Golden Gate pays at least $250.00 to each horse that runs.

Sam Houston does the same thing.
Last year at Sam Houston a couple horses ran that had three years or more off.

Luckily the jockeys just trotted their mounts around the track and didn't try to compete, so none got hurt.

As long as tracks keep paying horses to just show up, you will continue to see connections enter pets into races in order to collect the appearance fees.

[Tom]

You have to wonder where the race office was accepting this entry in the first place.

The probably were out recruiting other 4 year layoffs to fill their miserable excuses of race cards.

You think the tracks give a damn about the horses?
Tracks are concerned with one thing. $$$.

[Milkshaker]

Last year at Sam Houston a couple horses ran that had three years or more off.

Luckily the jockeys just trotted their mounts around the track and didn't try to compete, so none got hurt.


Except the betting public.

[Hambletonian]

Here we have it.

Horses do get injured, it is true, even sound ones can be involved in fatal spills.

But when you have a 10 year old making his 11th career start off of a three year layoff, or that broodmare at LA a few years back, or a very old first time starter, or the horses with multiple DNFs in their PPs that eventually break down...questions must be asked and those responsible held accountable, whether it be track officials, owners, trainers or vets.

Whomever accepted this entry both did the track and the sport a grave disservice, and the trainer should be investigated as well. If trainers faced suspensions and fines when their horses were unable to finish a race, perhaps they would think twice about risking their horse and jockey's lives, as well as those of every other participant in the race.

Incidents like this just show how the folks putting on the show apparently have little regard for the sport.

[dilanesp]

Here we have it.

Horses do get injured, it is true, even sound ones can be involved in fatal spills.

But when you have a 10 year old making his 11th career start off of a three year layoff, or that broodmare at LA a few years back, or a very old first time starter, or the horses with multiple DNFs in their PPs that eventually break down...questions must be asked and those responsible held accountable, whether it be track officials, owners, trainers or vets.

Whomever accepted this entry both did the track and the sport a grave disservice, and the trainer should be investigated as well. If trainers faced suspensions and fines when their horses were unable to finish a race, perhaps they would think twice about risking their horse and jockey's lives, as well as those of every other participant in the race.

Incidents like this just show how the folks putting on the show apparently have little regard for the sport.

And for the horses! You don't have to be a PETA supporter to be offended by this sort of gross animal abuse. Our sport is obligated to take care of the horses, who provide us with entertainment, betting action, and everything else we love about the sport.

[SuperPickle]

You have to wonder where the race office was accepting this entry in the first place.

Because the racing office isn't allowed to arbitrarily accept entries. I figured it all your years of watching races and the countless times you've seen a hopeless long shot in a stake or allowance you'd have figured that out.

Tracks and states have rules. Like no maiden or firsters past a certain age.

If you think anyone in that racing office wanted to see that horse race you couldn't be more wrong.

Btw... when you get into regulating the ability of unsound horses with blanket rules you basically would put tracks like Mountaineer, Sam Houston and Emerald out of business. The california claiming rules reflect how many horses wouldn't pass a vet test. You can see dozens of voided claims on PP's for both SoCal and NorCal. You bring those standards to third rate tracks and subject whole fields to it and there would be no racing.

Horsemen need to regulate what they put on the track. And those who choose to do this need to be purged from the sport.

This isn't a regulatory issue.

[cj]

Because the racing office isn't allowed to arbitrarily accept entries. I figured it all your years of watching races and the countless times you've seen a hopeless long shot in a stake or allowance you'd have figured that out.

Tracks and states have rules. Like no maiden or firsters past a certain age.

If you think anyone in that racing office wanted to see that horse race you couldn't be more wrong.

Btw... when you get into regulating the ability of unsound horses with blanket rules you basically would put tracks like Mountaineer, Sam Houston and Emerald out of business. The california claiming rules reflect how many horses wouldn't pass a vet test. You can see dozens of voided claims on PP's for both SoCal and NorCal. You bring those standards to third rate tracks and subject whole fields to it and there would be no racing.

Horsemen need to regulate what they put on the track. And those who choose to do this need to be purged from the sport.

This isn't a regulatory issue.

Without a doubt the vet could have been nudged to have this horse scratched. Of course the trainer and owner, especially the trainer, are most responsible.

[EasyGoer89]

http://www.drf.com/news/stewards-scratch-prevents-12-year-olds-return

[SuperPickle]

Without a doubt the vet could have been nudged to have this horse scratched. Of course the trainer and owner, especially the trainer, are most responsible.

Yeah but you and SRU/Easy Goer in the post above me are pivoting. It's not apple to apple its apple to orange. The office has to take the entry.

Should the vet have scratched him? Absolutely. Why it didn't happen I have no idea. But putting this on the people in the office is wrong. They have a legal obligation to take the entry.

Btw... Why does Sam Siegel constantly get a pass? It seems the posters here and racing media people never have a bad word to say about her. Let's look at her track record lately.

1. She was literally the last big owner to leave Dutrow. She had horses with him till the last day. She was determined to die on that hill. And she now has horses with Nevin.

2. You're telling me Ellis didn't loop her in the Masochistic thing? She was not involved in the decision to run the horse in the race after the failed drug test? You're going to tell me as owner she had no involvement?

3. This situation. So far on this thread I've seen the current connections, the racing office, and the vet take heat. Why not her? The horse cost $110K and ran first out for $20K which screams crippled. She then shipped him out of town to run for the bottom which was $4K but if the bottom was $2K he'd have been in for that. She had every chance to retire the horse or rehome him but her solution was to put him on a van and make him someone else's problem. And then she has he balls to cry about it on Twitter. It's like taking a dog you don't want and dumping him on he side of the road and then blaming it on the guy who hit him with their car. Everyone knows the bottom of game is filled with guys like these clowns or Burton Sipp who would run a horse till its dead if it suited their needs. There's some obligation on current owners to keep their animals out of their hands.

And Btw... there's A LOT of people who have a fraction of the money the Siegel's have who wouldn't put the horse on the van to run for $4K and would have retired or rehomed him.

Lately the gun fire on this board has really been in the wrong direction.

[cj]

Yeah but you and SRU/Easy Goer in the post above me are pivoting. It's not apple to apple its apple to orange. The office has to take the entry.

Should the vet have scratched him? Absolutely. Why it didn't happen I have no idea. But putting this on the people in the office is wrong. They have a legal obligation to take the entry.

Btw... Why does Sam Siegel constantly get a pass? It seems the posters here and racing media people never have a bad word to say about her. Let's look at her track record lately.

1. She was literally the last big owner to leave Dutrow. She had horses with him till the last day. She was determined to die on that hill. And she now has horses with Nevin.

2. You're telling me Ellis didn't loop her in the Masochistic thing? She was not involved in the decision to run the horse in the race after the failed drug test? You're going to tell me as owner she had no involvement?

3. This situation. So far on this thread I've seen the current connections, the racing office, and the vet take heat. Why not her? The horse cost $110K and ran first out for $20K which screams crippled. She then shipped him out of town to run for the bottom which was $4K but if the bottom was $2K he'd have been in for that. She had every chance to retire the horse or rehome him but her solution was to put him on a van and make him someone else's problem. And then she has he balls to cry about it on Twitter. It's like taking a dog you don't want and dumping him on he side of the road and then blaming it on the guy who hit him with their car. Everyone knows the bottom of game is filled with guys like these clowns or Burton Sipp who would run a horse till its dead if it suited their needs. There's some obligation on current owners to keep their animals out of their hands.

And Btw... there's A LOT of people who have a fraction of the money the Siegel's have who wouldn't put the horse on the van to run for $4K and would have retired or rehomed him.

Lately the gun fire on this board has really been in the wrong direction.


Whatever needs to be done, this stuff can't happen. I personally don't care who does it or why to be honest.

Siegel hasn't gotten any pass from me. She knew and left it up to the trainer on Masochistic, which to me is just passing the buck.

[Hambletonian]

Because the racing office isn't allowed to arbitrarily accept entries. I figured it all your years of watching races and the countless times you've seen a hopeless long shot in a stake or allowance you'd have figured that out.

Tracks and states have rules. Like no maiden or firsters past a certain age.

If you think anyone in that racing office wanted to see that horse race you couldn't be more wrong.

Btw... when you get into regulating the ability of unsound horses with blanket rules you basically would put tracks like Mountaineer, Sam Houston and Emerald out of business. The california claiming rules reflect how many horses wouldn't pass a vet test. You can see dozens of voided claims on PP's for both SoCal and NorCal. You bring those standards to third rate tracks and subject whole fields to it and there would be no racing.

Horsemen need to regulate what they put on the track. And those who choose to do this need to be purged from the sport.

This isn't a regulatory issue.

I respectfully disagree, and I believe in this day and age if you cannot field a card with sound horses you should not be in business. Period.

[Hambletonian]

Yeah but you and SRU/Easy Goer in the post above me are pivoting. It's not apple to apple its apple to orange. The office has to take the entry.

Should the vet have scratched him? Absolutely. Why it didn't happen I have no idea. But putting this on the people in the office is wrong. They have a legal obligation to take the entry.

Btw... Why does Sam Siegel constantly get a pass? It seems the posters here and racing media people never have a bad word to say about her. Let's look at her track record lately.

1. She was literally the last big owner to leave Dutrow. She had horses with him till the last day. She was determined to die on that hill. And she now has horses with Nevin.

2. You're telling me Ellis didn't loop her in the Masochistic thing? She was not involved in the decision to run the horse in the race after the failed drug test? You're going to tell me as owner she had no involvement?

3. This situation. So far on this thread I've seen the current connections, the racing office, and the vet take heat. Why not her? The horse cost $110K and ran first out for $20K which screams crippled. She then shipped him out of town to run for the bottom which was $4K but if the bottom was $2K he'd have been in for that. She had every chance to retire the horse or rehome him but her solution was to put him on a van and make him someone else's problem. And then she has he balls to cry about it on Twitter. It's like taking a dog you don't want and dumping him on he side of the road and then blaming it on the guy who hit him with their car. Everyone knows the bottom of game is filled with guys like these clowns or Burton Sipp who would run a horse till its dead if it suited their needs. There's some obligation on current owners to keep their animals out of their hands.

And Btw... there's A LOT of people who have a fraction of the money the Siegel's have who wouldn't put the horse on the van to run for $4K and would have retired or rehomed him.

Lately the gun fire on this board has really been in the wrong direction.


The racetrack allowed the horse to run. Absolving them of any guilt is completely ridiculous. It is their arena. Blaming a former owner for a horse entering a race many years later is over the top.

You are what you eat. You let Burton Sipp train at your track, you are admitting to everyone you do not care. You let a horse like this race, and it breaks down, you bear responsibility. It is bad business to the extreme.

[Dahoss9698]

Horsemen need to regulate what they put on the track. And those who choose to do this need to be purged from the sport.

This isn't a regulatory issue.
I agree with a lot of your post, except this part. As we have seen, horseman do a lousy job policing other horseman. And owners are even worse.

Seems like lately the more positives you get, the more horses you get. Until the horseman can do it, someone else needs to or else this will go on with higher frequency.

[SuperPickle]

I respectfully disagree, and I believe in this day and age if you cannot field a card with sound horses you should not be in business. Period.

We're talking about a highly regulated industry. An industry that in some jurisdictions has two levels of regulation. The only reason these bodies exist is reasons like this.

Simple put the whole reason racing commissions exist is to prevent these things from happening. If they can't do it why have them?

A myth that is habitual perpetrated on this message board is that people with jobs like steward or racing secretary are empowered to do whatever they see fit. Its not true. They're simply middle managers of the sport who enforce what's handed to them.

If you don't like the rules start blaming people who make them versus those tasked with enforcing them.

[cj]

We're talking about a highly regulated industry. An industry that in some jurisdictions has two levels of regulation. The only reason these bodies exist is reasons like this.

Simple put the whole reason racing commissions exist is to prevent these things from happening. If they can't do it why have them?

A myth that is habitual perpetrated on this message board is that people with jobs like steward or racing secretary are empowered to do whatever they see fit. Its not true. They're simply middle managers of the sport who enforce what's handed to them.

If you don't like the rules start blaming people who make them versus those tasked with enforcing them.

Yes, but surely the racing secretary could have made a call to somebody that could do something. That is why I have a hard time just absolving people with the "not my job" excuse. Inaction is just as bad as action sometimes.

[SuperPickle]

I agree with a lot of your post, except this part. As we have seen, horseman do a lousy job policing other horseman. And owners are even worse.

Seems like lately the more positives you get, the more horses you get. Until the horseman can do it, someone else needs to or else this will go on with higher frequency.

My point is the only guy who knows if the horse is crippled is the horsemen. If they want to run a horse until its dead they can. There's not clear litmus test on if a horse is healthy enough to race. If you choose to mask an injury to try and a run a horse to get claimed you can do it and there's simply no way for anyone to prevent.

[SuperPickle]

Whatever needs to be done, this stuff can't happen. I personally don't care who does it or why to be honest.

Siegel hasn't gotten any pass from me. She knew and left it up to the trainer on Masochistic, which to me is just passing the buck.

Some might saying shipping a crippled horse out of town to drop to the bottom knowing someone will roll the dice on the $4k claim and he becomes their problem is also passing the buck.

[cj]

Some might saying shipping a crippled horse out of town to drop to the bottom knowing someone will roll the dice on the $4k claim and he becomes their problem is also passing the buck.

Of course it is, I've mentioned that MANY times here on this site. You're barking up the wrong tree with me. I've been saying it since you were just a cucumber. :lol:

[Dahoss9698]

My point is the only guy who knows if the horse is crippled is the horsemen. If they want to run a horse until its dead they can. There's not clear litmus test on if a horse is healthy enough to race. If you choose to mask an injury to try and a run a horse to get claimed you can do it and there's simply no way for anyone to prevent.
My point is at a certain point it'd be nice to see a little common sense. I'm not claiming to know when every horse should or shouldn't run, but geez....this particular situation sure seemed avoidable.

[SuperPickle]

Yes, but surely the racing secretary could have made a call to somebody that could do something. That is why I have a hard time just absolving people with the "not my job" excuse. Inaction is just as bad as action sometimes.

You're not wrong. And I'd love to hear the excuse from people on the ground of why they didn't catch it.

That being said I just think the primary blame should be around the three groups who didn't do their jobs (past and present owners plus regulators) versus those who didn't go above and beyond there's.

You don't fix arson by encouraging people to run into burning buildings.

[SuperPickle]

Of course it is, I've mentioned that MANY times here on this site. You're barking up the wrong tree with me. I've been saying it since you were just a cucumber. :lol:

Post of year! Only 362 days left to top it.

[Spalding No!]

A myth that is habitual perpetrated on this message board is that people with jobs like steward or racing secretary are empowered to do whatever they see fit. Its not true. They're simply middle managers of the sport who enforce what's handed to them.

CHRB Rule 1542: Power to Refuse Entry and Deny Eligibility.

For good cause, the stewards may refuse the entry to any race, or declare ineligible to race and order removed from the premises, any horse.

CHRB Rule 1580: Control over Entries and Declarations.

All entries and declarations are under the supervision of the stewards, and they may, without notice, refuse the entries of any person or the transfer of any entries, and they may also, in their discretion, limit entries by providing that no horse shall be listed for more than one race in any one day.

[SuperPickle]

CHRB Rule 1542: Power to Refuse Entry and Deny Eligibility.

For good cause, the stewards may refuse the entry to any race, or declare ineligible to race and order removed from the premises, any horse.

CHRB Rule 1580: Control over Entries and Declarations.

All entries and declarations are under the supervision of the stewards, and they may, without notice, refuse the entries of any person or the transfer of any entries, and they may also, in their discretion, limit entries by providing that no horse shall be listed for more than one race in any one day.

Yeah but as any lawyer would tell you it sets precedent and opens you up to litigation. While they have the mechanism to do it you set a precedent so you go down a rabbit hole of how long a layoff is ok and is a trainer being singled out.

It's like "best interest" clause in baseball. The commissioner has authority to essentially do anything he wants at any time but that doesn't mean doing so doesn't come with consequences that are often worse than using it.

Btw... California has perhaps the most thorough rules in terms of protection of horses. Unfortunately few other states do.

I'll tell you where you are right. I'm 100% convinced if this horse would have never raced in CA even at Los Al at night.

[Spalding No!]

Yeah but as any lawyer would tell you it sets precedent and opens you up to litigation. While they have the mechanism to do it you set a precedent so you go down a rabbit hole of how long a layoff is ok and is a trainer being singled out.
You had me at "Yeah..."

It's like "best interest" clause in baseball. The commissioner has authority to essentially do anything he wants at any time but that doesn't mean doing so doesn't come with consequences that are often worse than using it.
What's worse in a horse race than a horse breaking down?

Btw... California has perhaps the most thorough rules in terms of protection of horses. Unfortunately few other states do.

I'll tell you where you are right. I'm 100% convinced if this horse would have never raced in CA even at Los Al at night.
He did race (and break down) in CA.

[Rise Over Run]

3. This situation. So far on this thread I've seen the current connections, the racing office, and the vet take heat. Why not her? The horse cost $110K and ran first out for $20K which screams crippled. She then shipped him out of town to run for the bottom which was $4K but if the bottom was $2K he'd have been in for that. She had every chance to retire the horse or rehome him but her solution was to put him on a van and make him someone else's problem. And then she has he balls to cry about it on Twitter. It's like taking a dog you don't want and dumping him on he side of the road and then blaming it on the guy who hit him with their car. Everyone knows the bottom of game is filled with guys like these clowns or Burton Sipp who would run a horse till its dead if it suited their needs. There's some obligation on current owners to keep their animals out of their hands.


Unless I'm misreading things, they (Jay Em Ess) did not lose this horse via claim. They ran him for $5k on Nov 2, 2013 with no takers. He showed back up for $5k on November 14, 2013 for new connections (Dennis Hendrickson) and was claimed by an owner that ran him last week. When 5k claimers get sold privately, what do they go for; $1k, $2k? This is bad all around.

[SuperPickle]

You had me at "Yeah..."


What's worse in a horse race than a horse breaking down?


He did race (and break down) in CA.

So I went and pulled the pp's. I just assumed he broke down out of state because CJ said the race was a $3,200 claimer. It never occurred to me they ran less than $4k at Golden Gate.

The pp's make me beyond livid at Samantha Siegel. The horse ran last in SoCal on 10/4/13 for Ron Ellis in a condition $12k claimer nw2l which is the generally weakest race they card for winners in SoCal. Lost by 22 lengths as the favorite.

You figure Samantha Siegel who has tons of money stops with him.

Nope. A month later she tries the tried and true way SoCal horseman dump their horses and enters him in a $5k nw2l at Golden Gate. Now NorCalGreg or any Golden Gate regular would tell these horses almost always get claimed. The claiming game up there is huge and almost always someone will roll the dice this horse has value greater than $5k and less than $12k. The one catch is if he looks clearly unsound in the paddock. No one claimed him which speaks volumes for what he must have liked like. So he goes unclaimed and he loses again as the favorite.

So at this point he can't win for $5k you figure she stops with the horse because she has all the money in the world.

Nope. He's privately sold to John Martin and two weeks later Martin runs for $4k and he loses and is claimed and races once more before disappearing.

Given he lost for $5k, Martin entered him for $4k he most likely was sold for between $1,000 and $3,000. She honestly could have given him away. That's in no way a stretch.

So Sam Siegel probably sold this horse for an amount of money to us which would have been $20 to us.

Can someone tell me how she's innocent in all this?

Oh and the guy who facilitated all this? Ron Ellis. Can the people who defended him as a good guy and straight shooter on the Masochistic thread remind what a stand up guy he is.

[EasyGoer89]

So I went and pulled the pp's. I just assumed he broke down out of state because CJ said the race was a $3,200 claimer. It never occurred to me they ran less than $4k at Golden Gate.

The pp's make me beyond livid at Samantha Siegel. The horse ran last in SoCal on 10/4/13 for Ron Ellis in a condition $12k claimer nw2l which is the generally weakest race they card for winners in SoCal. Lost by 22 lengths as the favorite.

You figure Samantha Siegel who has tons of money stops with him.

Nope. A month later she tries the tried and true way SoCal horseman dump their horses and enters him in a $5k nw2l at Golden Gate. Now NorCalGreg or any Golden Gate regular would tell these horses almost always get claimed. The claiming game up there is huge and almost always someone will roll the dice this horse has value greater than $5k and less than $12k. The one catch is if he looks clearly unsound in the paddock. No one claimed him which speaks volumes for what he must have liked like. So he goes unclaimed and he loses again as the favorite.

So at this point he can't win for $5k you figure she stops with the horse because she has all the money in the world.

Nope. He's privately sold to John Martin and two weeks later Martin runs for $4k and he loses and is claimed and races once more before disappearing.

Given he lost for $5k, Martin entered him for $4k he most likely was sold for between $1,000 and $3,000. She honestly could have given him away. That's in no way a stretch.

So Sam Siegel probably sold this horse for an amount of money to us which would have been $20 to us.

Can someone tell me how she's innocent in all this?

Oh and the guy who facilitated all this? Ron Ellis. Can the people who defended him as a good guy and straight shooter on the Masochistic thread remind what a stand up guy he is.

Sam 'has no clue' according to her Twitter
https://mobile.twitter.com/jayemesssam/status/816011329152565254

[Hambletonian]

SuperPickle:

You have assessed blame to literally everyone except the jockey, while claiming the track official could not do a thing. And when someone points out the stewards can refuse entry, then you come up with the lawsuit angle as to explain why stewards, who had the ability to prevent this entry, did not. Do you honestly believe someone was going to take the track to court to get this horse in a race?

At the end of the day, the track took the entry, and the horse broke down. The track did not do its job, and they bear that culpability. A few years back there was that horse that was sold to some solid citizens under the apparent condition that it did not race, and then the new connections looked for tracks to run it with guaranteed payouts to last place. And when the outcry started, tracks stop taking the entry.

It seems you firmly believe that if you are a racing official and the job becomes difficult, you get a pass because others can be blamed.

I believe if you run a racetrack, you are the ultimate arbiters of your product. To blame your product on others is passing the buck to the extreme. The track is solely not to blame, but to pretend they are just innocent bystanders is preposterous.

[Dahoss9698]

Sad thing is I have yet to read a thing about this horrible situation except for in this thread.

If I'm wrong i apologize and will be corrected but I can't find one article on it at all. The media in this sport don't do a very good job of doing their job. In fact, I haven't even seen the owner and trainer named.

Well trainer Candelario Villamar and owners Jesus and Salvador Rios here's your moment of glory. Everyone involved (connections, stewards, racing office, former owners, etc) should take a bow for their participation in this travesty.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

It is a sad story but I dont think assigning blame to so many people isnt fair.

Generally speaking, horses off a long layoff have workout requirements. So, if this horse satisfied the workout requirements prior to taking the entry, how is it the racing office's fault? If the horse passed the pre-race exam, why shouldnt it be able to run if it meets the requirements for the condition?

We can go on and on about the absolute insurer rule in regards to the trainer, so if the trainer realized something was wrong with the horse then the blame falls squarely on them. I am not sure about CA since I do not follow those circuits closely, but I do know some jurisdictions will forfeit the claim if the horse breaks down or doesnt finish the race so this adds some protection to trying to get rid of the horse if he was in fact unsound.

If they really was to cover themselves, then put a rule in the condition book that doesnt allow a horse to run after a layoff of over one year or any similar time restriction. That being said, there are plenty of horses that come back after a significant amount of time off and run well. I just do not think it is ok to point that blame at the racing office if the horse satisfied all the requirements and rules in place to run.

[elhelmete]

It is a sad story but I dont think assigning blame to so many people isnt fair.

Generally speaking, horses off a long layoff have workout requirements. So, if this horse satisfied the workout requirements prior to taking the entry, how is it the racing office's fault? If the horse passed the pre-race exam, why shouldnt it be able to run if it meets the requirements for the condition?

We can go on and on about the absolute insurer rule in regards to the trainer, so if the trainer realized something was wrong with the horse then the blame falls squarely on them. I am not sure about CA since I do not follow those circuits closely, but I do know some jurisdictions will forfeit the claim if the horse breaks down or doesnt finish the race so this adds some protection to trying to get rid of the horse if he was in fact unsound.

If they really was to cover themselves, then put a rule in the condition book that doesnt allow a horse to run after a layoff of over one year or any similar time restriction. That being said, there are plenty of horses that come back after a significant amount of time off and run well. I just do not think it is ok to point that blame at the racing office if the horse satisfied all the requirements and rules in place to run.

So mandatory retirement?

[EasyGoer89]

It is a sad story but I dont think assigning blame to so many people isnt fair.

Generally speaking, horses off a long layoff have workout requirements. So, if this horse satisfied the workout requirements prior to taking the entry, how is it the racing office's fault? If the horse passed the pre-race exam, why shouldnt it be able to run if it meets the requirements for the condition?

We can go on and on about the absolute insurer rule in regards to the trainer, so if the trainer realized something was wrong with the horse then the blame falls squarely on them. I am not sure about CA since I do not follow those circuits closely, but I do know some jurisdictions will forfeit the claim if the horse breaks down or doesnt finish the race so this adds some protection to trying to get rid of the horse if he was in fact unsound.

If they really was to cover themselves, then put a rule in the condition book that doesnt allow a horse to run after a layoff of over one year or any similar time restriction. That being said, there are plenty of horses that come back after a significant amount of time off and run well. I just do not think it is ok to point that blame at the racing office if the horse satisfied all the requirements and rules in place to run.

It doesn't matter if it's fair or not, life is generally unfair, all we care about is who is the voice for the horse? If we just say 'can't blame anyone specifically because there's a small amount of blame to go around' that doesn't save the next horse who is put into this situation. when horses are off extended layoffs, there's usually a serious reason for it, if nobody falls on the sword, how do we prevent the next tap it in situation from occurring?

[Dahoss9698]

It is a sad story but I dont think assigning blame to so many people isnt fair.

Generally speaking, horses off a long layoff have workout requirements. So, if this horse satisfied the workout requirements prior to taking the entry, how is it the racing office's fault? If the horse passed the pre-race exam, why shouldnt it be able to run if it meets the requirements for the condition?

We can go on and on about the absolute insurer rule in regards to the trainer, so if the trainer realized something was wrong with the horse then the blame falls squarely on them. I am not sure about CA since I do not follow those circuits closely, but I do know some jurisdictions will forfeit the claim if the horse breaks down or doesnt finish the race so this adds some protection to trying to get rid of the horse if he was in fact unsound.

If they really was to cover themselves, then put a rule in the condition book that doesnt allow a horse to run after a layoff of over one year or any similar time restriction. That being said, there are plenty of horses that come back after a significant amount of time off and run well. I just do not think it is ok to point that blame at the racing office if the horse satisfied all the requirements and rules in place to run.
You're acting like this was a 4 year old coming off a 2 month layoff in an allowance race. It wasn't. It was a 10 year old, coming off a 3 YEAR layoff running for a 3k.

What was the possible upside here? It's not a normal situation so it can't be looked at as such. This could have easily been avoided.

Imagine if this caused a rider to be seriously injured? It could have been worse, way worse. Which means the game needs to do better about preventing this from happening again.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Which means the game needs to do better about preventing this from happening again.

But it won't happen because instead everyone will burn the clock on public attention by blaming everyone else. This isn't the first time something like this has happened and it's a little difficult to understand how in this day and age of CYA policy trumping everything else including common sense - why there isn't a simple little clause in most jurisdictions empowering and mandating a bit more scrutiny on these entries with a few red flags indicating that the horse may not be in the best situation here.

[SuperPickle]

SuperPickle:

You have assessed blame to literally everyone except the jockey, while claiming the track official could not do a thing. And when someone points out the stewards can refuse entry, then you come up with the lawsuit angle as to explain why stewards, who had the ability to prevent this entry, did not. Do you honestly believe someone was going to take the track to court to get this horse in a race?

At the end of the day, the track took the entry, and the horse broke down. The track did not do its job, and they bear that culpability. A few years back there was that horse that was sold to some solid citizens under the apparent condition that it did not race, and then the new connections looked for tracks to run it with guaranteed payouts to last place. And when the outcry started, tracks stop taking the entry.

It seems you firmly believe that if you are a racing official and the job becomes difficult, you get a pass because others can be blamed.

I believe if you run a racetrack, you are the ultimate arbiters of your product. To blame your product on others is passing the buck to the extreme. The track is solely not to blame, but to pretend they are just innocent bystanders is preposterous.


I don't how else to reply to you except to say you're fundamentally wrong.

First off if I've been unclear on where the blame lies I'll be clear. The ultimate responsibility of the care of the asset (i.e. the horse) lies in its owner or owners of the asset and to the people the owners have contracted with to manage the asset (i.e. the trainer/horsemen.) Period. This is a common part of property law and the way it works everywhere with every asset.

Second, this idea that the track is the "ultimate arbiter" is silly. They don't own the asset. They don't manage it. They do not care for it. It's illogical to hold them ultimately responsible given that. That fire that happened in Oakland last month where all those people died was that the city of Oakland's fault? Or was it the guy who threw the rave. Or was it the owner of the building? The answer is the owner of the property and person who rented the property. Same here.

Let me give you this analogy. It's a snow night. Your car is older. Tires a little bald. Brakes a little rough. But you need a drink. You drive a couple miles to the closest bar. You have about 5-6 drinks. You jump back in the car to go home and on the way you hit a patch of ice or snow and kill a pedestrian.

Who's responsibility is it? The person who drove drunk? The bartender? The car manufacturer? The cops for not catching the drunk? The department of transportation because of the road conditions.

Now 99% of the people on this messageboard (except probably SRU) would say the sole or primary responsibility rests in the guy who drove drunk.

But when asked to apply the same logical thinking to horse racing a lot of people here refuse to do it. Why? It's psychology 101. Because most people on this board have had bad experiences on this track. They've lost money. Suffered horrible beats. They had bad customer service interactions. And simply put that drives the decision to blame the track.

Every racing problem morphs down to the tracks fault. Horse breaks down. Tracks fault. Not Sam Siegel's fault for selling a cripple for $1,000. Horses being doped in racing. Tracks fault they should test better. Not Sam Siegel's fault for employing people like Richard Dutrow. Horse runs on steroids in the Breeders Cup. The CHRB and Breeders Cup are idiots. Not maybe Sam Siegel shouldn't use drugging trainers and run drugged horses.

So I'm comfortable with everyone putting all of racings problem on the feet of the operators and managers. I'll just keep correcting what I think is very immature sense of logical thinking.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

You're acting like this was a 4 year old coming off a 2 month layoff in an allowance race. It wasn't. It was a 10 year old, coming off a 3 YEAR layoff running for a 3k.

What was the possible upside here? It's not a normal situation so it can't be looked at as such. This could have easily been avoided.

Imagine if this caused a rider to be seriously injured? It could have been worse, way worse. Which means the game needs to do better about preventing this from happening again.

The age of the horse certainly plays a role here, but at the same time how we can say the horse is unsound? If it worked in the required times to start and passed a pre race exam, then what?

So now we are supposed to sit and say despite passing the requirements to run, we still do not think the horse is fit and shouldnt be allowed to run?

My point is simply that there should be something in place to prevent this. I honestly dont know if there is a mandatory retirement age in tbreds, but I do know for harness it is 15. They could put a rule into place surrounding the age of the horse and time off, but i would think they would have to prove it with historical data to support the rule.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

It doesn't matter if it's fair or not, life is generally unfair, all we care about is who is the voice for the horse? If we just say 'can't blame anyone specifically because there's a small amount of blame to go around' that doesn't save the next horse who is put into this situation. when horses are off extended layoffs, there's usually a serious reason for it, if nobody falls on the sword, how do we prevent the next tap it in situation from occurring?

In a perfect world, the trainer and connections should be the voice for the horse. We all know the world is far from perfect and there are people involved in this business that the horse is simply a meal ticket and could care less what happens to it.

What would you suggest?

[EasyGoer89]

In a perfect world, the trainer and connections should be the voice for the horse. We all know the world is far from perfect and there are people involved in this business that the horse is simply a meal ticket and could care less what happens to it.

What would you suggest?

Owners and trainers wouldn't be happy with my suggestion. Gotta give them some incentive to not run compromised horses, as of now, they really don't have any, especially with horse who have a zero net worth.

[dilanesp]

Yeah but as any lawyer would tell you it sets precedent and opens you up to litigation. While they have the mechanism to do it you set a precedent so you go down a rabbit hole of how long a layoff is ok and is a trainer being singled out.

It's like "best interest" clause in baseball. The commissioner has authority to essentially do anything he wants at any time but that doesn't mean doing so doesn't come with consequences that are often worse than using it.

Btw... California has perhaps the most thorough rules in terms of protection of horses. Unfortunately few other states do.

I'll tell you where you are right. I'm 100% convinced if this horse would have never raced in CA even at Los Al at night.

The regulations in California give the stewards /CHRB close to absolute power.

Public entities shouldn't use the threat of suit as an excuse for inaction. The AG's office will defend them and they usually win.