This horse should have never been allowed to run

[Elkchester Road]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

And by the way, my criticism here was of the track and regulators. They should have said "no, you can't run the horse after 4 years". I have no idea what the owners were thinking and for all I know they are good people following the advice of their vets.

Exactly, dilanesp.

I said in my previous post that a lot of jurisdictions just don't care. I stand by it.

[rastajenk]

Originally Posted by Elkchester Road

Absolutely, Mulerider.

No; absolutely irrelevant.

[Mulerider]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

No; absolutely irrelevant.

Could be.

But maybe if Boyd didn't have a history of putting their desire for full fields and happy trainers ahead of horse welfare, folks wouldn't be so cynical when something like this happens.

[AskinHaskin]

Originally Posted by mountainman

I recall that a few years back a horse showing SEVERAL recent pull-ups broke down, severely injuring Oz Pereira. Since one of my assigned tasks as ast racing sec, aside from checking wgt and eligibility, is to flag any horse on a vet's, starters, or steward's list..etc..etc, I sprang from my tv chair and made a mad dash for the racing office to double check the original entry. That was the longest 2 minutes of my life. Had the entry listed any reason for me to expel the horse, I would not only have felt partly responsible for the catastrophe, but, in all likelihood, wound up in court.

After decades of checking entries, you develop "hard" eyes that do not miss that kind of detail. Had they failed me in that instance, my whole life would have changed.

I still shudder when I think back on that incident.

Next time you think back on it, recognize that you are citing a horse who pulled-up in the slop in one race, and then stumbled and pulled-up in her next race 6 weeks later, after which she was away 6 months.

Upon return, the horse bolted near the quarter pole.

(she had won by daylight the month prior to the first pulled-up mentioned here)

That doesn't compare with today's maiden who had been unraced for nearly 5 years.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by AskinHaskin

Next time you think back on it, recognize that you are citing a horse who pulled-up in the slop in one race, and then stumbled and pulled-up in her next race 6 weeks later, after which she was away 6 months.

Upon return, the horse bolted near the quarter pole.

(she had won by daylight the month prior to the first pulled-up mentioned here)

That doesn't compare with today's maiden who had been unraced for nearly 5 years.

Of course the incidents are very different. But the common bond of questionable entries slipping through took me RIGHT back to the Pereira mount.

And no need to recite that horse's form. It's indelibly etched in my mind. Forever.

Incidentally, I can speak at length-and from 30 years of professional experience-about how issues like the ill-fated maiden posed are addressed and decided on behind the scenes. But I want to get in a workout before the pirate's game.

Incidentally, I was interviewed at length by the fallen rider's lawyer in the Mnr case. Not for my expertise as a racing official, but instead for my take on Pereira's ride.

And just one other (small) detail sir: Your "she" was a "he."

[Redboard]

Looking at his PPs, nothing really jumps out at me for a reason why this horse shouldn't run. The main thing I would Look for is no workouts, a class drop and long layoff — especially when it all three conditions, but you can’t draw a conclusion based on one. The horse "dropped" from state-bred maiden claiming $25k to state-bred maiden claiming $7.5k(I’m not sure whether this race was a state bred or not, you can correct me if it wasn’t a state bred) — not a precipitous drop IMO. As someone mentioned, he did have four workouts this summer. There is the long layoff, but with only four lifetime starts, he could be a late bloomer and if the horse seems healthy, willing and able, you can’t disqualify him for his age. Now if he had no workouts or was dropping from a graded stakes to a $7.5 claimer, that would be different.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Of course the incidents are very different. But the common bond of questionable entries slipping through took me RIGHT back to the Pereira mount.

And no need to recite that horse's form. It's indelibly etched in my mind. Forever.

Incidentally, I can speak at length-and from 30 years of professional experience-about how issues like the ill-fated maiden posed are addressed and decided on behind the scenes. But I want to get in a workout before the pirate's game.

Incidentally, I was interviewed at length by the fallen rider's lawyer in the Mnr case. Not for my expertise as a racing official, but instead for my take on Pereira's ride.

And just one other (small) detail sir: Your "she" was a "he."

My bad, sir. It was indeed a female. Good memory. That just came back to me.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by AskinHaskin

Next time you think back on it, recognize that you are citing a horse who pulled-up in the slop in one race, and then stumbled and pulled-up in her next race 6 weeks later, after which she was away 6 months.

Upon return, the horse bolted near the quarter pole.

(she had won by daylight the month prior to the first pulled-up mentioned here)

That doesn't compare with today's maiden who had been unraced for nearly 5 years.

Good lord, you know a lot about that horse for just a bystander, dude.

[MJC922]

Follow up: https://www.paulickreport.com/news/t...hange-in-ohio/

[VeryOldMan]

Currently, the only restrictions the Ohio commission places on runners is that they must be serviceably sound, cannot be wearing a trachea tube, cannot have undergone a nerving surgery, and cannot have impaired sight in both eyes. There are no further regulations about maximum age, maximum layoff time, or performance.


No trachea tube and impaired sight in only one eye = good to go if they can run 4f in under 52, per the article.

That's depressing as hell.