Life At Ten - An Absolute Sham

[5k-claim]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

Pretty reasonable rebuttal, I must admit, as one who agrees pretty much with 5k-claim and DaHoss8675309 for the most part.

The owner has every right to be furious, and every right to pull her horse from the trainer and rider if she wants to.

But she also has the right not to, especially if she feels the trainer and jockey are still good choices for her equine investment(s). And why would they necessarily not be?

All of this armchair quarterbacking about the owner "losing credibility" for not firing the trainer, or deserving a suspension from racing is absurd, amusing, or just a big pile of steaming horse crap. To me, it started out as amusing for a post or two, but now is pretty much just drawing flies.

Your mileage may vary.

.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by 5k-claim

The owner has every right to be furious...

And the horseplayers do not?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by 5k-claim

The owner has every right to be furious, and every right to pull her horse from the trainer and rider if she wants to.

But she also has the right not to, especially if she feels the trainer and jockey are still good choices for her equine investment(s). And why would they necessarily not be?

All of this armchair quarterbacking about the owner "losing credibility" for not firing the trainer, or deserving a suspension from racing is absurd, amusing, or just a big pile of steaming horse crap. To me, it started out as amusing for a post or two, but now is pretty much just drawing flies.

Your mileage may vary.

.

I'm not sure what I was supposed to learn from that - I'm fairly certain that even the least seasoned bettor/fan/horseman/official probably grasps the notion that the owner has the right to do this and the right not to do that.

I think you have your "right"s confused.

It's his/her/their/our/your right to do whatever you feel like doing within the scope of the codes.

That, in and of itself, is a hint of the overbearing problem.

Again, I thought it was a resonable rebuttal in this particular case.

Your mileage may vary.

Signed,

Jeff Goldblum

[5k-claim]

Thanks, Jeff.

Just out of curiosity, where do you stand on the issue of suspending the owner from racing? Would the owner firing the trainer and jockey influence your answer?

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

I'm not sure what I was supposed to learn from that - I'm fairly certain that even the least seasoned bettor/fan/horseman/official probably grasps the notion that the owner has the right to do this and the right not to do that.

I think you have your "right"s confused.

It's his/her/their/our/your right to do whatever you feel like doing within the scope of the codes.

That, in and of itself, is a hint of the overbearing problem.

Again, I thought it was a resonable rebuttal in this particular case.

Your mileage may vary.

Signed,

Jeff Goldblum

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

And the horseplayers do not?

I don't think that is what he is saying and I'm certainly not. The bettors were screwed here and it's a travesty. My only point and I think 5k Claim's is as well, is getting mad, or placing blame at the owner is misdirected. Punishing the owner in this particular instance would be unfair IMO.

At this point, all I can ask is for measures to be put into place so this kind of thing cannot happen again. Punishing the owner isn't going to make that happen. But punishing the jock, trainer and whoever allowed her to run will.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

I don't think that is what he is saying and I'm certainly not. The bettors were screwed here and it's a travesty. My only point and I think 5k Claim's is as well, is getting mad, or placing blame at the owner is misdirected. Punishing the owner in this particular instance would be unfair IMO.

At this point, all I can ask is for measures to be put into place so this kind of thing cannot happen again. Punishing the owner isn't going to make that happen. But punishing the jock, trainer and whoever allowed her to run will.

I agree with what you say Dahoss...the owner should not be blamed in this case. But just asking "for measures to be put into place so this kind of thing cannot happen again" is not enough!

We already know that this thing is not likely to occur again...I have been following this game for 30 years, and I never saw this happen before.

The punishment for this incident should have been swift and severe. That's how you show that integrity plays a major role in this game.

[5k-claim]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

I don't think that is what he is saying and I'm certainly not. The bettors were screwed here and it's a travesty. My only point and I think 5k Claim's is as well, is getting mad, or placing blame at the owner is misdirected. Punishing the owner in this particular instance would be unfair IMO.

At this point, all I can ask is for measures to be put into place so this kind of thing cannot happen again. Punishing the owner isn't going to make that happen. But punishing the jock, trainer and whoever allowed her to run will.

Exactly how I feel.

.

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I agree with what you say Dahoss...the owner should not be blamed in this case. But just asking "for measures to be put into place so this kind of thing cannot happen again" is not enough!

We already know that this thing is not likely to occur again...I have been following this game for 30 years, and I never saw this happen before.

The punishment for this incident should have been swift and severe. That's how you show that integrity plays a major role in this game.

Obviously I would have preferred the punishment to be swift and severe. It wasn't. Getting angry about how it hasn't been that way isn't going to do me any good. When and if there is punishment doled out, then we can decide if it is enough, so to speak.

[Nikki1997]

Originally Posted by 5k-claim

The owner has every right to be furious, and every right to pull her horse from the trainer and rider if she wants to.

But she also has the right not to, especially if she feels the trainer and jockey are still good choices for her equine investment(s). And why would they necessarily not be?

All of this armchair quarterbacking about the owner "losing credibility" for not firing the trainer, or deserving a suspension from racing is absurd, amusing, or just a big pile of steaming horse crap. To me, it started out as amusing for a post or two, but now is pretty much just drawing flies.

Your mileage may vary.

.

Candy DeBartolo can absolutely change trainers. She should have. Beyond question. You don't pay the fees for these trainers and have your prized horse treated the way Life At Ten was. How stupid is that?

Life At Ten is Pletcher's baby. The check from these owners is to HIM, not John Velasquez. Starts with the trainer.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by 5k-claim

Thanks, Jeff.

Just out of curiosity, where do you stand on the issue of suspending the owner from racing?

The way it has been discussed in this thread - I find the notion meritless and absurd.

Would the owner firing the trainer and jockey influence your answer?

I may need a re-phrase on that one. I'm not suggesting, and don't believe that I have suggested, that anyone should fire anyone. But, your second question here seems to be conditional to my response to question one being specific.

I'm commending RobertGoren, RacingFormDetective, on making a salient point on behalf of bettors that instances such as this, and many, many more egregious cases of wrongdoing (the verdict is not only not out here, but we can't even seem to find a prosecutor, judge, or jury) that "loyal" owners give bettors, such 'Tec Goren, the impression of an implicit, ifnot explicit, green light to continue screwing bettors.

We've had an "inquiry" and a "gambler's claim of foul" into this race for longer than most Eclipse Award winners generally compete in a career.

Come on now, you are indeed a sharp guy and I think if you re-read my original post you'd see that on the specifics, I agree with exactly what you have said. But, this is a calamity. It was a disaster that has evolved into a disgraceful disastrous monstrous calamity.

Let me ask a hypodermothetical, if I may:

(some call it needling)

I get the impression that you are most likely licensed as owner/trainer. If not, lets pretend you are, because I think you can probably jump into that role. But let's get rid of the trainer part and you are paying a trainer to run your horses for you.

Now, I've seen all sorts of stuff happen. I've kicked myself in the ass for not intervening sooner when I had the chance.

Still, as bad as it looked then and as bad as it looks now, is it unreasonable to think that people on the outside looking in might expect you (or me) as owner to see what they see and grasp why they would logically think that you or I should actually hold the rider or trainer accountable... since nobody else will?

I think what it boils down to is that in the case of 99.99248009% of the cases, an owner is just that - the owner of a horse that is in the care and custody of a licensed trainer who understands the meaning of "trainer responsibility". Yes, the owner has no liability, he/she is there for the drinks, the tickets, the yelling, and later, the absurd, frown-encrusted questions.

But.... how often, when in so many cases, and NO, this is not one of those YET, if ever...

...how often when the "usual suspects" get a ruling and a slap, does the owner assume the responsibility, the authority - and offer a real punishment, the only true punishment - a few empty stalls?

This issue has, by being (ignored, delayed, sanitized, whatever) taken on in the minds of many, a feeling of being much like any other time they get screwed by riders, trainers, stewards, lack of stewards, commissions, apellate courts...

...if you find the premise that I highlighted in Robert's post absurd, particularly in the grander scheme of racing, well, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I...

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Nikki1997

Candy DeBartolo can absolutely change trainers. She should have. Beyond question. You don't pay the fees for these trainers and have your prized horse treated the way Life At Ten was. How stupid is that?

Life At Ten is Pletcher's baby. The check from these owners is to HIM, not John Velasquez. Starts with the trainer.

Is it within our power to dictate to the owners what they should do with their horses?

[5k-claim]

Great post, my friend.

I actually think the question he asked about the owner firing (or not firing) the trainer and jockey is a very good question. Perfectly reasonable.

Just not so much if it is the support for the idea of suspending the owner. And that is the context I was viewing it in. So yeah, I was thinking of that specific context in my response to you.

You are exactly right about the licenses (o/t). One of the reasons that I am here, believe it or not, is because I really do think bettors get the short end of things so often, and definitely should get more respect. I just don't understand a business model that doesn't try to understand and meet the needs of its customers. It is ridiculous.

It sucks because I want this sport to succeed because I am having a hell of a lot of fun in it. Racing needs a much better relationship with its customers, or I will have to find something else to do in the mornings. Just thinking about it makes me shake my head.

I hate that racing has such low approval ratings in the "integrity" category. And even more that it is often justified.

.

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

...if you find the premise that I highlighted in Robert's post absurd, particularly in the grander scheme of racing, well, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I...

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by 5k-claim

...One of the reasons that I am here, believe it or not, is because I really do think bettors get the short end of things so often, and definitely should get more respect. I just don't understand a business model that doesn't try to understand and meet the needs of its customers. It is ridiculous....

We shall go in peace, my brother.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by 5k-claim

Great post, my friend.

I actually think the question he asked about the owner firing (or not firing) the trainer and jockey is a very good question. Perfectly reasonable.

Just not so much if it is the support for the idea of suspending the owner. And that is the context I was viewing it in. So yeah, I was thinking of that specific context in my response to you.

You are exactly right about the licenses (o/t). One of the reasons that I am here, believe it or not, is because I really do think bettors get the short end of things so often, and definitely should get more respect. I just don't understand a business model that doesn't try to understand and meet the needs of its customers. It is ridiculous.

It sucks because I want this sport to succeed because I am having a hell of a lot of fun in it. Racing needs a much better relationship with its customers, or I will have to find something else to do in the mornings. Just thinking about it makes me shake my head.

I hate that racing has such low approval ratings in the "integrity" category. And even more that it is often justified.

.

I think the people who suggest the owner needs to be punished are feeling that if the owner is punished, the trainer will have a better chance of being replaced. The way the rules are now, no matter what the trainer does, the owner won't get in trouble.

The LAT case aside, if we look at a typical drug positive and say the owner gets no punishment should a trainer get caught cheating, what incentive does the owner have to get rid of a 'supertrainer' and get someone who is honest? They have no incentive, because the supertrainer accepts the punishment and wins boatloads of races for that owner.

If trainers know they won't lose owners by cheating, its a good idea to continue cheating.

This is why if someone screws up in the military, EVERYONE has to do pushups. This is tremendous incentive to NOT screw up...you don't want your fellow cadets dropping and giving the sarge 20 because you your mistake. This would be the same thing that would happen with trainers, they would be much less likely to cheat if they knew their owner would get in trouble.

[Tom]

If trainers know they won't lose owners by cheating, its a good idea to continue cheating.

Amen, my Brotha.

The owners enable the cheating by allowing the trainers to use their horses as the vehicle.

When a stinking low-life trainer juices a horse and wins a purse, guess who gets the majority of the money?

But I guess when that happens, the track bartender should take the fall.