What you say about people walking away is probably correct but i dont see them returning. I also dont see big move ups off claims stopping regardless of the rules. What happens when we ban everything and that still happens? The reality of the situation and the perception are always going to be 2 different things.

The system in Hong Kong relies on one very secure and fairly isolated barn area, vets that work for the track, all vet work published for all to see and most importantly laws that support it. The system there is set up by the govenment that has very different laws than we do. It just is not feasable here. Maybe we could try to implement some things but because of the set up over there most simply arent applicable. Not to mention the cost which would be far greater than 5% of the purses.

When i was over there i asked a friend of mine who trains there what happens if you switch the saddle towels (which also have a microchip in it and all activity on the track is electronically timed). He told me you can get jail time.

I believe every single one of those champion female horses he trained had their first foal in the first season they were covered.

Did all of them catch on the very first cover? How would I know ... however, all of them did their job and produced a foal...and in some cases very good ones.

It's not like broodmares catch every cover.

I have 2 mares that have been out of training for a long time that I bred this spring. Neither has gotten in foal after 2 tries. Neither has had a shot of steroids since i had them (at least 2 years). I suppose if I had no history with these fillies I would be blaming steroids. I have also claimed tons of fillies off the track that went right to the shed and got in foal no problem and i am positive that many of them had been getting steroids. I may also add that the article you posted was 18 years old and I have not heard of any major problems in getting mares in foal. As a matter of fact the percentage of mares that get in foal now is higher than ever according to many of the breeders I deal with.

I guess one might wonder how many of those mares were actually went to Lane's End to be bred? DWL has always been an easy "target" as well. Who really knows the truth, although in this business, depending on how close to the real source and origin, there's often a lot more stories than truth.

I remember hearing nonsense and BS that every insurance company writing coverage would decline coverage if the horse was trained by DWL. I then had people say "yeah, I heard that too" and "yes that's true, my friend knows _______ and he told me" and all that.

As far as the winstrol issue -- the media, the propaganda claims about Dutrow "admitting" and all that. Like many of us know -- all horn no drivetrain. It's a legal drug and part of today's game. Move on. The aspect of effects, ramfications, what % are and aren't, etc. -- those are very valid and important discussions. Perhaps it's just as simple as ban it, then have complete and total random testing -- non-raceday testing, 365 days a year. On the other hand, either ban it or it's part of the game.

Eric

By the way, I am not going to open a Pandora's box here in this type of forum, however, this is not anywhere near as simple as owners holding trainers accountable by questioning trainers, and vets, and closely reviewing and scrutinizing vet bills. For people who have been in this business as long as I have, and now the business -- truly know the business -- you know that does not and cannot work. Sorry folks -- if you think that's the answer -- race your horses and bet only at Fantasy Land Downs.

I hear much talk about holding owners accountable -- and I am all for that -- within reason. What PA tried to do was not feasible and enforceable, hence, they modified their new rule(s) and amended their position. I for one was more than willing to fight PA on their initial stance, and would have had they not dialed it back. You can only hold someone accountable for what they can be accountable for and you cannot set an unenforceable or impossible standard.

With that in mind, while trainers and owners are to be held accountable, so should the vets.

Eric

i would think that the saying that begins 'he who lives in a glass house...' would apply to rick dutrow. he's a many times over cheat. and if he cheats to win a claiming race, what will he do for all the marbles?

How did you come to the conclusion that it is "nonsense and BS" that some insurance companies won't insure Lukas horses? It is not nonsense or BS. It is fact. I know of specific companies that won't insure his horses. Try calling some of the big companies such as Kirk.

It's nonsense and BS. It is not a fact. You can know specific companies all you want. First, I said "every" -- you said "some" and as I am sure you would agree, monster difference there. Second, this has nothing to do with DWL. I can get insurance today on any horse in his barn, financial and health justification just like any other horse trained by any other trainer. I can find companies that won't write/issue coverage on horses trained by other trainers. Doesn't mean a thing. Third, Kirk, if we are talking about the same Kirk, is in the role of a broker, not an underwriting correspondent that will issue coverage and assume risk on their own paper.

Like Dutrow, and many other successful people in our industry, Lukas, will often be a target. Easy, hard, doesn't matter.

Eric

What do you mean that it has nothing to do with DWL? It has everything to do with DWL. The reason that some insurers won't insure his horses is because he has had an inordinate number of breakdowns in terms of percentage compared to other trainers. The insurance companies that won't insure his horses will tell you that.

For anyone out there that has any doubt about this, you can find out for yourself. Try calling a few insurance companies and tell them that you just bought a 2 year old at a 2 year olds in training sale. Tell them that you haven't decided on a trainer yet, but you wanted to know if the trainer you choose will have any bearing on whether or not they will insure your horse. Then tell them that that one of the guys you are considering is Lukas and see what they say. I will bet you that many of the insurers will tell you that they will not insure your horse if he is the trainer.

What do I mean -- what I mean is that it has nothing to do with DWL. There are plenty of companies that will insure his horses -- period. The issue is that I said a claim was made that said "ALL" and you commented on it by saying "SOME" -- I didn't see you responde to that. Obviously, if companies will insure his horses than it has nothing to do with DWL.

I would also look to have a company decline coverage, put in writing that they are declining coverage because the horse is trained by DWL. We've all heard the so called "claims" that he has higher %'s of breakdowns -- yeah, more "claims". Proof would be nice. Also, what kind of BS insurance are we talking about here. Breakdowns? How about mortality.

Like I said, nonsense and BS. Let's all get together and call insurance companies -- not brokers -- and we can come back here and celebrate that DWL can't get insurance from ALL insurance companies.

Carry on.

Eric

I can't say "all" because I obviously don't know the practices of every single company out there.

In terms of "proof", the insurance companies have proof. They keep track of that type of stuff. If you don't want to believe it that is fine with me. You are the same guy that didn't believe that racing boards will check phone records and bank accounts to make sure that suspended trainers aren't still getting paid while they are suspended and aren't still having contact with the barn.

No, I am not. I believe a racing board could, might, would and has. I just don't believe they will every time, nor that they have the right to do that every time. I don't think a racing board can do this autonomously and have the authority, sans court order, unless you agree to it, it's on a stall application, etc.

Isn't this how Dutrow got caught? As far as the bank records though, that is what DE had in mind, and was going to "suspend" owners as a result. I said "no way, never would happen" and like I said, would have fought it. I had already met with legal counsel and in a matter of a day or two, they dialed back.

Eric

How about this.

Is there a indication that a horse is less likely to
be insured under D.wayne than other top trainers?

I am assuming DWL is still considered a top trainer
even though his barn is much smaller than in the past.

I don't know. Is it possible? Sure. Is it probable? I would say no. Also, you would probably get a lot of arguements from people regarding DWL still being considered a top trainer, LOL.

This is a larger discussion, but when we talk about DWL, we all know the reality of what and who we are talking about.

Eric