http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007...1207165719.txt

current article, linked on equidaily and a fitting part of this thread.


as an aside...how many times did bluegrass cat run??

Whether my handle is NoLuvForPletch or WhoShotNellyInTheBelly makes no matter. I'm speaking as an owner and a fan of the sport. I do not like what is happeneing to the game in part because of the Pletchers of the world. Just because my original post didn't articulate everything yours did, and just focused on the point that in meaningful races where Pletch cannot control the framework of the race he seems to do significantly worse than every other day, why does that make my opinion that he is overrated less justified?

We heard all throughout the Triple Crown season that the reason that Pletcher and Asmussen are successful is their tremendous attention to detail and how they know everything going on with every horse in their respective barns. Whether we believe this or not, the thing that bugs me is that when these guys get nailed for medication violations, they say, "I've got 200 horses spread all over the place, how am I supposed to know?" They can't have it both ways. Either take responsibility for what happens or downsize the stable to a more manageable size.

I think that's ironic that before and after the Belmont, all we heard from the Pletcher/Coolmore camp that the reason they ran Rags to Riches was because it was the sporting thing to do. I viewed their entry of an extremely talented filly in a classic race as them taking advantage of the opportunity presented by a small field in which the two main contenders were likely to be spent by their more demanding 2007 campaigns. It seems that Pletcher has forgot about the "sporting" aspect of the game when it doesn't suit his needs/spin.

11 races...awesome

Here's a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluegrass_Cat

I couldn't agree more. There have been comments made about Rags, how Tabor was quoted as saying he's always felt she was just that much better than anything out there, etc but then they were reluctant to let her prover her greatness. The kicker for me was how they hedged on the Belmont entry depending on who else entered. If u thought she was better than Curlin, why not enter if Street Sense was there too? Curlin and Street Sense were on pretty even levels. It wasn't a sporting move at all. It was a calculating move. It was only done when he was pretty sure that he could finish in the top three. And to be sure, there is nothing wrong with spoting your horses where u think u have the best chance of winning. As a trainer, that's what u are supposed to do so I have no problem with that at all. But don't try to spin it publicly as anything other than that. There was nothing sporting, there was nothing done for the good of the sport or the fans. Of course, they don't owe anything to the fans. So they need to quit trying to make it seem like the fans or the sport plays a part in their decisions. If they did, this filly would have been pointed to the Travers and the BC Classic the moment she crossed the line in the Belmont.

yeah, just funny in an ironic sort of way that he says this,


"One of our problems is that we have interrupted natural selection," Bill Casner, co-owner of WinStar Farm in Kentucky, said last fall at a summit on the welfare and safety of the racehorse. "We used to select for a much stronger horse. The economics of our day and age have changed the way we breed our horses. At an earlier time, a horse had to earn its way to the breeding shed. Durability was certainly one of those things that was selected for.
"... Now, sales dictate breeding decisions. When matings are planned, one of the big questions is, 'Is she going to give you a pretty baby? Is this mating going to give you a good-looking horse?' It's a beauty contest out there."


and then stands bluegrass cat, a true picture of durability.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I agree 100%. The trainer responsibility rule is absolute and there aren't any leniencies or contingencies for trainers with big barns and multiple locations. There are no and should be no excuses here.

Eric

Personally, I do think it matters, but that's neither here nor there. Plenty of people don't like certain aspects of the sport and/or the business; I am one of them. Some of these people might also be very passionate about some of these respective issues. Again, I am one of them. Apparently, you are as well. That's great.

Obviously, that doesn't mean your opinion is more or less justified -- at least not in your eyes; however, in my eyes, it might not be objective -- which is what I said. I looked at and viewed your initial point as a weak and myopic arguement attempting to substantiate Pletcher's capabilities, or lack thereof, and in my opinion it wasn't objective. That's all. In coming to that conclusion I also looked at your handle which obviously is reflective of something. That's all.

You want to say he's overrated, that's fine. Like I said, I am not going to argue with you. However, I just didn't think your initial -- single point -- was made objectively.

Eric