Proven Cure
 

Interesting article. Love these old campaigners.
http://www.drf.com/news/article/86151.html

4th of July stakes attempt by this 13-year-old:
http://www.star-telegram.com/horse_r...ry/153028.html

thanks, Shadow Roll
 

Thanks for the articles on Proven Cure. I like this horse--watched him get the 106 with Bailey aboard prior to BC day. (Btw.. That race was part of the 2004 Jockey Championship series and earned Bailey the trophy.)

another stonecrest horse:D

I love this old guy. :)

Forced retirement!!! Oh, the ignominiousness of it all.
http://www.star-telegram.com/horse_r...ry/154856.html

not retired yet, just cant race in Texas. I hope they take him to La Downs and race him

what an absurd rule.

I disagree that this is an absurd rule. This particular horse may be ok running at this age but he is an exception. Truthfully they are playing with fire by running him at his age and chancing that the great story that he is and has been doesn't have a really bad ending.

Details hazy, but when he was 15, Maxwell G. had to go down to Rillito to win a race before he could race at Turf Paradise (the best class track in the state). Had to prove he could still compete. Horse wasn't competitive in stakes until he was 9.

Horse has been running for 11 seasons. If he was likely to break down, he would have done it by now. Actually, with all the 'impact training' he has had, his bones are probably in pretty darn good shape.

he won just over a year ago, and placed second quite recently. and yes, he is an exception, which is a problem when dealing with a ruling which doesn't take that into consideration. maybe they should change it to vets fine, has been in the money in the last year.

I understand the sentiment behind the rule, but don't you think there is a better way of determining whether the horse is dangerously unfit, such as the pre-race vet inspection. Using winning as a barometer of fitness seems a little unreliable. A horse could run very well and just miss winning (like SWLY) in several races and be undeniably fit. Or a horse could get lucky in a small field at some bullring and get a win, or could get a win through more nefarious means, and nevertheless be quite unfit.

Also, you seem to imply that you think there should be a mandatory retirement age when you say that "they" are gambling with running the Cure (I assume you don't have some inside knowledge about this particular anumal). Wouldn't that fail to take into account the rare outstanding individual whose genetics or training gives him greater fitness than most in their advanced years (as a human example, I'm thinking Jack La Lanne)? And wouldn't that also interfere with the trainer's exercise of judgment?

Are you kidding?

There is a reason that the rule is in place.

No.

!!!!!!!!




OOOOOOOOOO

We get alot of horses in situations like that here at Rillito. Especially QH's and TB's from New Mexico, because I believe that if a horse hasn't broken their maiden by 5 they cannot race there, so trainers will bring horses into Rillito hoping they can find a soft field and break that maiden.

Funny thing will happen, though, when a bigger trainer will bring in a horse and his or her own Jockey instead of finding a local guy, because Rillito has has its own quirks being a 5/8 mile track, and often the Jockey will blow the ride.

Great place for racing here in Tucson!!!

Silly rule.
http://www.star-telegram.com/horse_r...ry/155862.html

Obviously there always exceptions to any rule but all this hand wringing over this rule is silly. Find me one other example of a 12 year old horse who hadn't won in a year who was forced into retirement prematurely. Think about it for a second. What if people stared buying up failed stallions and tried to bring them back at 12 year and running them in cheap claiming races? He has been a great story, they have done a great job with him but the rule is in place because they dont want old horses to be abused. What is so wrong with that?

A) As a rule, there's nothing wrong with the rule, or with having rules...as a rule. Since I spend most of my time representing people who break the rules, I have a sincere appreciation for rules.

B) Agree that it's probably a rare situation and just won't come up that often, so there's not a real pressing need for reform here (better to spend time reforming, say, the claiming rules).

C) Knew this would get you going. You're indefatigable. Ever consider becoming a lawyer?

DARDEN!!!




I knew you sounded familiar.

Don't have PeanutShell try the gloves on.

Don't ever do that one again now that I think of it.




Now that you're on the other side though.....how many simple assault charges have you plea bargained into life without the possibilty of parole??

Oh....I'm sorry I called you PeanutShell... Mr. Shell.

It won't happen again.






I mean...gee...I wouldn't want you to hire Darden and sue me for character assasination.


I'd probably get awarded about 75 large or so and it just wouldn't be right.

Stop talking about Darden... makes me think of Darden Restaurants and I'm starving. I could go for some Bahama Breeze food right now!

And maybe you should.

I wish... I'm stuck here. It sucks.

Have you ever been there, Morte'? For a chain restaurant, they have excellent food and a great atmosphere.

Actually I never have.There may be here,but I don't know about it.

Not big on eating out.......you never know what's in that stuff.

If I was a lawyer there are three blind mice which would be getting served papers this week. I'm not so sure what I would sue them for but I'd find something. Is public stupidity against the law?

Public stupidity against the law? It's more like a God-Given American right. Why I remember the time when I...

Hey, wait a second...

Okay, I think I'll shut up now (in legalese, that's called exercising the right to silence).

if people could be sued for stupidity, not many would have any money left.