Derby Trail Forums - Life At Ten: An "update" coming

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)

- The Paddock (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - Life At Ten: An "update" coming (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40760)

Life At Ten: An "update" coming

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...source=twitter

It's hardly shocking, but there won't be a final report yet. Fingers crossed for a live stream. Who wants to make the popcorn?

Well, ya know, it takes a long time, like 4 months to investigate these sorts of things. IN the meantime, you lemmings keep wagering into our gutted system to protect the bettors. That is all.

As it turns out, maybe Jeff Mullins wasn't completely off base when he spoke out a few years ago.

When Churchill Downs become CDI, it's sole objective like any corporation, is to return profit to shareholders. No company wants to pay out on a return of "1,000,000 boxes of detergent"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fearless Leader (Post 748072)

As it turns out, maybe Jeff Mullins wasn't completely off base when he spoke out a few years ago.

Refresh memory please, what did he say?

Quote:

Originally Posted by reese (Post 748157)

When Churchill Downs become CDI, it's sole objective like any corporation, is to return profit to shareholders. No company wants to pay out on a return of "1,000,000 boxes of detergent"

CDI sucks but they have no dog in this fight

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...-ten-situation

The Kentucky Horse Racing Commission voted there was probable cause to believe that both jockey John Velazquez and chief state steward John Veitch were in violation of regulations regarding Life At Ten’s participation in the 2010 Breeders’ Cup Ladies’ Classic at Churchill Downs during its monthly meeting March 10 at the Kentucky Horse Park near Lexington.

DRF|Life At Ten case may result in sanctions

Quote:

Velazquez was cited for three possible violations under Kentucky racing rules, while Veitch was cited for five possible violations. Both will now face hearings to determine if the commission will seek penalties.

Quote:

Life At Ten, the second betting choice, was never pressed in the race by Velazquez, who had said during a television interview during the post parade that Life At Ten was lethargic.

Considering that Malibu Prayer and Quality Road - and pretty much every Pletcher non-2yo were pressed ... Velazquez deserves a humanitarian award for his lack of effort.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS (Post 759914)

Considering that Malibu Prayer and Quality Road - and pretty much every Pletcher non-2yo were pressed ... Velazquez deserves a humanitarian award for his lack of effort.

I think the problem is he didn't take the lack of effort far enough. He just had to muster up the energy to get all chatty Cathy with Jerry Bailey and then take her into the starting gate.

The report outlines a series of communications among stewards, media representatives, and veterinarians in which no veterinarian recalled being told to examine Life At Ten specifically after Velazquez had made his comments to ESPN, despite a phone call placed by Amy Zimmerman, a producer for ESPN, to the steward’s booth about Velazquez’s comments.

Apparently Amy Zimmerman was the only one operating with a brain that night.

It would have been if either article included an update on the horse.

Attorney Contends Velazquez is Scapegoat

Quote:

The attorney for jockey John Velazquez said her client is a “scapegoat” in connection with the events surrounding last year’s Breeders’ Cup Ladies Classic (gr. I) in which Life At Ten was eased during the course of the race.

In a March 11 statement that takes the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission to task, attorney and prominent horse owner Maggi Moss said the charges against Velazquez would not withstand legal scrutiny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmfhb411 (Post 760075)

From this point forward I'd question the intellect of riders who discuss their horse
with anyone outside of connections, gate crew and vets til after the race.

Sad but true

Is this guy seriously comparing the Life at Ten situation to what happened to Barbaro? :zz: Is there something I'm missing here?

The Stewards' Responsibility

Quote:

That there was a major foul-up at Churchill Downs on Nov. 5 there is no doubt, but it is not nearly the tragedy that occurred in the 2006 Preakness Stakes at Pimlico.

<snip>

That rider Edgar Prado, trainer Michael Matz, the stewards of the Maryland Jockey Club and the track veterinarians collectively allowed Barbaro to run in the Preakness calls the actions of all concerned into question. A little history helps to explain why.

Barbaro was a horse with sensitive underpinnings. Perhaps this was why Matz started his career on turf, an easier surface than dirt. His first three races were on grass. His first six races were also well spaced, allowing him plenty of time to recover after each outing.

Barbaro had 46 days between his maiden score at Delaware and his victory in the Laurel Futurity. It was another 43 days before his third start, a vcitory in the Tampa Bay Derby. He would make his dirt debut in the Holy Bull Stakes, in which he wore front bandages for the only time, off just a 34-day absence, then won the Florida Derby off a 56-day layoff. Barbaro would then go in the Kentucky Derby after a 35-day rest.

The average number of days off for Barbaro in his first six races was 43 days, just a tad over six weeks. But as the winner of the Kentucky Derby, he was expected to run on just 14 days notice in the Preakness. Was that too short for him? Subsequent events suggest that it was.

And so does Barbaro's warrm-up prior to the Preakness. He was difficult going down to the start. Then, once loaded, he broke through the gate. Was Barbaro trying to tell us something, as horses frequently attempt to do when they are not right? Was he in distress, being asked to do something, i.e., run on just 14 days notice, and perhaps not fully recovered from his Kentucky Derby exertions? We will never know, but what we do know is that after having broken through the gate, Barbaro was immediately reloaded for the start. A few seconds later, his racing career, and ultimately his life, were at an end.

Why didn't the gate vet have a closer look at Barbaro after he had broken through the gate? Was there pressure on keeping the Derby winner in the race in front of 100,000 people and a national television audience? Or did trainer, rider, stewards and vets really believe that all was right with Barbaro on the day?

The Barbaro tragedy should have alerted stewards in every jurisdiction to monitor suspect pre-race behavior more closely. That that has not been done is evident in the case of Life At Ten.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TouchOfGrey (Post 760081)

Is this guy seriously comparing the Life at Ten situation to what happened to Barbaro? :zz: Is there something I'm missing here?

The Stewards' Responsibility

That guy is unsufferable. He is a genius who has 20/20 vision after the fct like so many of the other "experts" in this business. In effect his "evidence" about Barbaro is a joke.

He started on the turf? Dont most horses by Dynaformer start on the turf? How is his success on the turf related to his being injured in a race 6 months later?

His inference that the 14 days turnaround contributed to Barbaro's injury which may or may not be true but this same writer is never afraid to take potshots at American trainers for spacing of races.

The idea that in 30 seconds or 5 minutes on a racetrack in front of 110000 thousand screaming people that a vet, (any vet not just a state vet who may not even have that much practical experience) can conduct a proper or even effective examination of a horse is just ridiculous. The same with LAT. If they had examined her and she did not exhibit signs of lameness there is very little chance that she would have been scratched unless the jockey absolutely insisted he wouldn't ride the horse. Hell the best vets in the business examined the horse after the race and didnt find much of anything.

The fact of the matter is that Velasquez should have said something to the vet and Veitch should have acted on the info he received to have the horse examined prior to the race. Even if they had, there is still big chance that finding nothing specific they would still have let her run.

"The problem is that something was amiss with Life at Ten before the race and nothing was done, not that this became public knowledge." Crist

So on point in so few words

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...exceeds-100000

I thought you had to be a politician to have this much money spent on accomplishing so little.