Quote:
Originally Posted by freddymo
O Neil cant be defended on any level.. On the 8/9 Suffolk card there were 2 Zito Lapenta Mdn's dropping from 20 to 4 claimers both horses were 200 plus k and both were to slow to compete in NY. I also saw an Ex Phipps 4 year old that was out of Finders Fee racing as well.
The real question is does a horse's previous owner need to be responsible for the life of the animal that they purchased or bred and raced? Tough issue in the case of the two LaPenta Zito's yesterday ther were purchased in 08 for real money who knows how much was poored into the training feeding and vetting for these for the last 18 months. It isn't unresonable that each had 100k of added expense until they were claimed away.. Should Lapenta have to inspect or be involved with the horses future because he raised his paddle the highest in a auction in 08? Tough question
|
The big difference between the 2 situations is the Zito horses were never any good, they have been slow from the start. They obviously want to sell them at that price but more importantly from the trainers standpoint, get a win to pad the stats. Since trainers are almost exclusively selected, hired or fired based on win %, Zito figures he can pick up a couple more cheap wins (like C. Clement does every year at Suffolk) as he already was 2 for 3 there. He won one and lost that one and now has 3 more wins to add to the %.
O'Neil drops horses that have been successful at higher levels when they are broke down hoping to get the claimed and maybe even win as well.
There is a big difference between selling slow horses and broke down ones.
And I do not think that it is the responsibility of the owners who bred or bought the horses at auction. It is the responsibility of the current owner and trainer to protect the horse. If they can't spare the couple of grand they shouldnt be in the "business".