Quote:
Originally Posted by TouchOfGrey
Is this guy seriously comparing the Life at Ten situation to what happened to Barbaro?  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.