|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
10-29-2007, 06:59 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Jay Hoveday wrote an interesting editorial piece in DRF tonight ("Horses Put Needlessly At Risk"). He kind of goes here and there within the piece (I think he is just upset, as nearly all are, at the loss of a great horse while racing).
But he does say the event should be delayed if a track is in the same condition in the future (while also noting the BC horses that have broken down while on different surfaces, at different venues, at different tracks). What constitutes a "safe enough" track? Should dirt racing be cancelled if it rains significantly?
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts 
|
|
#2
10-29-2007, 08:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
we've lost more horses on better days condition-wise.
knee jerk reactions imo.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#3
10-29-2007, 08:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I blame the greed of the connections for this one. The horse had proven all he needed to do on grass; despite the fact he was never in contention in last year's Classic (while in much better form) they expected him to make the quantum leap to not only handle dirt, but slop........against the top dirt runners in the world. I agree with Vic Stauffer's comment before the race: "George Washington might be the worst 10-1 shot I've ever seen". It was an ignorant decision to race the horse on dirt and now they must live with their decision.
|
|
#4
10-29-2007, 08:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
my sentiments exactly
Quote:
|
Hybrid Mode
