Uncle Mo Surgery Conspiracy

[Riot]

Trainers and vets are correct and admirable to keep what's going on with their horses absolutely, completely private. Only the owners can legally release information. A vet can't even verify a particular animal has been admitted or seen.

When you walk through a vet hospital (if you are alllowed back there, accompanied) any names you see on stalls are often aliases. I've seen entire owner & horse aliases, too, on charts, to protect privacy of an ownership group or horse from talkative techs and stall cleaners.

When you purchase a horse privately, you are responsible for having your vet suss out any problems. The seller and seller's vet is required to tell you nothing (but cannot outright lie, you can get them for that). With stock that can be sold for hundreds of thousands, millions, of dollars, you bet the trainer, help, and vet better keep private things private.

That said: I wish the US would change and become more like Japan, Australia, regarding what information has to be released and accounted for to the gambling public. Far greater accountability elsewhere.

[Linny]

Originally Posted by Riot

Trainers and vets are correct and admirable to keep what's going on with their horses absolutely, completely private. Only the owners can legally release information. A vet can't even verify a particular animal has been admitted or seen.

True, but as an agent for the owner the trainer is generally the mouthpiece for all but the most outspoken owners. Repole strikes me as the type who'd be pretty open with comments but Todd is anything but. I certainly wouldn't ever expect any vet to say a word about a horse they treat, but trainers are usually the outlet for such info.

[Linny]

You can ask Todd all you want but you won't get an answer. He'll tell you thatthe horse appears to have a GI infection (what exactly is that in a horse?) and that he's still on schedule for the Derby. He's under no obligation to tell anyone anything and he's not going to. If he had any idea of doing so, he would have long ago.

[Thunder Gulch]

Originally Posted by Linny

You can ask Todd all you want but you won't get an answer. He'll tell you thatthe horse appears to have a GI infection (what exactly is that in a horse?) and that he's still on schedule for the Derby. He's under no obligation to tell anyone anything and he's not going to. If he had any idea of doing so, he would have long ago.

Would he go the "didn't happen" route, or "no comment" route? I would really just like to hear somebody press him, but they would never get another piece of information anywhere down the road.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Linny

True, but as an agent for the owner the trainer is generally the mouthpiece for all but the most outspoken owners. Repole strikes me as the type who'd be pretty open with comments but Todd is anything but. .

Exactly. Pletcher should be that way, unless given direct instructions otherwise by the owner. What owner would do that? Why? It's always only to the detriment of your own interests.

That's the horse business, whether they cost $500 or $5 million.