Uncle Mo gets treatment at Winstar

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Riot

Geeshus ... Chuck's point is absolutely right, they missed whatever she had. I doubt it was a fracture line, because, yep, that's pretty impossible to miss, but as Chuck said, she obviously had something going on, which was completely missed, and resulted in a fractured pastern during the race.

Dr. Riot are you milk or meat? In your prfessional opinion as an expert, is it likely that Rags to Riches had "a busted pastern" as suggested by Chuck, when she went thru a complete battery of testing?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Dr. Riot are you milk or meat? In your prfessional opinion as an expert, is it likely that Rags to Riches had "a busted pastern" as suggested by Chuck, when she went thru a complete battery of testing?

I'll answer for her since she already answered this exact question.

"No, a busted pastern is impossible to miss. They were looking hard for some instability or defect, yet couldn't find one. Yet that instability was real, it lead to the busted pastern."

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I'll answer for her since she already answered this exact question.

"No, a busted pastern is impossible to miss. They were looking hard for some instability or defect, yet couldn't find one. Yet that instability was real, it lead to the busted pastern."

Gotcha just wanted to debunk Chuck's comical representation that a horse had a "Busted Pastern" and everyone missed it..

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I'll answer for her since she already answered this exact question.

"No, a busted pastern is impossible to miss. They were looking hard for some instability or defect, yet couldn't find one. Yet that instability was real, it lead to the busted pastern."

You see here is the issue..You bold something which is completely subjective.. Nobody knows for sure if Rags took a bad step and bustd something or if there was some issue that some ex rider thought he or she was feeling. What we know is that the filly did not have a busted pastern and the rest is all conjecture..CORRECT? There is fact and there is assumption assuming Rags had a busted pastern is pure BS

[Scav]

Originally Posted by freddymo

You see here is the issue..You bold something which is completely subjective.. Nobody knows for sure if Rags took a bad step and bustd something or if there was some issue that some ex rider thought he or she was feeling. What we know is that the filly did not have a busted pastern and the rest is all conjecture..CORRECT? There is fact and there is assumption assuming Rags had a busted pastern is pure BS

are you sure you are on your meds?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Why couldnt it have been a completely random event, being that she was vetted so agressively it is more explainable that it was a random event.
Next time instead of wasting all that money on tests that tell you nothing ship the horse to juan carlos he will hook you right up!

Sure it could be a random event. Probably about a 1% chance of that.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Gotcha just wanted to debunk Chuck's comical representation that a horse had a "Busted Pastern" and everyone missed it..

How do you debunk the truth?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

You see here is the issue..You bold something which is completely subjective.. Nobody knows for sure if Rags took a bad step and bustd something or if there was some issue that some ex rider thought he or she was feeling. What we know is that the filly did not have a busted pastern and the rest is all conjecture..CORRECT? There is fact and there is assumption assuming Rags had a busted pastern is pure BS

Unwittingly you make my point for me. That is that until something is painfully obvious it is mostly conjecture.

No what we know was that there was an unresolved issue and that ultimately there was a fractured pastern. Why anyone would think that this wasn't the issue all along and was simply not detected is beyond me. You don't have to be a genius to connect the dots.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Unwittingly you make my point for me. That is that until something is painfully obvious it is mostly conjecture.

No what we know was that there was an unresolved issue and that ultimately there was a fractured pastern. Why anyone would think that this wasn't the issue all along and was simply not detected is beyond me. You don't have to be a genius to connect the dots.

No, but you do have to have the ability to question the official line.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

How do you debunk the truth?

D

I guess you didnt read or have a hard time accepting Dr. Riot's post that it is impossible for a horse to have as you described a "busted Pastern" and have it not be detected..

Feel free to explain to Dr.Riot how she is completely wrong about this, This should be a good one

I love you but your killing me.. A magical busted bone that mordern technology couldnt identify but an ex rider could. You buy this at the same store Jack bought his beans.. Haven't you ever heard of an athlete with a strained leg hurt another part of their body because they were favoring the minor injury? sounds way more plausible then the impossible?

any other Bubbameisers you believe in?

[Indian Charlie]

Technology is not infallible. Far from it.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Technology is not infallible. Far from it.

Neither are behind the scene BS stories that are based on hear say and second party information.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Neither are behind the scene BS stories that are based on hear say and second party information.

Well, yeah, however, it would seem readily apparent that the rider was on the right side of things.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Well, yeah, however, it would seem readily apparent that the rider was on the right side of things.

Why because the end result justify his/her story?

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Why because the end result justify his/her story?

Yes.

You don't view that as compelling evidence?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Yes.

You don't view that as compelling evidence?

Absolutely not ..I veiw it as people reverse engineering BS.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

D




I love you but your killing me.. A magical busted bone that mordern technology couldnt identify but an ex rider could. You buy this at the same store Jack bought his beans.. Haven't you ever heard of an athlete with a strained leg hurt another part of their body because they were favoring the minor injury? sounds way more plausible then the impossible?

So you believe the other mystery injury that they also apparently missed caused the actual injury?

There is also no evidence that the Easter Bunny or Santa Clause don't exist so it is plausible that they actually do?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Neither are behind the scene BS stories that are based on hear say and second party information.

Why do you think this is hear say or second party information?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Absolutely not ..I veiw it as people reverse engineering BS.

Do you seriously think that I actually took the time to make this up? LOL

[Antitrust32]

Freddy is out of his mind. I like the whole "well Dr. Riot says" thing when "Dr Riot" agreed with Chuck from the start.