IEAH still whining, threatening to go to Haskell

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Storm Cadet

ELA: Then you'll love reading this!

http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/45678.htm

"Turner sensed the same fear of humiliation at work in Desormeaux’ performance—a kind of “no mas” ride that had the same bad odor to it."

Finally, someone who agrees with me!

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Storm Cadet

ELA: Then you'll love reading this!

http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/45678.htm

Yeah, I read that, as well as another piece with Turner's comments. I understand his mindset and where's he's coming from, but I don't see it as being that black and white. Personally, I think Desormeaux made a judgement call. I don't think it was to "save face" or anything of the like. I'd rather see Kent pull the horse up than to see the horse potentially get hurt, or even go down on the track from duress -- which while it didn't happen, that could have been what Desormeaux was trying to avoid.

The bottom line is that we just don't know what we don't know. Hindsight is always 20/20, brilliant thinking and obvious.

Eric

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

"Turner sensed the same fear of humiliation at work in Desormeaux’ performance—a kind of “no mas” ride that had the same bad odor to it."

Finally, someone who agrees with me!

Who....Roberto Duran?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Storm Cadet

ELA: Then you'll love reading this!

http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/45678.htm

I don't know how Turner could say that the horse would have beaten most of the field. I don't know which race he was watching. It looked to me like BB might have beaten one horse if he didn't ease.

By the way, as I mentioned before, in the interview with Dan Patrick, Desormeaux did admit that, "The only instruction I was given was, 'If he can't win, take it easy on him'."

I think it is pretty obvious that the connections had serious concerns about the horse's condition going into the race or they would have never given Kent those instructions.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't know how Turner could say that the horse would have beaten most of the field. I don't know which race he was watching. It looked to me like BB might have beaten one horse if he didn't ease.

By the way, as I mentioned before, in the interview with Dan Patrick, Desormeaux did admit that, "The only instruction I was given was, 'If he can't win, take it easy on him'."

I think it is pretty obvious that the connections had serious concerns about the horse's condition going into the race or they would have never given Kent those instructions.

I didn't understand that either. I don't think he would have even beaten one horse -- however, I personally don't think that is the reason Desormeax pulled him up. Turner's opinion is Turner's opinion, and I can certainly understand people agreeing with him.

Also, as far as the instructions, I think that looking at that is taking the comment out of context and being very myopic. I don't think the instructions were given with the thought that the race played out the way it did.

Eric

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by ShadowRoll

I understand that Iavarone and IEAH aren't the most likable people in the world, but it's a bit unfair to attack everything they say and do. Iavarone's not the anti-christ. Look:
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/rah/photo...ydp123&prov=ap

.

Someone please call PETA...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ELA

I didn't understand that either. I don't think he would have even beaten one horse -- however, I personally don't think that is the reason Desormeax pulled him up. Turner's opinion is Turner's opinion, and I can certainly understand people agreeing with him.

Also, as far as the instructions, I think that looking at that is taking the comment out of context and being very myopic. I don't think the instructions were given with the thought that the race played out the way it did.

Eric

If you have a horse that you think is one of the greatest horses ever, you think he's doing great, and you think he can win by 10 lengths, are you going to instruct the jockey, "If he can't win, take it easy on him."?

If you had no concern about the horse's condition, then those instructions make no sense.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If you have a horse that you think is one of the greatest horses ever, you think he's doing great, and you think he can win by 10 lengths, are you going to instruct the jockey, "If he can't win, take it easy on him."?

If you had no concern about the horse's condition, then those instructions make no sense.

Sure, I can see that. But again, I think there is more to it than that. The content doesn't make sense, but the context is a much broader conversation.

I don't blame Dutrow here and I don't blame Desormeaux. That certainly doesn't make it right and it certainly doesn't preclude one from laying blame on the other. This is a situation where it's very easy to blame the jock. If the jock made a judgement call and it turned out to be wrong, then you are never going to be satisfied with the outcome that got played out.

Eric

[blackthroatedwind]

Why should anyone be blamed?

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Asmussen is getting 'slammed' far less than he used to.... before Curlin. In fact, Curlin has seemingly earned him some element of respectability that had eluded him.

you are right on the money there. he's not slammed like before.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Why should anyone be blamed?

You know what -- that's exactly right in my mind. But of course in the media -- educated or uneducated -- the first thing they look at is the "why" and "who is to blame". That's the underlying theme of every thread here. Tell me Kent Desormeaux is not the fall guy here.

Like you said though, there doesn't have to be blame here.

Eric

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ELA

Sure, I can see that. But again, I think there is more to it than that. The content doesn't make sense, but the context is a much broader conversation.

I don't blame Dutrow here and I don't blame Desormeaux. That certainly doesn't make it right and it certainly doesn't preclude one from laying blame on the other. This is a situation where it's very easy to blame the jock. If the jock made a judgement call and it turned out to be wrong, then you are never going to be satisfied with the outcome that got played out.

Eric

I'm not blaming anyone. I certainly don't think Desormeaux did anything wrong.

In terms of running the horse with that quarter crack, it's a judgement call. I have some trainers that said they would have never run him with that quarter crack. I've got another trainer who said that he had a horse pop a quarter crack that looked just as bad as that 3 days before a huge race. They ran the horse and he won easily. So you just never know.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If you have a horse that you think is one of the greatest horses ever, you think he's doing great, and you think he can win by 10 lengths, are you going to instruct the jockey, "If he can't win, take it easy on him."?

If you had no concern about the horse's condition, then those instructions make no sense.

Seems like a valid point.

[Danzig]

i thought it was kents fault.

[Payson Dave]

Imho the most likely factors that potentially contributed in some way shape or form to Big Browns performance in the Belmont....
6th lifetime start.. first time inside on a dirt track
Wear and tear of 3rd big race in five weeks
Qtr crack
Extreme heat
Troubled trip in the first qtr mile

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm not blaming anyone. I certainly don't think Desormeaux did anything wrong.

In terms of running the horse with that quarter crack, it's a judgement call. I have some trainers that said they would have never run him with that quarter crack. I've got another trainer who said that he had a horse pop a quarter crack that looked just as bad as that 3 days before a huge race. They ran the horse and he won easily. So you just never know.

I agree with you. I don't think "the decision" to run the horse was in and of itself is the issue either. Nobody can say what they would have done -- because they weren't "in it" so to speak. Actually, anyone can say what they would have done, but it's nothing more than hypothetical. No different than the people who say what they would do if they won the lottery or what they would do if they owned such a horse. Circular discussion or arguement.

Eric

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I disagree, BTW. I think there is more downside to running him again. He is still the Derby and Preakness winner. And even if he doesn't run again, there's probably a 75% chance he'll be the 3-yr-old Eclipse winner.

His loss in the Belmont was so thorough that they can find some hairline fracture to blame it on and then retire him. I think there's much better than a 50/50 chance he never runs again.

If he runs again and loses again, then they're in trouble value-wise. (Unless they find that hairline fracture and blame both races on it!)

--Dunbar

As I have told you before, owners and trainers don't make up stories about hairline fractures. It is totally the opposite. They will often tell you that there is nothing wrong with a horse when there is in fact something wrong. They will also sometimes downplay injuries. Sometimes they'll even say that the horse has a bruised foot, when in fact he has something more serious.

But I have never seen or heard of an owner or trainer claiming a horse has a serious injury when he doesn't. When you are going to stand a horse at stud, you want people to think the horse was sound. The last thing in the world that you would do is say that the horse had a hairline fracture if he didn't.

I agree with you that BB will probably never run again. But it won't be beacuse of a made-up injury. It will most likely be because of his foot. By the time that foot is 100%, the year will pretty much be over.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Asmussen is getting 'slammed' far less than he used to.... before Curlin. In fact, Curlin has seemingly earned him some element of respectability that had eluded him.

yeah, that's true. what a shame. well, dutrow went from cheater to rogue. can't wait til biancone comes back, gets a big horse...maybe they can come up with a charming way to describe him as well.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I just heard some very interesting gossip from one of my trainers. He told me that Dutrow was not happy with the way the horse looked on Thursday and Friday and that he wanted to scratch the horse but that Iavarrone pretty much insisted on running.

I'm getting this information third-hand, so there is no guarantee that it is true. The info is from a good source. If I had to bet, I would bet that it's true but I can't guarantee it.

The guy who told my trainer on Friday night, told him that he was going to bet all kind of exotics and leave Big Brown out.

The reason I am just getting the information now is because the trainer that told me is a trainer that we only have one horse with and I only talk to him once a week at the most.

That is some interesting stuff Rupert and if you watched Dutrow toward the end of the week, you could kind of pick up a little bit of worry with his body language and all if not his words.

I totally believe this. that horse was not right on saturday and he was ultimately done in by a couple of different factors.

[pgiaco]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, that's true. what a shame. well, dutrow went from cheater to rogue. can't wait til biancone comes back, gets a big horse...maybe they can come up with a charming way to describe him as well.

Snake Charmer?