Proven Cure

ShadowRoll · #1 06-28-2007, 12:46 PM

Interesting article. Love these old campaigners.
http://www.drf.com/news/article/86151.html

ShadowRoll · #2 06-29-2007, 08:58 AM

4th of July stakes attempt by this 13-year-old:
http://www.star-telegram.com/horse_r...ry/153028.html

banter · #3 06-29-2007, 01:02 PM

Thanks for the articles on Proven Cure. I like this horse--watched him get the 106 with Bailey aboard prior to BC day. (Btw.. That race was part of the 2004 Jockey Championship series and earned Bailey the trophy.)

pdrift1 · #4 06-30-2007, 11:43 PM

another stonecrest horse

my miss storm cat · #5 07-01-2007, 01:07 AM

I love this old guy.

ShadowRoll · #6 07-01-2007, 09:10 AM

Forced retirement!!! Oh, the ignominiousness of it all.
http://www.star-telegram.com/horse_r...ry/154856.html

gamblin4ever · #7 07-01-2007, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowRoll

Forced retirement!!! Oh, the ignominiousness of it all.
http://www.star-telegram.com/horse_r...ry/154856.html

not retired yet, just cant race in Texas. I hope they take him to La Downs and race him

Danzig · #8 07-01-2007, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowRoll

Forced retirement!!! Oh, the ignominiousness of it all.
http://www.star-telegram.com/horse_r...ry/154856.html

what an absurd rule.

Cannon Shell · #9 07-01-2007, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

what an absurd rule.

I disagree that this is an absurd rule. This particular horse may be ok running at this age but he is an exception. Truthfully they are playing with fire by running him at his age and chancing that the great story that he is and has been doesn't have a really bad ending.

Pedigree Ann · #10 07-01-2007, 11:30 AM

Details hazy, but when he was 15, Maxwell G. had to go down to Rillito to win a race before he could race at Turf Paradise (the best class track in the state). Had to prove he could still compete. Horse wasn't competitive in stakes until he was 9.

Pedigree Ann · #11 07-01-2007, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I disagree that this is an absurd rule. This particular horse may be ok running at this age but he is an exception. Truthfully they are playing with fire by running him at his age and chancing that the great story that he is and has been doesn't have a really bad ending.

Horse has been running for 11 seasons. If he was likely to break down, he would have done it by now. Actually, with all the 'impact training' he has had, his bones are probably in pretty darn good shape.

Danzig · #12 07-01-2007, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I disagree that this is an absurd rule. This particular horse may be ok running at this age but he is an exception. Truthfully they are playing with fire by running him at his age and chancing that the great story that he is and has been doesn't have a really bad ending.

he won just over a year ago, and placed second quite recently. and yes, he is an exception, which is a problem when dealing with a ruling which doesn't take that into consideration. maybe they should change it to vets fine, has been in the money in the last year.

ShadowRoll · #13 07-01-2007, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I disagree that this is an absurd rule. This particular horse may be ok running at this age but he is an exception. Truthfully they are playing with fire by running him at his age and chancing that the great story that he is and has been doesn't have a really bad ending.

I understand the sentiment behind the rule, but don't you think there is a better way of determining whether the horse is dangerously unfit, such as the pre-race vet inspection. Using winning as a barometer of fitness seems a little unreliable. A horse could run very well and just miss winning (like SWLY) in several races and be undeniably fit. Or a horse could get lucky in a small field at some bullring and get a win, or could get a win through more nefarious means, and nevertheless be quite unfit.

Also, you seem to imply that you think there should be a mandatory retirement age when you say that "they" are gambling with running the Cure (I assume you don't have some inside knowledge about this particular anumal). Wouldn't that fail to take into account the rare outstanding individual whose genetics or training gives him greater fitness than most in their advanced years (as a human example, I'm thinking Jack La Lanne)? And wouldn't that also interfere with the trainer's exercise of judgment?

Cannon Shell · #14 07-01-2007, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

Horse has been running for 11 seasons. If he was likely to break down, he would have done it by now. Actually, with all the 'impact training' he has had, his bones are probably in pretty darn good shape.

Are you kidding?

Cannon Shell · #15 07-01-2007, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

he won just over a year ago, and placed second quite recently. and yes, he is an exception, which is a problem when dealing with a ruling which doesn't take that into consideration. maybe they should change it to vets fine, has been in the money in the last year.

There is a reason that the rule is in place.

Cannon Shell · #16 07-01-2007, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowRoll

I understand the sentiment behind the rule, but don't you think there is a better way of determining whether the horse is dangerously unfit, such as the pre-race vet inspection. Using winning as a barometer of fitness seems a little unreliable. A horse could run very well and just miss winning (like SWLY) in several races and be undeniably fit. Or a horse could get lucky in a small field at some bullring and get a win, or could get a win through more nefarious means, and nevertheless be quite unfit.

Also, you seem to imply that you think there should be a mandatory retirement age when you say that "they" are gambling with running the Cure (I assume you don't have some inside knowledge about this particular anumal). Wouldn't that fail to take into account the rare outstanding individual whose genetics or training gives him greater fitness than most in their advanced years (as a human example, I'm thinking Jack La Lanne)? And wouldn't that also interfere with the trainer's exercise of judgment?

No.

Mortimer · #17 07-01-2007, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No.

!!!!!!!!

OOOOOOOOOO

ALostTexan · #18 07-02-2007, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

Details hazy, but when he was 15, Maxwell G. had to go down to Rillito to win a race before he could race at Turf Paradise (the best class track in the state). Had to prove he could still compete. Horse wasn't competitive in stakes until he was 9.

We get alot of horses in situations like that here at Rillito. Especially QH's and TB's from New Mexico, because I believe that if a horse hasn't broken their maiden by 5 they cannot race there, so trainers will bring horses into Rillito hoping they can find a soft field and break that maiden.

Funny thing will happen, though, when a bigger trainer will bring in a horse and his or her own Jockey instead of finding a local guy, because Rillito has has its own quirks being a 5/8 mile track, and often the Jockey will blow the ride.

Great place for racing here in Tucson!!!

ShadowRoll · #19 07-02-2007, 11:13 AM

Silly rule.
http://www.star-telegram.com/horse_r...ry/155862.html

Cannon Shell · #20 07-02-2007, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowRoll

Silly rule.
http://www.star-telegram.com/horse_r...ry/155862.html

Obviously there always exceptions to any rule but all this hand wringing over this rule is silly. Find me one other example of a 12 year old horse who hadn't won in a year who was forced into retirement prematurely. Think about it for a second. What if people stared buying up failed stallions and tried to bring them back at 12 year and running them in cheap claiming races? He has been a great story, they have done a great job with him but the rule is in place because they dont want old horses to be abused. What is so wrong with that?