Pletcher to have no horses in the Travers

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Aside from the debate about Pletcher's ability, in one sense, NoLuvForPletch is consistent with some trainers and Eclipse Award voters: he is putting as much emphasis on the Breeders' Cup as do they.

true enough. i think though a couple of solid BC days for pletcher and that whole argument goes away as his percentage could go up quite rapidly.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

"Running him back in the Travers and then keeping him at that level for another 60 days is unrealistic, as opposed to backing off and targeting it directly."

This quote from Steve Assmussen is frightening. Now races in August are too stressful for races in November? If I was just a fan, I would probably find a new sport because this attitude is not only wrong historically, it is destructive for the sport of our sport. Not only are top horses going to be retired early, they are not even going to be campaigned much while running, just spotted randomly every 60 days or so.

I thought that Nafzger did the right thing by skipping the Belmont because of the grind of 3 races in 5 weeks without a chance for the Triple Crown. But this is entirely different. These are well rested horses that are at a point in their lives where they are maturing and getting stronger. Not running them is not only unsporting, it is disgraceful. And don't place all the blame on the trainers. The owners are as much to blame by captiulating and allowing this to happen. There is very little evidence that this style of training is sucessful in winning Breeders Cup races and as such is disheartening to see so many going down this path.

Chuck, I think you made excellent points, and I agree with you on them. However, don't we need to look at the other aspects here as well? While I am not a trainer, and you are, with regard to Curlin -- in this specific case -- here is a colt who showed tremendous natural ability, and very early on. He did what he did in his 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th lifetime starts (after not racing as a 2yo). I agree that this type of mindset is very damaging and it's rampant in the industry, and it's ruining aspects of our industry and sport.

But in this case, isn't there more going on? Yes, he was getting bigger and stronger (I guess), and maturing. But he was asked to do a lot, as much as other horses who had more experience and seasoning. Doesn't that play a role? In an individual case? I guess what I am asking is that in this case -- can you possibly see that for this horse, especially after the Haskell (being that he didn't perform up to some expectation), is it possible that maybe skipping the Travers -- maybe it's possibly the right thing to do . . . a) for this horse in this situation, and b) keeping in mind that there is more than a/the purse at stake. You have 3yo horse of the year, horse of the year, a stallion career, and so on.

Thanks for the insight Chuck. I'll buy a few beers for us tomorrow and we can talk about it (actually, you can talk and I can listen, LOL).

Eric

[SentToStud]

Blame the Eclipse Award voters who place too much emphasis on the BC. It's all the same bunch of people. I bet if you looked at the Board of Directors of the NTRA you would find 25% of them use an initial instead of a first name. Same people as the Breeders Cup people. Some of the rest go by three or four names or a nickname WTF - what 60 year old man goes by the name of Binny? It's all about keeping the money as close to the breeders as possible.

After all, it is called the Breeders Cup.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ELA

Chuck, I think you made excellent points, and I agree with you on them. However, don't we need to look at the other aspects here as well? While I am not a trainer, and you are, with regard to Curlin -- in this specific case -- here is a colt who showed tremendous natural ability, and very early on. He did what he did in his 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th lifetime starts (after not racing as a 2yo). I agree that this type of mindset is very damaging and it's rampant in the industry, and it's ruining aspects of our industry and sport.

But in this case, isn't there more going on? Yes, he was getting bigger and stronger (I guess), and maturing. But he was asked to do a lot, as much as other horses who had more experience and seasoning. Doesn't that play a role? In an individual case? I guess what I am asking is that in this case -- can you possibly see that for this horse, especially after the Haskell (being that he didn't perform up to some expectation), is it possible that maybe skipping the Travers -- maybe it's possibly the right thing to do . . . a) for this horse in this situation, and b) keeping in mind that there is more than a/the purse at stake. You have 3yo horse of the year, horse of the year, a stallion career, and so on.

Thanks for the insight Chuck. I'll buy a few beers for us tomorrow and we can talk about it (actually, you can talk and I can listen, LOL).

Eric

Individual horses and their problems are not the real problem. It is the attitude that horses, 3 year olds especially, need to be handled with kid gloves especially when they are a race or 2 away from retiring. Assmussen's quote is crazy. You cant keep a horse at the top of his game for 60 days if you race them? The irony is that the end of the year awards are fairly meaningless in the breeding business. Invasor was won the horse of the year last year but wanna bet Bernardini stands for a heck of a lot more money? (Not that either owner needs the bucks) Sure maybe Brndni stands for a lot more if he wins but only one horse wins the damn race. The rest of them lose anyway. The problem with these carefully managed "campaigns" is that we never really find out how good any of these horses are. There are no more great horses because greatness requires passing tests. Sure it is not our business what a man does with his horse. But it makes me sick when billionaires protect their horses reputations with brief campaigns and early retirements. For what? So they can make a couple of million more? Whatever happened to the pride of having the fastest horse?

One thing that Assmussen was correct about in the Daily News article is that guys are getting rewarded for not running. There really needs to be a closer look taken at the credentials of those who are doing the voting for these awards. Just being a card carrying member of the turf writers association shoul not cut it. A lot of the guys who vote dont pay much attention to the sport outside of the Triple Crown and Breeders Cup anyway.

Racing always screws up when we try to be more like other sports. The "win and your in" concept is so flawed I wont even say anymore about it. The making of the Breeders Cup into a "championship" day demeans the entire racing schedule. We aren't Nascar or Ncaa Basketball and letting outside interests try to make us into that hurts the sport's creditability.

[Danzig]

it used to be that the horses who showed they were the best on the track were the top draws in the breeding shed. that is now distorted by running a horse sparingly so that he can't do much to tarnish his image, while at the same time keeping many in the dark about how hardy of a horse he could be--or not be...
you have ghostzapper, who showed that most don't care how unsound or lightly raced a horse is, they are still willing to shell out tremendous money to breed to a horse made of glass, because once every other blue moon he accomplished something--and there's money to be made.

these horses, rushed to the shed before they can really PROVE their worth, their true value, are nothing more than illusions, and aren't what a breeds future should be built upon.
but money sure does talk, doesn't it?

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Individual horses and their problems are not the real problem. It is the attitude that horses, 3 year olds especially, need to be handled with kid gloves especially when they are a race or 2 away from retiring. Assmussen's quote is crazy. You cant keep a horse at the top of his game for 60 days if you race them? The irony is that the end of the year awards are fairly meaningless in the breeding business. Invasor was won the horse of the year last year but wanna bet Bernardini stands for a heck of a lot more money? (Not that either owner needs the bucks) Sure maybe Brndni stands for a lot more if he wins but only one horse wins the damn race. The rest of them lose anyway. The problem with these carefully managed "campaigns" is that we never really find out how good any of these horses are. There are no more great horses because greatness requires passing tests. Sure it is not our business what a man does with his horse. But it makes me sick when billionaires protect their horses reputations with brief campaigns and early retirements. For what? So they can make a couple of million more? Whatever happened to the pride of having the fastest horse?

One thing that Assmussen was correct about in the Daily News article is that guys are getting rewarded for not running. There really needs to be a closer look taken at the credentials of those who are doing the voting for these awards. Just being a card carrying member of the turf writers association shoul not cut it. A lot of the guys who vote dont pay much attention to the sport outside of the Triple Crown and Breeders Cup anyway.

Racing always screws up when we try to be more like other sports. The "win and your in" concept is so flawed I wont even say anymore about it. The making of the Breeders Cup into a "championship" day demeans the entire racing schedule. We aren't Nascar or Ncaa Basketball and letting outside interests try to make us into that hurts the sport's creditability.

Amen!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Amen!

hell, just look at Songster for example. eight lifetime starts. absolutely ridiculous!

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

"Running him back in the Travers and then keeping him at that level for another 60 days is unrealistic, as opposed to backing off and targeting it directly."

This quote from Steve Assmussen is frightening. Now races in August are too stressful for races in November? If I was just a fan, I would probably find a new sport because this attitude is not only wrong historically, it is destructive for the sport of our sport. Not only are top horses going to be retired early, they are not even going to be campaigned much while running, just spotted randomly every 60 days or so.

I thought that Nafzger did the right thing by skipping the Belmont because of the grind of 3 races in 5 weeks without a chance for the Triple Crown. But this is entirely different. These are well rested horses that are at a point in their lives where they are maturing and getting stronger. Not running them is not only unsporting, it is disgraceful. And don't place all the blame on the trainers. The owners are as much to blame by captiulating and allowing this to happen. There is very little evidence that this style of training is sucessful in winning Breeders Cup races and as such is disheartening to see so many going down this path.

Chuck....After huddling with my people...T-Pletch and C-Ass...I am advising against running Top Royelle at Saratoga Thursday. I know she's in great shape and I know you think the race fits, but if we are truly aiming for that 52k Alw NW 1 in Feb at The Fairgrounds, this race makes no sense.
Regards,
Bob

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Chuck....After huddling with my people...T-Pletch and C-Ass...I am advising against running Top Royelle at Saratoga Thursday. I know she's in great shape and I know you think the race fits, but if we are truly aiming for that 52k Alw NW 1 in Feb at The Fairgrounds, this race makes no sense.
Regards,
Bob

lol

i love it!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Chuck....After huddling with my people...T-Pletch and C-Ass...I am advising against running Top Royelle at Saratoga Thursday. I know she's in great shape and I know you think the race fits, but if we are truly aiming for that 52k Alw NW 1 in Feb at The Fairgrounds, this race makes no sense.
Regards,
Bob

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Here is my question about the portion that I highlighted: if Street Sense had been a head better in the Preakness, he would have run in the Belmont Stakes, no questions asked.

Is it your contention that a trainer risks ruining or wearing out a horse for the summer by running him in the third leg of the crown only if he hasn't a chance to win the Triple Crown? Is it acceptable to subject a horse to that grind -- with the chance of ruining him -- if he has won the first two legs?

I never said that he would be ruined. But it is most certainly a risk vs reward thing. If you have the chance for the Triple Crown then you have to go for it unless there is a grave danger of the horse being incapicitated. My contention is that the Belmont is not that important unless you win the other legs and because of the timing of it there is risk that you may knock your horse out for the rest of the year. If you win the Triple Crown, do you really think the horse would continue to run anyway?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Chuck....After huddling with my people...T-Pletch and C-Ass...I am advising against running Top Royelle at Saratoga Thursday. I know she's in great shape and I know you think the race fits, but if we are truly aiming for that 52k Alw NW 1 in Feb at The Fairgrounds, this race makes no sense.
Regards,
Bob

You know I am not that happy with the post position...so lets just retire her. I'll see if we can get a cheap season to Curlin if he is unable to recover from his strenous Haskell effort and is retired with his one Grade 1.



She has done enough

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You know I am not that happy with the post position...so lets just retire her. I'll see if we can get a cheap season to Curlin if he is unable to recover from his strenous Haskell effort and is retired with his one Grade 1.



She has done enough

As soon as she wins a race in North America, I agree

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by GBBob

As soon as she wins a race in North America, I agree

lololololololloll...thursday..good luck.tell that little frenchman to get over...asap

[Danzig]

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007...1207165719.txt

current article, linked on equidaily and a fitting part of this thread.


as an aside...how many times did bluegrass cat run??

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by ELA

I am not going to argue with you -- again, it's a fallacious argument. I am also not going to argue with you because you clearly have an orientation, and slant in your opinions -- to the point where you selected the handle you selected. I think that basically shows that you can't be truly objective.

You may have used the term "overrated" -- and I am not arguing that point. The other term or label states was that Todd Pletcher "is not a very good trainer".

I am not criticizing the opinion, although I disagree with the statement that he is not a very good trainer. I am questioning whether or not it's a qualified opinion and the mindset of using one piece of data, neglecting all other facts and knowledge, to substantiate that he is "not a very good trainer". That's all.

Eric

Whether my handle is NoLuvForPletch or WhoShotNellyInTheBelly makes no matter. I'm speaking as an owner and a fan of the sport. I do not like what is happeneing to the game in part because of the Pletchers of the world. Just because my original post didn't articulate everything yours did, and just focused on the point that in meaningful races where Pletch cannot control the framework of the race he seems to do significantly worse than every other day, why does that make my opinion that he is overrated less justified?

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ELA

I've been told the same thing, and I believe it. I currently have a horse -- at best he's a 16 claimer -- with a trainer who has 200 horses. I bumped into him while the horse was in his barn and he told when when he worked, what equiptment he wore (changes that were made), the problems he had when he got there, what he did to address them, when the horse was going to race, where, the race and more!

We heard all throughout the Triple Crown season that the reason that Pletcher and Asmussen are successful is their tremendous attention to detail and how they know everything going on with every horse in their respective barns. Whether we believe this or not, the thing that bugs me is that when these guys get nailed for medication violations, they say, "I've got 200 horses spread all over the place, how am I supposed to know?" They can't have it both ways. Either take responsibility for what happens or downsize the stable to a more manageable size.

[parsixfarms]

I think that's ironic that before and after the Belmont, all we heard from the Pletcher/Coolmore camp that the reason they ran Rags to Riches was because it was the sporting thing to do. I viewed their entry of an extremely talented filly in a classic race as them taking advantage of the opportunity presented by a small field in which the two main contenders were likely to be spent by their more demanding 2007 campaigns. It seems that Pletcher has forgot about the "sporting" aspect of the game when it doesn't suit his needs/spin.

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007...1207165719.txt

current article, linked on equidaily and a fitting part of this thread.


as an aside...how many times did bluegrass cat run??

11 races...awesome

Here's a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluegrass_Cat

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I think that's ironic that before and after the Belmont, all we heard from the Pletcher/Coolmore camp that the reason they ran Rags to Riches was because it was the sporting thing to do. I viewed their entry of an extremely talented filly in a classic race as them taking advantage of the opportunity presented by a small field in which the two main contenders were likely to be spent by their more demanding 2007 campaigns. It seems that Pletcher has forgot about the "sporting" aspect of the game when it doesn't suit his needs/spin.

I couldn't agree more. There have been comments made about Rags, how Tabor was quoted as saying he's always felt she was just that much better than anything out there, etc but then they were reluctant to let her prover her greatness. The kicker for me was how they hedged on the Belmont entry depending on who else entered. If u thought she was better than Curlin, why not enter if Street Sense was there too? Curlin and Street Sense were on pretty even levels. It wasn't a sporting move at all. It was a calculating move. It was only done when he was pretty sure that he could finish in the top three. And to be sure, there is nothing wrong with spoting your horses where u think u have the best chance of winning. As a trainer, that's what u are supposed to do so I have no problem with that at all. But don't try to spin it publicly as anything other than that. There was nothing sporting, there was nothing done for the good of the sport or the fans. Of course, they don't owe anything to the fans. So they need to quit trying to make it seem like the fans or the sport plays a part in their decisions. If they did, this filly would have been pointed to the Travers and the BC Classic the moment she crossed the line in the Belmont.