icouldbeu posted:
WHY?
When the jockeys start balking at riding an owner or trainer's horses, there is something seriously wrong.
I can't think of another incidence where jockeys, in total at Penn National, refused to ride for reasons other than track conditions.
You are right. There are other trainers and owners who are probably just getting by with their racing stock. I'm encouraged by the fact that Wilf, a owner/trainer, would place as much emphasis on the welfare of the racehorse.
Just maybe, the state Vets across NA will begin to take a closer look at the physical condition and health of horses that race. Not just for the health and well-being of the horse, but for the safety of all who handle them.
For a number of years I volunteered to do farriery and dentistry at local rescue facilities in our area. The neglect that you see is often horrific.
The success of claiming races is based on the abilities a horse to run to his particular class or form. It is not based on the fact that he is crippled or injured which I believe a number of trainers/owners have concluded is legal.
An injury, after it is healed, may reduce the proficiency of a horse to race at higher levels but hopefully it doesn't eliminate his ability to race at lower ranks w/o recurring injury. A good trainer or owner needs to be aware that a horse should have fully recovered from a previous injury prior to racing again Some get by with putting injured horses in races because veterinarians either don't report the issues or they are not checked by the barn vet or state Vet prior to racing.
The safety of all concerned is what is important, but if the Michael Gill's of racing continue to marginalize the rules, racing is going to have more problems than just a bad economy.
