Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

AngelaInAbilene — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:34:30 GMT

I apologize for the rant. I am just sick and tired of everyone giving an excuse for everything. It appears to me personal responsibility has gone the way of the dinosaurs and it just makes me sick!

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

AngelaInAbilene — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:27:42 GMT

"...John Veitch is one of the most honerable individuals in racing...scapegoat."

"But in reality...the responsibility lies with Pletcher and no one else!"

tenmd 12 Jul 2011 10:10 AM

I do not personally know Steward Veitch, I have rarely been called before the Stewards. Up until this incident, he appears to have done a fine job safeguarding the integrity of racing. IMHO, in this instance, he failed.

Everyone involved, EXCEPT Pletcher, was in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

So why has Pletcher not been held accountable? I believe, were it any other trainer in any other race, the trainer would have, at the very least been fined and gotten days. There is more than plenty of blame to go around but the bottom line is, it is the TRAINERS responsibility.

There is a HUGE amount of responsibility placed on a trainer. We are accountable EVERYTHING involving our horses, barns and employees. Even some things which we have very little if no control over. We know that when we take our license out. Apparently, Mr. Pletcher is special and the rules no longer apply to him.

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

Lorie — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 22:42:59 GMT

Life At Ten is old news they will never come up with a good ruling on that, but I do think Pletcher should be held accountable for his horses and everyone at his barn !! What I am worried about, is how soon he plans on running Mo, OMG he has only been back in training a few weeks and they think he is ready for a tuff Gr. 1 race . That say's alot about how he trains I hope Mo pulls up ok and has no relaps. I just do not see how he could be fit enough to run a race like that. good luck Mo

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

frenchykatz — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:49:42 GMT

I think the bottom line is that nobody had the best interest of the horse in mind. Nobody had her back except maybe Valaquez during the race to "not persevere" with her. I was afraid the entire race that she would go down. Why wouldn't you test a horse like this post race?

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

quarterhossgal — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:21:46 GMT

As many have said the trainer is entrusted with the care of the horse. He delegates responsibility to the groom, handler etc. He knew the mare was not right she should have never left the paddock without an exam by a vet. Only if she was cleared should she have gone on the track. Life at Ten was fortunate she didn't suffer life threatening results because of bad human judgement.

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

JerseyBoy — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:47:44 GMT

tenmd:

I like your post.

I have an additional observation. If we cannot trust the judgement of John Velazquez, who can we trust?. We might as well close shop.

This was a mistake. One should only be held accountable for violating previously established laws, practices and procedures. Instead, what we have here are people being assassinated for violating the moral sensibilities of the self-righteous. It is un-American.

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

Needler in Virginia — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:27:53 GMT

ABSOLUTELY TRUE, tenmd, ALL OF YOUR POST!! Mr Veitch did nothing wrong, but he's not a Trainer of the Year, is he?

Cheers and safe trips.

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

tenmd — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:10:39 GMT

I know I am getting into the fray a bit late, but I have a few things to say. Firstly, John Veitch is one of the most honerable individuals in racing and I find it quite distasteful that the KY Racing Commission has selected him as their scapegoat.

Secondly, lets examine the other possible senario and see how that would be received by the betting public, Racing Commission, and owners and trainers involved, and that is...what would have happened if LAT had been scratched by the stewards. There were several vets trackside with a much clearer view of this horse during post parade and at the gate and nothing of concern was seen by them. So what if the stewards had scratched her and then no reason was found for the scratch? What kind of trouble would that have brought upon the stewards? Kind of a damned if you do and damned if you don't deal as I see it. But in reality...the responsibility lies with Pletcher and no one else!

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

tjconway — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:04:59 GMT

I have seen horses who have looked "listless" in the post parade and went on to win the race. One example of this was Unbridled after he won the Ky. Derby and came to Arlington Park.

This must not happen again.........Folks!

At the end of the day, the bettors should have got their refund in this rare case and Life at Ten should have been declared a non-starter (after the fact). Then all this would have been no harm no foul! ALWAYS KEEP YOUR TICKETS!!!!!!!!!

Also, could natural "hormone imbalance" have been the problem???????

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

Mike Relva — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:15:40 GMT

I stated months ago Pletcher would skate. If I could say one thing to him it would be "congrats on winning trainer of the year,sure LAT is really proud of you".

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

AngelaInAbilene — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 13:27:10 GMT

slee- I have had my trainers license for 20+ years. When my people relay information, I listen, investigate and evaluate.

It is a grooms responsibility to report anything and everything, good and bad concerning the horses they rub, to the TRAINER. In this case, the trainer was already aware that LAT was off.

My point, you simply CANNOT put any of this off on a groom or hot walker. It was the trainer who was responsable to pass the Starter with a sound and ready horse and it was the Stewards job to see that the trainer had done so. They BOTH FAILED!

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

Jon — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 00:23:42 GMT

Pletcher got off scott free.

I think Veitch should have passed on the info he got to the track vets also being an ex trainer he could have seen what millions saw on TV.

Maybe they are afraid if the truth comes out and with "Life at Ten" is racing recently her value has dropped way down they maybe lawsuits filed by the owner.

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

smarie — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 17:43:12 GMT

I agree wholeheartedly with Dawn in MN. Why was Pletcher in the stands? He knew there was a problem with Life At Ten; he should have been down with the horse! Everyone failed this mare that day. Everyone that the owner entrusted her to failed her. Thank goodness no one was injured or killed during the race. Mr. Veitch has an excuse for everything. It is too bad that no one here is willing to step up (except Johnny V. who did so rather reluctantly), admit fault and see to it that things like this don't happen again. Horse racing continually shoots itself in the foot. How many articles have I read about meetings, committees, etc. who are trying to improve racing's image and lure more fans to the track? What actually gets done? Not much. Horses are still being drugged, trainers continue to train even though they're known abusers, owners send their horses to trainers like this, racehorses are being overbred and so many wind up being slaughtered in Canada and Mexico - the list goes on and on. Yet, nothing much ever changes. It is no wonder that racing can't attract many new fans. And after all this time and all the investigations, nothing has come of the Life At Ten debacle.

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

slee — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 17:13:03 GMT

I agree Pletcher should be held responsible, but AngelInAbileen, my question about the groom and handlers has to do with raising red flags. The groom has a lot more contact with their charges than a clerk does with legislation. Let's say LAT's groom told Pletcher in the saddling enclosure or in the stable before saddling: "she looks sick" or "I think something is wrong" - would Pletcher listen? Or does he run a barn where people are afraid to speak up?

In a former life I was a lowly part-time hot walker but even so it was OUR JOB to report any oddities or changes in behavior about any horses to our boss who did an evaluation and then either said it was ok, or called the trainer or the vet. We were told over and over that we were the eyes and ears of the trainer. And if we did NOT report something that was found later to be a problem, we were in trouble. And, in at least 1 case, jobless.

Remember Secretariat's Wood Memorial, where he finished 3rd behind Angle Light and Sham? And after the race it was revealed he had an abscess in his mouth? The story also goes that his exercise rider had reported a problem the day before to somebody in the barn, asking that Secretariat be checked by Lucien Lauren, the traine,r because he was tossing his head around and not reacting normally to the bit. But the message was lost someplace. If that's true, how many betting dollars were lost because Secretariat was in pain and didn't run his race?

It should be the job of everybody involved with the horse to look out for the horse's health and to speak up when needed. A good barn needs to have good communication UP and DOWN, and that, too, in the end, is Pletcher's responsibility.

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

AngelaInAbilene — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 13:27:39 GMT

In racetrack "chain of command," the TRAINER is responsible for EVERY aspect of EVERY horse in their barn. Example: Someone leaves a can of Coke in the shedrow and a horse tips it over and drinks it. That horse runs, goes to the Spit Barn and tests positive for caffeine. It does not matter one whit the circumstances leading to the positive, the TRAINER is responsible. (S)He is fined, given days, etc.

In the LAT case, the TRAINER KNEW the horse wasn't right and sent her to the gate anyway. [slee- to blame her groom (handler) is equivelant to blaming a clerk for some of the ridiculous legislation coming from Congress.]

A Stewards purpose is to see that nothing violates the State Racing regulations. It is their job to see that something like this, LAT, does NOT happen and if it does, to investigate and hold appropriate person(s) accountable. As soon as Veitch was made aware there was a potential problem, he should have INVESTIGATED the allegation. As the Chief Steward for the State of Kentucky, he failed miserably. The buck stops with him.

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

Dawn in MN — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:11:37 GMT

If I were in Velazquez's irons that day I'd like to think that I would have done something different. On the other hand I'm not surprised he didn't.

If he did everything in his power to get her scratched he would have risked a good deal of ire from the fans. He probably would have paid the price of losing mounts. In hindsight, considering that her problem was supposedly just a bad reaction to medication Velazquez would have been the scapegoat.

Velazquez is excused in my book because he never "prevailed" on her; he let her off the hook. If she had broke well and had run, fine, but since she didn't his call was the best one. He went into that gate, and made a call on the break. The amount of pressure a jockey is under excuses him in my book.

I hold the trainer completely accountable. Period. Get those overdressed "horsemen" out of the stands and on the ground with the animals they are charged to train. I don't see what part of responsible training involves wearing Armani in the stands, while a sick filly goes to the gate.

Life At Ten looked completely wrong in the televised coverage. I turned to my husband and said something to that effect before it was ever mentioned on TV. I had seen her before, and like others, I could tell from my living room couch that she was not o.k. that day. She looked dull and lackluster. I was truly horrified when they loaded her in the gate.

Oh, and I agree...she should have gone straight to the test barn. Until then I never believed those who said racing was Dirty, but this incident makes me wonder. It's right up there with Big Brown's Belmont.

When an incident like this occurs during the Breeders Cup, and no decision is made until the casual fans have completely forgotten to care about the outcome it makes the game look Dirty. This witch-hunt, some eight months later is inexcusable. Racing needs something like a referee, or an umpire to make a call immediately.

More proof that a national governing body is desperately needed.

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

Needler in Virginia — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 01:26:20 GMT

Mr Veitch?? How far down the information chain did he enter the picture? Fairly far down, it appears, as both trainer and jockey were talking to reporters about how the mare just didn't "seem right" long before Mr Veitch knew of any problem at all. AND we all saw BOTH trainer and jockey comment, to reporters live and in living color, on how LaT just wasn't herself that day. As far as I'm concerned, the problem lies directly at the feet of the guy getting the big bucks: Todd Pletcher, and didn't he do a real bang-up Trainer of the Year job that weekend? I mean, REALLY...just look at how well Life At Ten AND Quality Road ran. My gosh! Who could ask for more? ME, for one.........

Cheers and safe trips.

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

Stellar Jayne — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 21:35:20 GMT

Eric - It also seems Pletcher should have been held accountable. It seems politics might be at work here given his standing in the industry? The bottom line is - none of this is fair to Life At Ten's career! One thing I learned, in spite of the constant repetition of '...it is all about the horse and its safety....' I say bull @#%@.

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

Ida Lee — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 19:22:05 GMT

I wish I had not read this article. Life At Ten, one of my beloved Mares, was put in danger and now everyone connected with her (except her jockey) are screaming we didn't see anything... Of course, there was something wrong!! I was watching from HOME and I knew there was something wrong. Oh forget it...I'm too pissed to continue.

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

Linda in Texas — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:12:32 GMT

If nothing was wrong with Life at Ten, seems like a lot of folks are trying real hard to cover up something. Me thinks they do protest too much.

If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it is most probably 100 per cent a duck.

In this instance, too many people are ducking!

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

Bland — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 14:14:24 GMT

The sin was in not ordering a test regardless of what barn she went to.

Why? Because over $1million was bet on her and the bettors need somebody to protect them.

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

jamesb — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 11:34:34 GMT

"When all is said and done, it appears many more people than Veitch can share the blame for letting this mare down."

Blame everyone, hold no one accountable. I believe I've heard this song before.

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

kincsem — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 04:19:56 GMT

Mokey,

I couldn't agree more! One of Devil May Care's first symptoms was a mysterious GI tract problem - hello, Uncle Mo! It is OBVIOUS that Pletcher is stressing the immune systems of his stakes horses pretty severely. Velasquez & John Veitch had nothing to do with why Life At Ten looked like she was running in a haze. Veitch was probably making sure that nothing could be pinned on Pletcher, by not testing the mare. One does not want to make the big money trainers angry.

But the buck stops with the trainer. Period. When is Teflon Todd going to be held accountable?

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

sceptre — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 02:56:07 GMT

Here are two irrefutable facts:

Both Veitch and Dr. Bramlege were given the "heads-up" (advance notice) that there were potential issues with Life At Ten. Veitch chose no action whatsoever, and Bramlege failed to single out Life At Ten when communicating to the on track vet team. Advance "warnings" such as was the case with Life At Ten are extremely rare occurances-it's not as if a Veitch or a Bramlege were armed with enough prior experiences (with "warnings" such as this) to believe the "heads-up" should be ignored. For me, it's that simple.

re: Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

Anncat — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 01:39:18 GMT

It is unconscionable that Veitch did not order testing of the mare. Apparently common sense is not included in anyone's job description.