Re: Where's the outrage??? (1333 Views)
Posted by:
rezlegal (IP Logged)
Date: June 16, 2017 01:49PM
Putting sour grapes, name calling and sore loser issues aside, it is not unfair for a gambler to ask if there is sometimes a tilted playing field. It isn't just that Baffert won ( and won and won and won)it is the numbers his horses ran. The " improvement" was caused by what- he feeds his horses better? he breezes them faster or longer or harder? Some of these numbers are out of the world and bear no reasonable relationship to anything any of us could predict. Is it also a coincidence several of his horses have inexplicably dropped dead while training? I do not purport to have the answer but logic dictates ( to me) that there is something more than superior training. I have always been in the camp that is suspicious of super- trainers. In the modern history of horse racing, prior to Oscar, no trainer, not Nerud, not Laz, not Fitzsimmons and not Ben Jones, won at 25% long,short, over 90 layoff, less than 11 days etc. With the exception of Chad Brown you would be hard pressed to find one super trainer whose grass numbers approach their dirt numbers- is it because all the " skill" in the world can't make horse not suited for the grass run faster? To Johnny M and Pete- I have no proof but like Tavasco I am perplexed. We should not accuse a good trainer for excellence ; nor
should we attack a frustrated gambler as being a sore loser because a horse jumps up 15-20 lengths out of the blue. I am one of the rat bastard lawyers referred to in another string and deal with a lot of allegations of fraud in my litigation practice. Fraud is really, really hard to prove.Sometimes as an attorney you don't have all the answers. Same on this subject- every Bronx bone in my body tells me something is wrong with some of the trainers, some of the time. It is an inexplicable part of this game.