Crypto Kid Finance
316 posts
@CryptoKidDefi
providing high quality services for the crypto world! From media to marketing to consulting!
"I'm optimistic and hopeful that maybe he'll come back into training with us next year." Trainer Bill Mott gave @Andie_Biancone an update on 2025 @KentuckyDerby winner SOVEREIGNTY this afternoon in the @ChurchillDowns paddock. @Godolphin
‡ The White Abarrio Scratch The late scratch of White Abarrio soon before the running of the Breeders' Cup Mile catalyzed more than a few reflexive, and dubious reactions. Before I continue, here's a link to fairly recent, and useful overview of what has become a somewhat contentious issue, from Andrew Cohen in The Paulick Report: paulickreport.com/features/keepi… *** On November 4th, the horse's owners, @C2RacingStable and Gary Barber, published a terse statement that included claims that the horse had been sound leading up to the race, that they were not informed why he had been scratched, and that there was no evidence that he was "in any way unfit to race". They also stated that they had "retained counsel, and have asked for a full and transparent investigation into the matter", and requested that the BC, CHRB, and Del Mar disclose "all relevant documents" relating to the scratch. You can read the full statement through this link: x.com/C2RacingStable… *** There are problems, however, with both the statement itself, and the reactions of those who jumped on the bandwagon. The statement is arguably inaccurate, and none of those responsible for the rubber-stamp reactions seemed to take into account most, let alone all of the salient facts. Early in the statement, White Abarro's owners imply that no red flags were raised in the days leading up to the race. But the fact that the Breeders' Cup vets requested a PET scan minimally suggests that the horse was under closer scrutiny than most, and that there was something that the vets had seen and/or felt that caused some concern. Furthermore, to my eye, and I'm not alone, White Abarrio was not moving particularly well in his pre-race gallops. Here are a links to a couple of video clips of the horse training prior to the BC. He is not extending well in front. In fact, in the second video, even jockey Joe Talamo, and former trainer Simon Bray feel compelled to note his "different" action, though of course they do attempt to sugar coat it to some degree. Bray says: "He doesn't have that long, lengthy stride with a lot of fluidity to it", and characterizes his action as a "a shorter, choppy stride". Oct. 26th: youtube.com/watch?v=kkY7zC… Oct. 28th: youtube.com/watch?v=g7wYdh… Horses are individuals, and some move more fluidly than others. But see if you are able to discern the difference between the above clips, and how he moved in these earlier clips, taken before the Met Mile two years ago, and in April of 2022. The only relevant parts are the initial canter/gallop, not the faster paces, or breezes themselves. youtube.com/watch?v=LrsIA0… youtube.com/watch?v=n32RUO… The differences should, I would argue, be apparent to anyone who has an experienced eye. Note that I am not suggesting that he should necessarily have been scratched on the basis of how he galloped, but rather that his "choppy" action may have been at least part of the reason why he was under extra scrutiny from the vets. The next issue that I have with the statement is that on the very same day that it was posted on X, Nov. 4th, Dave Grening wrote an article for the DRF, in which he implies that the owners told him that they had received an e-mail on Sunday morning from HISA that provided the reason for the scratch: the vet(s) believed that the horse had been "off left front". So, why would their statement, time stamped at 9:31 PM on Tuesday, have included the assertion that the scratch was "certainly made for reasons that are unknown to trainer Saffie Joseph, Jr. and the ownership group", when they told Dave Grening that they had, in fact, received an explanatory email two days earlier, the morning after the scratch? Whatever the explanation, that White Abarrio's connections were at least given a basic explanation, and that it was made public, is important. I say that primarily because assuming accuracy, does anyone believe that a horse that is identified by a vet as being "off" just prior to a race, should be allowed to run? The other reason that I consider it to be important is that to my eye, and, more importantly, that of the experienced equine DVM @sidgustafson, White Abarrio appears to have shown signs of being "off" while being ponied back to the stable area after the scratch. It's a bit subtle, so I have attached two videos, one normal speed, and the other slowed down. Focus on his head, and you may be able to see that it nods slightly down when he puts pressure on his (sound) right foreleg, and slightly up when the pressure is switched to the leg in question. That is a classic "tell" that a horse is "off", and is consistent with the reason stated in the email received by the owners. Now, if that asymmetry is discernible on video, while he was carrying no weight, would it be difficult to imagine that the favoring might have been even more obvious with 126lbs on his back, when the BC vets made their decision? *** There have been some questions, and implications, including in the statement, relating to how and why a horse could be monitored closely for days, allowed to be saddled and head off to the gate for a race, yet, at the eleventh hour, be found to be unsound. Of course things can happen between a morning inspection and race time, but setting that obvious point aside, there is an important, and more subtle factor to consider. As Dr. Gustafson has pointed out a number of times on various comment threads, medications that were administered days in advance of race typically lose potency as the event approaches. And as a result, some horses may not move quite as well close to a race, as the effects of medications that helped to mitigate pain and/or inflammation wear off. *** I would be all in favor of the type of transparency that some, including White Abarrio's owners, are banging the table for. But there are complicated issues involved. First, most owners would not want regulatory vets to open their findings up to the public, as they do in Hong Kong, and for what should be obvious reasons. Of course the vets should be required to explain why a horse was scratched to the connections of the horse, but there would be howls of dismay from most owners were details to be released to the public without their explicit permission. Secondly, if the connections of horses like White Abarrio want to plead their cases in the court of public opinion, the first step that they should take, in my view, would be to release their own "private" vet records relating to the horse. Let's see the records leading up to the race, and after the scratch. Then, coupled with the vets' perspectives, everyone could arrive at their own, informed opinions. Finally, as I have pointed out more than a few times over the past couple of years, owners and trainers of horses entered in big races are highly susceptible to bias. Forced scratches are embarrassing to trainers, and complaints are common. For that reason, such complaints should always be taken with a grain of salt. There is an increasingly long list of examples to support the point. Consider The Chosen Vron, a "forced" scratch from the 2024 Breeders' Cup Sprint. Trainer Eric Kruljac had this to say at the time (source: The Blood-Horse): "We're out of the race, but the horse is 100% sound. The track vets looked at him before, thought he was off. Some Breeders' Cup vet came in and said he was unsound, and there's nothing we can do about it." On November 9th, it was reported that his connections had detected an "issue" with a ankle, and that the gelding would be turned out for "several months". Kruljac was quoted at the time as having said: “Whatever I voiced out loud probably didn't have a lot thought behind it. Just frustration." Four months later, The Chosen Vron was retired. This isn't to suggest that the regulatory vets never make mistakes, and it is absolutely true that they tend to err on the side of caution. But given the fragile social contract that the racing industry operates under today, it is, in my view, short-sighted at best to argue that the regulatory vets, who work under particularly intense pressure during big events, are somehow the problem.
