are supertrainers by defination unethical?

[bdw0617]

with the breeders cup almost here, it got me thinking.

I'm sitting here, watching uncle mo, and I'm watching euroears, both trained by the same guy, hall of fame trainer bob baffert.

Uncle mo is one of the fastest race horses I have ever seen in my short time following horse racing. I personally think, that he would win the sprint as long as he's right.

But, baffert, could also win it with euroears, he's very good too.

plus, the sprint is a 2 million dollar race, the dirt mile is a mile race.

but baffert, is most likely going to point the factor towards the mile, so they don't' beat each other up, i.e so one doesn't beat the other, so he can have 2 chances of winning 2 races instead of 1 chance to win 2 races

is that really ethical? is it really fair to look a owner in the eye and tell him to take a race for less money, that isn't his best distance, just because you have another really good horse that you know can get this race?

if the factor was trained by...Richard Mandella, a trainer without very much BC stock this year, i doubt very hard he would be pointed to the dirt mile. I just don't think that's right.

Same deal with the triple crown races. You got 2 horses in Florida, both are really really good, both could win the Florida derby. but you want to "keep them apart", so you don't run one of them in the Florida derby, he goes to the Louisiana derby... i mean winning the Louisiana derby and winning the Florida derby could very well be the difference between your 3YO standing in Kentucky or standing in Penn after he's done racing if something were to happen .

I just don't see how that's right/ fair to owners, when ytou have so many horses to juggle that you can't possibly have every owners best interests in mind.

[Laurierace]

God what I wouldn't give to have that problem! No, I don't think it's unethical. The owner can insist they run the horse in any race they want to.

[ct2346]

"I'm sitting here, watching uncle mo, and I'm watching euroears, both trained by the same guy, hall of fame trainer bob baffert. "

since when did Uncle Mo move to Baffert?

[bdw0617]

"I'm sitting here, watching uncle mo, and I'm watching euroears, both trained by the same guy, hall of fame trainer bob baffert. "

since when did Uncle Mo move to Baffert?

lol you knew who i was talking about. meant to say the factor.

[TomFool]

Your thinking is way off from mine on this. I think The Factor has little to no chance in the Sprint. Yes he is very fast but if he is pushed & headed early (no doubt he would be in the Sprint) he would fold up. He is very talented but I'm not sold on how much heart he has. I've noticed other War Fronts that seem have the same problem. Now in the Mile I think he really fits because he looks like he should clear in there & if he is allowed to relax on the lead even if the pace is a bit quick he should stand a great shot to wire them.

[Crystal]

trainers get them to the races, it's up to the horse and jockey to run or not.

Telling an owner we are setting up a race for this other horse to win is unethical and a low brow run at race fixing. If the trainer can hold his stance and firmly believes either horse has a 100% fair shot-there is nothing wrong with that.


Owners run coupled enteries all the time.

[Sailor Kenshin]

with the breeders cup almost here, it got me thinking.

I'm sitting here, watching uncle mo, and I'm watching euroears, both trained by the same guy, hall of fame trainer bob baffert.

Uncle mo is one of the fastest race horses I have ever seen in my short time following horse racing. I personally think, that he would win the sprint as long as he's right.

But, baffert, could also win it with euroears, he's very good too.

plus, the sprint is a 2 million dollar race, the dirt mile is a mile race.

but baffert, is most likely going to point the factor towards the mile, so they don't' beat each other up, i.e so one doesn't beat the other, so he can have 2 chances of winning 2 races instead of 1 chance to win 2 races

is that really ethical? is it really fair to look a owner in the eye and tell him to take a race for less money, that isn't his best distance, just because you have another really good horse that you know can get this race?

if the factor was trained by...Richard Mandella, a trainer without very much BC stock this year, i doubt very hard he would be pointed to the dirt mile. I just don't think that's right.

Same deal with the triple crown races. You got 2 horses in Florida, both are really really good, both could win the Florida derby. but you want to "keep them apart", so you don't run one of them in the Florida derby, he goes to the Louisiana derby... i mean winning the Louisiana derby and winning the Florida derby could very well be the difference between your 3YO standing in Kentucky or standing in Penn after he's done racing if something were to happen .

I just don't see how that's right/ fair to owners, when ytou have so many horses to juggle that you can't possibly have every owners best interests in mind.

What specifically do you feel is unethical about this situation?

[Dave C]

I see nothing unethical about a trainer telling an owner that they are better off running to 'win' a smaller purse, than running for 'second' for a bigger purse. The trainer is maximizing the potential return for the owner.

[bdw0617]

I see nothing unethical about a trainer telling an owner that they are better off running to 'win' a smaller purse, than running for 'second' for a bigger purse. The trainer is maximizing the potential return for the owner.

I have no problem with that either.

though that's not the scenario I laid out. I'm basically saying if you have a bunch of super star horses, eventually you will be put in a situation where they are both best at one thing, and because you want to maximize your profits, you point one to another race, even though that race might not be the best spot for him

[wangkw]

Bdw...there was a strategy thousand years back..and still viable..you have 3 horses to face 3 strong rivals..put your no 1
to attack their no 2..no 2 to attack their no 3..and no 3 (if you still keen) to attack no 1..that way you hv better chance of
2 out of 3..but..boy..your prize money might not measure up to your wish.

[Dave C]

By implication, if the trainer is maximizing 'his' profits, he is also maximizing the profits of his owners. Not necessarily as individuals but as a group. If an owner is hell bent for leather to win a particular race that the trainer has a better horse ready to win, then the trainer should enter the second horse. Reality is most owners will just take the money from the other race. Even for a lot of the big stable owners, winning a BC race is not an every year occurrence.