Thursday, January 12, 2017
(Sorry for the delay since the last column - had a little bout with pneumonia to take care of).
There's no sense going into the arguments - pro and con - surrounding the disqualification of Masochistic from second place in the Breeders' Cup Sprint because of a positive from a drug taken 68 days prior to the race. However, part of the wording of the ban on trainer Ron Ellis leaves me baffled.
Here's the paragraph that has me confused, and, I will assume, others, too. " It's from the Paulick Report: "Breeders' Cup also said that any horse that has been transferred 'to any other person associated with Mr. Ellis for the purpose of competing in the Breeders' Cup will similarly be prevented from entering and running in the 2017 event.' "
What does that mean? If Ron transfers a horse to another trainer tomorrow and in October the owner wants to enter the BC, he or she is not allowed? Or in February, or March, or April? Or does it mean Ron can't train a horse through the summer and then have it go to another trainer? In any of those cases, why should the owner - and the horse - be penalized because of this ruling against Ron? Will they give the owner back the money he has already put up? Not a chance.
I think the whole thing stinks! Why not sentence Ron to life in prison without parole for this dastardly deed.
And just for the record, Breeders' Cup geniuses, why would you say in the ban "prevented from entering AND RUNNING in 2017. If you've been prevented from entering, of course you can't run!!!
As for the haters who are smelling up the internet with their anti-Ellis vitriol, they're the same people who bash Tiger Woods, and who screamed for Hillary to go to prison although they had no idea why. Trump said it so it must be true. The same Trump who still hasn't produced his tax returns during the longest audit period in the history of the IRS. That is, if it was the IRS who was conducting this phantom audit.
IS IT REAL OR IS IT MEMOREX? - It's been a while since we last explored the reasons why so many believe that the Sport of Kings is dying, and nobody bets anymore and the old players are succumbing to age and no new players are replacing them. The report from Gulfstream the other day about wagering in 2016 must be part of the Fake News coming out of Russia and other nefarious organizations.
The news was simple: a record $1.774 billion was wagered through Gulfstream Park in 2016, a 9 percent increase over the previous record of $1.625 billion the year before. And, a record $1.508 billion was wagered on its live racing in 2016, a 13 percent increase over the previous record of $1.338 billion in 2015.
Since the doom and gloom set won't be able to comprehend why this happened, they came to the right place to find out. Here's the answer: All the people who have been betting on racetracks around the country decided they no longer wanted to bet on those tracks and they're all betting strictly on Gulfstream now. We should be hearing, in the near future, of the imminent closing of Aqueduct, Belmont, Saratoga, Del Mar, Santa Anita, Keeneland, Churchill Downs and many others who no longer have a base of players to wager on their races.
Sound stupid? No more stupid than the notion that everybody has abandoned the game for other forms of entertainment.
comments powered by