Chicago Barn to Wire BRIS
Home | News | Bloggers | Forums | Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Contact Us | Search


September 02, 2014, 09:49:11 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you don't remember your password, email me.

New  registration procedures -- Some ISPs have been bouncing the verification emails.  Please email me to be activated or if you have any problems.  Click Contact Us above.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: OOPS! Busted!!!  (Read 3645 times)
Jim C
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1403




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: July 31, 2006, 12:47:30 PM »

This trainer did not get this from the report. First he has his own training track and had talked to other trainers about this idea too well before any report was done. He had also talked to a trainer who grew up on a farm to confirm the point that the tires they have on the tractors do not need to have such deep treads since they are 4x4. Plus the report seems to only address the wheels on the harrows and not the tractors or the tires.

As far as AP not saying anything about the suggestions to help the track super with the upkeep of the track, I would think that there was no reason to say anything in their minds as they were just suggestions that THEY asked about. To me this is a mistake as I would have wanted to make as much as possible any changes or improvements that were being made to help fix and situation that involved the track surface. Thats good PR, instead they took a positive and turned it to a huge negative....again very stupid management of information by AP. But it still does not mean that anything was being covered up....a cover up would have been if there were suggestions made that were NOT used and buried as far as the safety of the track. This is a screw up, not a cover up. AP said the track was safe and no issues were found with the track or the base. Changing maintenance procedures is a different issue, but again you are right they should have made a big deal out of these changes as an ongoing effort to make things better.

The only reason I asked about how many horses broke down in 2004 and Id like to know about 2003 as well, is that 2005 seems to be the out of norm figure. It would make more sense to find out why only 12 broke down last year instead of why so many are breaking down this year. If my memory is correct, the number of horse injuries we are having now is not that out of line from what has taken place in past years with the exception of 2005. That again does not mean there should be no concern, but if the number is not that far out of line then the idea that there is an issue with the track may not be correct, unless you want to say there has ALWAYS been an issue with the safety of the track. Again though you have to ask why the jockeys have had no complaints. I still think the track is just too damn fast.
Report to moderator   Logged
Ed
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1015




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: July 31, 2006, 02:39:07 PM »

This is a screw up, not a cover up. AP said the track was safe and no issues were found with the track or the base. Changing maintenance procedures is a different issue, but again you are right they should have made a big deal out of these changes as an ongoing effort to make things better.

Jim C. are you a lawyer? The issue is that horses are breaking down. In any case, we agree that AP management is doing a terrible PR job that is being magnified by the attention given this matter. Cover up, screw up, whatever.

Ed
Report to moderator   Logged
Jim C
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1403




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: July 31, 2006, 03:36:02 PM »

LOL no I am not a lawyer but you have to view these things through the eyes of a lawyer...maybe thats part of the problem too! But Coon reported on all that he was asked to do by the IRB. The other questions came from AP, the Col to be specific so there was no reason to report any of that to the IRB since they never asked any of those questions in the first place. Big PR issue but not a cover up or anything else UNLESS things that were asked by the IRB were not answered or changed. But that does not seem to be the case. Lets see what this 3rd guy says. Should be interesting.
Report to moderator   Logged
mel4600
Guest

« Reply #28 on: July 31, 2006, 04:07:45 PM »

LOL no I am not a lawyer but you have to view these things through the eyes of a lawyer...maybe thats part of the problem too! But Coon reported on all that he was asked to do by the IRB. The other questions came from AP, the Col to be specific so there was no reason to report any of that to the IRB since they never asked any of those questions in the first place. Big PR issue but not a cover up or anything else UNLESS things that were asked by the IRB were not answered or changed. But that does not seem to be the case. Lets see what this 3rd guy says. Should be interesting.
Jim,

If the report came back that the track was in perfect condition why would the Col ask for maintenance recommendations? Better yet why would Coon give them if the the track was so good? If I wrote a report the the track was great, my recommendation would be not to change anything.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jim C
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1403




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: July 31, 2006, 04:30:30 PM »

I think the problem is that we are looking at the question and the answer from Coon differently. I do not recall the word perfect being used by Coon, maybe it was but The question that was raised by the IRB was IS THE TRACK SAFE and LEVEL? This was the question to which Coon said yes it was and that it was very consitant throughout. Now this question and the answer has nothing to do with what the other recommendations were to AP and the track super. It seems to me that the Col was asking for any help that he could offer in regards to track maintenance and pointers that would aid in the upkeep of the track. It seems pretty plain to me anyway that the added comments by Coon had nothing to do with the questions that were raised by the IRB. No one has said that the track maintenance was at issue. However, things can always be improved and thats what I think the Col was asking about...ways to improve the track. That said I still think it was stupid on AP's part not to make that public to show that they were trying every avenue to make the track as good as it can be. Not just safety wise but consitanticy wise as well.
Report to moderator   Logged
sodgod
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 445




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: July 31, 2006, 08:12:47 PM »

Jim C,
Shame on AP management and the IRB as well.  AP should have let the IRB and press know about Coon's list of track maint. suggestions and the IRB should have told Coon not to speak with AP management during the inspection if that is what their original intention was.  However,  I would guess that at a minimum Coon would have needed to speak with Javier Barajas.  Roy Arnold probably not.  As a side note I saw the maint. crew working on the harrows today with some torches, so perhaps the wheels were being cut off. At this point we can only hope so.

Sod  carrot
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.114 seconds with 16 queries.

Home
Upcoming events
Arlington Million
Horse slaughter in IL
Racing TV schedule
News Updates
Legislation

Galloping Out

Previous stories

Arlington
Balmoral
Hawthorne
Maywood
Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago Tribune
Blood-Horse
Daily Racing Form
Thoroughbred Times
Harness Link
Illinois Racing Board

 

2014

Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2013

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2012

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

More ebay items

 

Home | News Updates | Bloggers | Forums | Search
Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Advertising | Contact Us

Copyright © 2000-2014 Chicago Barn to Wire. All rights reserved.
Privacy policy