@EJXD2@spendthriftfarm Considering Jackie's Warrior flashed precocity as a 2-year-old by winning his maiden debut at five furlongs, I am surprised he does not have any more winners than just the one. The other three, not surprising, as their foals will probably appreciate routing.
Her withers are quite pronounced, which can exaggerate the impression of being underweight. The topline also looks somewhat flat, with limited muscle over the back and loin. That alone can make a horse appear thinner than it really is.
She is moderately-thin, but not unacceptable. I guess her previous connections are trying to recoup that $450k price tag. Ouch!
With this news and two disappointing efforts as a 3-year-old, you have to wonder if Zedan is starting to weigh retirement options? He already punched his ticket to stud with that Del Mar Futurity G1 win as a 2-year-old, cost $3 million at the OBS March sale. At some point, the math on risking further injury vs. preserving his breeding value becomes a real conversation.
The industry does not need another Gun Runner son at stud, let alone one that has the durability of cotton candy with a left foreleg that wings out like a broken clock hand on every stride. It is a wonder the stress has not compounded that bone bruising into something far worse. I just hope he does not end up slipping through the cracks like Speed Boat Beach did after he bled.
Report: Brant, who finished fourth in Sunday's Maxfield Stakes, will go to the farm for rest after coming out of the race with minor bone bruising.
https://t.co/kvXaFpTVV4
πΈ: Lindsay Affleck / Eclipse Sportswire
@RacingDFS We hit the peak in 1986, and it has been going downhill little-by-little from then on. The 2000s just accelerated its decline at a sprint speed.
Both of them are definitely not safe. :/
The Stronach Group's subsidiary 1/ST Racing has previously threatened to sell or close Santa Anita, if racing conditions aren't favorable β so the ownership's long-term intentions remain a wildcard after the Olympics are done. Santa Anita Park could theoretically be redeveloped, but historic designation β especially the California Historic Landmark status and CEQA β creates real procedural and political hurdles. Any developer would face environmental review, public opposition from preservation groups like the LA Conservancy, and the need for local city approvals. Belinda would have to cut through a ton of red tape, and Arcadia residents don't want more housing/traffic coming into the area either.
Del Mar is more developable in theory than Santa Anita, but it lacks the same strong historic preservation designations as its original historic structures are already gone. But it's harder to develop in-practice because the land belongs to the California taxpayers, not a private owner. Any redevelopment requires state authorization, public process, and political will. The Fairgrounds 2050 Initiative suggests some evolution is coming, but the racetrack and fairgrounds functions are likely to remain central to the property's future for decades.
The 22nd District Agricultural Association announced the launch of an outreach program called "Fairgrounds 2050," aimed at gathering public input on how three of its properties should be used β the 212-acre main fairgrounds campus, the 48-acre Surf and Turf Recreation Center, and the 64-acre Del Mar Horsepark. Potential developments under consideration include hotels, restaurants, and shops. However, the essential requirements of maintaining the annual fair and ensuring the fairgrounds can serve as an emergency resiliency center remain non-negotiable.
One concrete proposal on the table involves housing. City leaders are looking into adding 61 affordable rental units to the 370-acre property by 2030, catering to people making less than the median income for the area, which could include seniors, teachers and first responders. Even so, board members for the 22nd District Agricultural Association seem less than certain, insisting it may not actually happen even with ongoing negotiations.
I regret not being able to visit Aqueduct. I am still feeling the sting from losing Fairplex, Hollywood Park, Golden Gate Fields, and all of the NorCal fair circuits.
I would not be surprised if in the next 10 or so years, the only places left will at least be Oaklawn, Belmont, and Churchill Downs. Everywhere else is pretty much endangered or critically-endangered from being lost forever.
The final race in Aqueduct history goes to ASSUME NOTHING.
Jaime Rodriguez was up for trainer Jamie Ness, closing the book on more than 130 years of racing at The Big A.
It is brought up quite a bit here on the media outlets, as I'm about 4 hours south of there. The scarier thing is so many people have known about this guy's unscrupulous practices for about 10-12 years. That is why he has nice properties in Vegas and living a posh life at the animal shelters' and general public's' expense. Why did it take this damn long?
I bet your bottom dollar that several hundred, if not more, animal bodies were thrown into that massive Eel River nearby his property. Too bad there will be no way to know and/or recover anything, as it dumps out directly to the Pacific Ocean. I hope more workers or volunteers testify, as one of them was the tip off about having bodies dumped into that river. I am just surprised he is able to run his rescue while they are digging up his property. Does not make any sense.
@Kbubs34 Laurel Park is next for sure because of the Pimlico remodeling. Gulfstream Park give or take not too long after Laurel goes. Monmouth has probably no more than 10 years left.
Kind of wonder if it is a mental issue at this point? Ever since he hit the gate at the start of the Breeders' Cup Classic, he is now hesitating and breaking slowly.
I think that's exactly what people are trying to figure out. "No unauthorized access or breach" only means that they don't believe an outsider hacked the system. It doesn't rule out the possibility that someone with legitimate access improperly shared or redistributed the information. That would explain why they're now talking about restricting access and limiting the amount of data available. They haven't actually said that's what happenedβbut they also haven't explained how the information got out, if there was not a breach.
I wrote an article on my profile with a detailed response to your statement, but I'll skip to the end with these questions:
"...determine what information should be made publicly available..."
That almost sounds like the response to a leak is to release less information. Is the solution to reduce public disclosure rather than identify who improperly distributed the information?
If there was no hack, no unauthorized access, and your security systems all worked properly, then who had legitimate access to this information and how did it end up in commercially distributed past performances?
My mom was sending me pictures from her backyard yesterday, and it looked like the old 80s heavy smog days. I told her to stay inside and keep everything closed. It is already bad enough she endured the fallout from the Eaton Fire, as she lives a mile from that... and now this.