couldn\'t both scenarios be true? they aren\'t mutually exclusive.
the horse has had issues before the derby and was receiving electric shock therapy--which put me off betting him in the derby, even though he was the horse i liked the best (ggrrrrrr).
and the trainer has a history of playing fast and loose with the rules against doping horses.
couldn\'t the horse be both doped and injured? doesn\'t it kind of make sense that a horse with soundness issues that won two difficult races impressively within a two week span might need to be doped to do so? a horse can be a great talent and still be doped. jan ullrich was arguably the most naturally talented man to ever peddle a bicycle, but he was stilled doped....carl lewis was one of the most naturally talented sprinters ever to run a race, but he was still doped....
my first thought on hearing the announcement was that the detention bar must have succeeded in preventing the pre-race dosing, and they were scratching to avoid being big brown redux.
given that IHA\'s injury is incredibly minor at this point, his retirement seems really over the top and is the biggest red flag of all, to me at least. plus, any scans of horses that have raced as hard as he had over five weeks would show \"the beginnings of tendinitis.\" most horses in the race yesterday would show the \"beginnings of tendinitis.\" most horses at any track would show the beginnings of tendonitis--i have full blown tendonitis for christ\'s sake, and i\'ve never run farther than the end of my drive way. the whole story just doesn\'t mesh.
so yeah, what i think happened is that the horse failed a test or somebody was caught with something they shouldn\'t have had, and at first the connections thought they could keep it quiet by just scratching, but scratching screwed over the NYRA too, and if the NYRA was going to loose money, they were going to make sure the connections lost a lot of money, and said, \"retire him, or we tell.\"
i used to be an avid fan of cycling--way before lance armstrong. i learned more about human blood chemistry, oxygen transport, and lacate-processing than most doctors. one thing i never got over, and why i finally washed my hands of the sport, is that no matter how clear cut the doping wass, none of them ever really ever admitted it--that seemed to be the worst thing imaginable to them, worse even than the threat of dying, which many cyclists in their late teens and early 20s did when EPO was first introduced in the early 90s. so yeah--i can totally see o\'neil and especially reddam willing to try to cash in on the horse\'s stud fees, rather then be paraded around as the duo that stole the kentucky derby.
keep in mind that despite the wide spread belief that racing has a lot of doped horses in it, racing has never had it\'s black sox moment. it never had its BALCO. it never had its festina affair (the first time doping in cycling became incontrovertible). given all that, i can well believe that everyone involved wanted the story to go away, and really, that is the only thing that explains the insant retirement of a horse that is clearly not even lame--algorithms was lame, yet they are still going to try to bring him back; uncle mo was half dead, yet they were intent on racing him.
the one thing i do not believe is that any of this was motivated by considerations for the horse\'s well being, even though i am absolutely willing to believe the horse has soundness issues or even a minor injury
