Is it the end of an era? Perhaps… There’s that
20 year-old winner’s circle presentation picture from
July 26th, of 1986 illustrating 2-year-old Nadia Lobell
in front and drawing clear in the $915,000 Sweetheart stake
at The Meadowlands.
That’s what Sweethearts went for back then. Needless
to say the collective entourage in the winner’s circle
might not be that recognizable were the photo reprised in
2006 and sadly not everyone in that picture is still with
Nor for that matter is Nadia Lobell.
The world champion race filly who amongst other things
forecasted the ensuing explosions from her then first crop
sire No Nukes succumbed to a severe case of laminitus and
was euthanized on December 23rd. Nadia was not in foal at
the time having dropped her 06 Red River Hanover filly a
tad too late to be rebred hence the decision was made to
breed her to Rocknroll Hanover in early 07.
A foal of 1984, Nadia Lobell would have been 23 years old
Keep receiving positive feedback on the first crop Red River
Hanover and dare we say it’s almost reminiscent of
the early talk on the first crop of No Nukes way back when
in the vein of perhaps an unexpected though noticeable similarity.
No Nukes himself was considered a colt of unfulfilled destiny
showing superstar speed on occasion but lacking the consistency
to rank on a par with Niatross’ Cam Fella’s
and Sonsam’s of his era. Likewise can be said for
Red River Hanover who on North American Cup Night at Woodbine
was perhaps as awesomely impressive as any colt in modern
times shattering all existing Canadian speed records though
his thereafter consistency left something to be desired.
It’ll be interesting to follow the story as it further
In response to Standardbred Canada’s survey on name
changes, our position has always been and remains that once
the named yearling is sold, the new owner has paid his money
for and is therefore entitled to rename the individual as
he sees fit. No matter how much we may have liked what we
originally called it.
THE CALIFORNIA CASE
Here’s one for our legal eagles to guide us through.
In that the driver has been convicted of accepting a bribe
not to use his “best effort” and faces charges
of conspiracy to commit grand theft which we assume is the
actual act of not utilizing the best effort in order to
affect the outcome, one wonders if the process of “racing
easy” and/or merely qualifying for lucrative finals
via half hearted attempts in eliminations does not constitute
the very same thing? After all, the ultimate outcome of
the event is similarly affected
While we’re touching on legalities, wouldn’t
those in charge of accepting wagers on a legally sanctioned
sporting event bear some fiduciary responsibility to those
doing the wagering to warrant that all has been done in
order to ensure that all contestants are indeed providing
their ultimate “effort”?
Be this even remotely the case, then would they not bear
a fiduciary responsibility to disclaim otherwise in obvious
scenarios such as those above mentioned eliminations and
cite on the program that contestants in these events need
only finish wherever applicable in order to “qualify”
for the final? That way the bettor is accordingly advised
and his wagering integrity is at least protected.
By all means… Some are more important than others.
That’s reality. Since the participants have long used
certain events as stepping stone to other events, it seems
somewhat archaic not to acknowledge via a coherent grading
Congratulations to the Scarlet Knights (Rutgers football
team) on their stellar season culminating in Texas Bowl
rout of Kansas State. But then again didn’t we offer
at least some form of tribute when we named the Pine Chip-Ruby
Crown colt SCARLET KNIGHT?