Go through his entire career and tell me which races he shouldn't have run in, and what other races he should have. Tell me the EXACT mistakes made ages 2 through 8 with this horse. Otherwise it is all meaningless. should've could've is meaningless. I have eyes as well. Is Murray a good friend of your's?? I've never met the man myself so I don't know him at all. Since following his career since age 3, I really havn't ever said seeing him entered in a race saying to myself..."no way this horse belongs here." Perhaps you have...enlighten us all.

You're right... he used to love Churchill and now he doesn't? Amazing the excuses I've read. They need to retire the old boy and let him just be a horse.

How about you gfy instead?

That's a small sample for a horse that turned 8...which is fine. Sounds like age 2 through all of his 7 year old year til the end were fine.

Well, I had to give the horse the benefit of the doubt. What if he had just needed the race in Keeneland? I guess not, though. I really don't believe he was any more misplaced in the BCC last year than half of the field, though. After watching today's race, if he was my horse, I'd retire him. Not to put words in anyone else's mouth, but... he really has done enough.

I honestly don't know what you mean here and I really don't know how to physically do that to myself if I infer what you mean. I'm not the genius here. I'm asking for answers other than "I say so." Back up a premise with concrete facts is all I'm asking here.

(thanks for this anyway. it doesn't help me much though...it would probably hurt as well.)

Nah, not really.

(I kid. :D )

It's pretty easy to figure out. Johnson is a 10% trainer. Put the horse in a barn like Amoss or Pletcher and the horse makes much more money because those guys know how to put a horse in the right race.

Ok, I understand the argument now. It's based on Johnson's training ability. I still think he put him in good races for most of his career that he belonged in. I dont' think placement was ever much of a problem with him. I see the same things said about Sanders, and I really don't think Teuflesberg's placements have been too bad this year either for the most part.

IF he's bad, he's bad I guess. I dont' study trainer stats too much which is where I am lacking. I guess Drift could have gone to a better trainer with a better chemistry set and won 6.3 million I suppose and 2 more grade 1s I suppose. Whatever....

The horse could've had wings today and it still wouldn't have changed the result. Just because these suspect trainers juice doesn't mean they can't train.

I dont think I knocked his spotting of the horse, I just dont think Murray is any kind of trainer. Its nothing I can explain to you or prove to you. To prove it you would have to watch him train that horse day after day. You would need to have a general idea how its supposed to be done. Then you would probaly draw the same conclusion I have. The horse was an extreme talent that could have been anything. He probably reached half his potential, maybe 60 percent.

Now the horse is old and doesnt want to run anymore. He was old 2 years ago and didnt want to do it anymore. For a nice classy horse like PD its no fun getting your brains beat in. Im sure somewhere between being old, and getting drilled he lost his desire to run

There are many horses who have won a great deal of money -- who many (and I refer to well-respected horsemen) feel, are of the opinion, etc. that the horse was minsmanaged. In certain cases this may be an exercise in futility, others perhaps not. Eventually though it all ends up supposition because the horse raced where he raced.

As far as a horse being mismanaged, here in this forum, we could really only talk about where the horse was placed. As far as the training side of mismanagement -- no offense to anyone -- that is merely a bunch of armchair trainers, internet and self-proclaimed experts, etc. talking nonsense about something that for the most part they know nothing about. If Chuck Simon wanted to give his opinion, that's another story, but that's also another discussion.

I have found that sitting on the front-side, and sitting in judgement of decisions -- some of which are -- made on the back-side, is extremely easy and extremely foolish. The arguement here is a perfect example of the core issue though. This horse would have won more money if he had been with a better trainer; and many better trainers tend to pick better sopts. Yes, they are better trainers, but their results also come from being more aggressive.

Eric

The horse wasnt terribly mismanaged, he was terribly trained.

by the same token, with another trainer, more aggressive, maybe perfect drift would have fizzled out faster. they like to give their horses a break over the winter, and perfect drift made the most of that every year til this one.

he may have done more with someone else, but my gosh, how much more do you want? this has been a heck of a horse for quite some time. he beat some of the best in the game when they were at the top of their game. it's a shame to see him finishing up the track now.

Nonsense. Just send him to Finger Lakes so he can "give a thrill to the smaller track fans" a.k.a. find a bunch of crappy horses he can finally beat so there's an excuse to keep running him for another year or two. Perfect Drift would be bored in retirement, don't you know?! Embarrassment on the racetrack is way cooler than boredom!