I'm not a journalist. And this is a message board. And I called the race uninspiring because it didn't inspire me.

The dude's perspective is clearly (demonstrated by his other posts) FIGURE CENTRIC. Rather than noting how the winner, uncomfortable inside, is wrangled back by the jock, and then has enough to come back outside horse and win nicely, he's only interested in how fast the race will come back in terms of figures. This is because he's essentially clueless when it comes to the nuances of the game. Without numbers he wouldn't have an opinion. As it is, he doesn't have an opinion that's his own.

Now, why in the world would you want to engage/pick on someone like this?

Look, I said the winner looked good, didn't I? I just didn't think the race was all that great. It doesn't seem like anyone but the winner ran that well.

Just looking at the fractions, it wasn't all that inspiring to me. But as I said, if the track has been slow, then I might be wrong.

Here's an opinion of my own: I think I need to start taking myself more seriously if I'm gonna post here.

justindew, let's do this again tomorrow for all the feature races. The criticism of you will make me, sort of by default, appear to be a sophisticated race analyst

You might be right, only because I take myself and my "opinions" about 1/10th as seriously as the average DT poster.

But I have to keep Sheriff ateamstupid entertained.

P.S. Just looked at the times from GP today. Yep. Slow track. Imagine that.

The figure's gonna come back big anyway. He's wrong there.

Blah blah blah. If no one had called out your laziness and instead people had just gone with you, you'd still be talking authoritatively about the race. Now because I made you admit that you made a blanket declaration about the race without doing the slightest research, you were just joking and I'm taking you too seriously. OK.

Authoratively? Are you totally insane? I ADMITTED in my original post that I hadn't even looked at the times for the day. And you think that I THINK I'm an authority?

And I love that you claim to have "made me admit" something that I openly admitted in my original post, before you chimed in.

Also, my original post was a question. And you label that "authoratative".

Let's call this what it is: I write for KentuckyDerby.com, and based on that, you assume I think I am an authority. However, anyone who has read my blog would know without a doubt that this is not the case. Regardless, because you view me (incorrectly) this way, you take every chance you can to shoot down my opinions, probably because you are not a racing journalist (and neither am I), wish you were, and view me as one (which you admitted).

Do I pretty much have it?

Why wouldn't you just go take two seconds to check the day's times before calling the race slow and uninspiring?

It's like me saying "I'm convinced that you don't have a Japanese flag as your avatar (unless there is indeed a Japanese flag in your avatar)." Adding a qualification that would be easily satisfied to your blanket declaration is retarded.

Not really. You've got a journalistic platform, which lends you an air of credibility here. But you're a douche, and you're totally ignorant with a lot of the things you say. Rather than risk people being influenced by your douchey act, I choose to call you out on nonsense like "the race was slow, unless it wasn't." Sorry if that bugs you, but feel free to put me on ignore. And I don't want your job chief.

It's perfectly acceptable to see a race as uninspiring and THINK it's slow then go check the chart to find out what the final time was and how it stacked up with the times for the rest of the day.

I suppose the assertion that people here take their arguments seriously is true, but isn't that what you want? If a bunch of people came on and talked out of their a.ss all the time with no way to substantiate their point, what good would that do?

For that matter, I am a Capt. Candyman Can fan and thought the race was very strong. I am not unrealistic enough to think he's a Derby horse as he has seemed like an extended sprinter/miler to me from Day 1. He's in the hands of a very good horseman who has been schooled by one of the best trainers in the game.

I am cautiously optimistic.

NT

Upon further review, the Hutcheson was a solid race and my initial impression was baseless.

Have a nice day.

IMO the winner looked very good. I was totally disapointed with the 1, he was a top derby horse IMO, and I understand a prep and not being cranked up, but he was horrible today.

Capt. Candyman Can got a 100 BSF for his win in the Hutcheson. Frolic's Dream ran a 94 in the Forward Gal (way below the Wolfson avg) and Brave Victory got a 95 for his allowance win that was the race between the Forward Gal and Hutcheson.

NT