OOOOOO

I can use lack of early speed against Pyro as a knock vs same re YB speifically, as you mentioned, because Pyro is 7/2 and YB is 40/1 (or whatever). That's overlooking the obvious fact that it was YB's first race on dirt and he's certainly at least as likely as Pyro to move forward. I don't think it would have been possible for Pyro to have gotten a better trip/set up laying off Charlie and JbK. Given that Charlie lasted for 2nd and that YB wound up within 3-4 lengths of Pyro in his first dirt race, it's certainly not inconcievable YB can gain those 3 or 4 over the next eight weeks and his next race.

You're right they both are pace challenged. The difference is one is the Derby favorite now and the other could go off 40-1. If you go with the hyped horses, good luck. If you're correct on your key or press, you can find a very nice exacta. But if I bet the race, I'll play something long in all the slots in the tri/super with several others. Sometimes it works for me as it did with Steppenwolfer. Sometimes it doesn't like last year when I used Kaplan's horse Sedgefield.

As an aside, I'm going to be spending a bit more time this year looking at the California horses. These guys out there aren't fools and it's pretty likely they are going to do better this year than last year, the first year of poly-preps.

More important, how would I have done with the pg85 prop bet?

How does a thread about a horse who "stinks," (and isn't a legit derby contender) have this much interest?

Because Yankee Bravo is a monster, scuds. He's not from hee haw land.

Hell yes.He is getting paid to write opinions.I have been censored twice already for stuff I wrote in this thread.So,I can tell I am hitting Eastern Nerve here,but I think he was sloppy to say this horse isn't a legit derby contender.I give it 50% chance the horse goes off the trail with injury.40% chance the horse fires strong in the derby,and 10% chance the horse does nothing while running in the derby.That's the way I think it is.So,yea if he gets his shot and runs poorly,then I will come say I was wrong.I fully expect it will be the other 90%,but we will see.You and him have 10% chance to come in here and say "see,he had no shot." I feel the horse will be in the exotics.Be tough for him to actually win with the winemaker up.With somebody else? Lookout,Andy,he comin'.

whats an eastern nerve?..oh thats the one that connects your balls to your wallet..:eek:

The question isn't whether you will come on and call yourself wrong, in the event YB runs poorly in the derby. The question is will you call yourself stupid and sloppy. That is what you have called others who dont' share your opinion on YB. It's not so much you have hit eastern nerve, its more to do with your comments being boorish.

Oh, the old West Coast paranoia. Love that.

You think he was " sloppy " for giving his honest opinion? Thankfully, there are still a few journalists left that think giving their actual opinions is important. What would actually be " sloppy " is if he didn't analyze the race as he saw it. You disagree with his opinion, for whatever reasons, which is certainly your right. Insulting the guy just makes you look....well, I think ArlJim said it best, boorish.

I disagree with Steve on races on many occasions, not on the internet but when talking to him, but I have nothing but the greatest respect for his opinions.....as well as his right to have them. His work is never " sloppy. "

No,I did not say some horse wasn't a legit derby contender.He took that extreme road.He was sloppy to make a statement that is a stupid statement.I am not calling him stupid.The boorish statement was made by THE DRUGS GUY.HE SAID THE HORSE STINKS.Hey,if I was being paid to write,then, obviously, I would write more politically correct.I would be picking Pyro like the rest of these guys playing it safe.

Well,this time,Crist was sloppy.He was trying to make a case against Pyro,and got sloppy doing it.That's my opinion.What is this guy, the freakin' Dalai Lama? I don't care who said he is not a legit derby contender.That person is wrong,and it will be shown.Just let it play out,and now that you drank the same cocktail,you best hope Solis retains the mount,because it's a definite handicap the horse must be able to overcome.

He's wrong and sloppy because you disagree with him?

That's a new one. At least, however, you've already given yourself a built in excuse. Blaming the jockey before a race really bolsters your case.

I guess I'm wrong as well.....Yankee Bravo is about as ridiculous a supposed contender as I have heard meantioned on this Derby Trail. And that's saying something.

I miss things too. Maybe this one is in the chapter that reviews first time starters on the Big A inner?

I'd rather read Crist hand down a real opinion, good or bad than read Haskin who clearly thinks that any 3yo TB is a legit contender for the KY Derby.

I read both commentators for different reasons. Haskin often has quotes and post race info, as well as anticipated next starts for the Derby candidates. his content however reads like a glowing review of each and every colt. They can't all be that good, can they? Crist OTOH, will give me his honest opinion about a colt's efforts and chances next out. I have every right to disagree and every right to say so. That doesn't make his work sloppy. In fact few writers are as organized and careful in their preparation as Crist. I may disagree with every point he makes but I would never call him sloppy.

As to disagreement in general, the betting here is legal and encouraged. Put up or shut up. You like something? I don't so bet me! Either a prop bet or through the mutuel windows. The disagreement need not turn personal. If Crist doesn't like a horse you like it doesn't make him sloppy. He sees it differently from you. Take advantage and get your price.

I think that Yankee Bravo will most likely be in the field of 20 unless he gets hurt. I think that the horse would improve if they got him to focus a bit more. Maybe blinkers. I don't think he is near the top tier right now, but Pyro certainly is in the top 3. I don't think Yankee Bravo is a bad horse by any means either. Most likely, he would have won the El Camino.

I don't think Yankee Bravo is close to Cali's best after what I saw in the LA Derby.

Cali will get dismissed this year, and several of those horses can really run.

Now I am doomed. I need to buy back my Yankee Bravo futures.

I think in today's day and age of the BS the media puts forth, it's still great to see a journalist, reporter, media personality, etc. step up and give his/her definitive, blunt, and tell it like it is opinion. If someone disagrees, that's great. That's what makes the world go around. But to insult someone and belittle them or their opinion because one disagrees with it is foolish in my opinion.

Now, I am not saying that's what happened here, but in this industry we see that, and it's common.

Personally, I think sloppy journalism and opinions don't just come from someone else disagreeing with the opinion and author. The building in excuses is another aspect which also can become foolish.

Not on this horse, or this situation, but personally I think it would be foolish to completely throw out a horse because of a jock of Solis' stature. If you think a horse is the best horse in the race, and you are exclusively throwing him out because of Alex Solis, that's a fool play in my eyes.

Eric

I do too. Nice post.

Paranoia? I've been censored twice in this thread that started with a statement from an Eastern-based writer.He just happens to be the guy who wrote the original statement.I don't think I'd of been censored if I didn't hit the Eastern Nerve.This is East Coast Cappin' Royalty.I didn't go looking for a statement to attack.I just noticed it as a sloppy statement,and I can't show you it's sloppy until the Derby is run.The horse has run well in 3 stakes in a row(on 3 different surfaces.)He has fired in all 4 lifetime races.He is a deep rater in a race that is probably gunna have War Zito smoking along for 9 furlongs.I think PYRO and Bravo go by,and run top 4.This horse has had 4 races,and this guy rules him out as a legit derby contender? If it's his opinion,then I think it's made mainly with an East Coast bias against horses who have raced over synthetic race tracks.See,this is the same guy who said we rushed to put in synthetic surfaces out here.Well,we had to fill cards,and we couldn't do it if we continued to race on dirt.We don't have the sheer number of horses that other parts of the country do.

No,but you better go one slot wider than you think you need to.If you think he can run top 2 or 3 in the derby ,then you better use him 4th.This has not been a good derby rider,and the horse is at a handicap with him up.That's why I am not taking 40 or 50-1 on the horse right now.It's not because I don't think the horse is good enough to contend for the win.Now if I am writing where people can get me fired? Of course, I have to say the jock doesn't matter much.

I personally dont think he'll hit the board. In a perfect world where the stars lined up for him i think that type of running style gives him his best shot of hitting the board the Derby. Doesn't matter because it's a moot point.

Yes,you're wrong(as well.)You both have a bias against horses who have raced over synthetics.He has had 4 races(fired in all of them.)Ran well in 3 stakes on 3 different surfaces.Shows a lot of competitive fire.Solis says the horse is a baby still,and gunna get better.He says he is very special.He is one bad ride away from running 2nd to the horse that is the favorite (right now) to win the derby.Somehow he is not a legit derby contender? I am not the one saying something negative about a horse.You're the 2 ruling out a horse as a legit derby contender.Do you see me doing that to a horse? No.You 2 have the closed minds.It's your opinion.It's a negative opinion that I think is not based on anything sound.He has 3 wins and a 3rd.Even if you think he isn't good enough right now,how in the world can you say a horse with 4 races can't improve enough to contend.It is just sloppy.I repeat.It's a negative opinion about a horse.I have not stated a negative opinion about a horse here.I simply stood up for a horse who I think is being ruled out waaay to early by what is mainly an anti-synthetic bias.The horse simply hasn't done anything wrong yet.Even if you think he hasn't done enough right yet,what would make you think he can't improve enough in his 5th and 6th races to be a legit contender.Until he does something wrong,he is a LEGIT DERBY CONTENDER.I have the positive horse opinion.You've stated a negative horse opinion.

yankee bravo voted for bush..:cool: :eek:

You are hilarious. I am going to assume that you have some perverse new racing related comedy routine that you are testing for laughs on this site. I gotta say....two thumbs up....way up.

First you pulled the " censorship " card. Because you came on here ranting in the way middle of the night, and your posts were trimmed ( if you were truly censorsed this thread would have been removed....or worse ) does not mean you were censored. Get over it.

You call the most respected racing journalist in the country " sloppy " because you don't agree with him. But, we're wrong and you're right. I get it....I'm laughing. It's good stuff.

Then, I don't like the horse because I am biased against horses that have raced on synthetic surfaces. Why don't you throw in that I think women should be barefoot and pregnant while you're at it ( or any other racial slurs you feel compelled to use ). Hey, maybe some gay bashing would liven up your routine as well.

If this isn't your idea of some kind of joke then, frankly, I am worried about you.

Shhhh....that was my ace in the hole.

You want to go one slot wider, and all that, that's fine. However, if you are saying Solis has not been a good Derby rider -- thhn who has? Is that club limited to those who have won? Where does this arguement go? This is an arguement that cannot be won. It's one race, unlike any other, run once per year, under circumstances that many young, not fully mature, horses are facing for the first time, and so on and so on. You want to talk money rider, graded stakes rider, etc. -- that's a discussion that people can talk about. You can look at a much more global picture.

Sure there are jocks who you can easily say were great Derby riders. But to take a jock who has won 4 or 5 thousand races, has an excellent long standing, accomplished resume, etc. and say that he's not a great Derby rider -- I want to know why? For every reason -- opinion -- someone gives, there will be an opposing reason and opinion that counters it. There is no right and wrong here.

Eric

positive horse opinion vs. negative horse opinion? that's a new one.
with the positive horse opinion theory I guess no horses are ruled out yet.

Negative opinion is not new. At least to me.

Almost every bet I make is based on having a negative opinion about a short priced horse.

Frankly I don't think it is possible to win any other way. At some point you have to be right and if all you are right about is short priced horses,how do you win?

The way I see it,you get to say pretty much any fool thing you want on here.You're close friends with the owner of the site,and he can do as he pleases.Different rules for different folks around here.I told him to give me a list of the untouchable VIP like Crist,but he never gave it to me.Same was true when Cannon came on here telling me Street Sense wasn't aided by bias at the Churchill B.C. Well,did he ever look that way again? He won the derby,but not by 10 lengths.It wasn't like he hopped on a 10 speed n' everybody else was riding tricycles(that's about the way that Juvenile win looked..that was a biased track,but look at the war put up to deny it.) Even VIP are wrong sometimes.......or sloppy.

I will assume that was more of the routine.

Well,if anybody wants to see a routine, they can routinely see you banter about(like the RIDDLER WITH A QUESTION-MARK CANE.)

It's also self-evident that his best race was his first start on dirt, he may well have been giving away a conditioning edge to the winner and, oh, yeah, he's likely to be a big number if he makes the race.

If that is faulty, sloppy logic, put me down.

Then again, looking for the right viable long priced horse to crash the ticket never works. I suppose the Super in last year's Derby paid $30k because Street Sense won and the two behind him were on the "short list." And I guess the Super paid $90k the year before because Barbaro won.

There is more than just one way to play the game. But believing that is probably an egregious hole in my game, as the wisest of wise men would say.

This BC rail-bias argument is the greatest fallacy going. You're right, Street Sense didn't win the Derby by ten lengths, due to the presence of Hard Spun and Curlin. He did, however, trounce the same bunch of modest horses that he beat in the BC Juvenile (Circular Quay, Great Hunter, etc.) by the same margin in the Derby as he did in the BC Juvenile. So your point is ... ?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but....

The Churchill Downs rail that Street Sense came up in the Derby was actually liver than the one he came up in the Breeders Cup Juvenile....

However, the only reason that the rail got all the hype for being so live on Breeders Cup day is because post position #1 accounted for four of the five wins in BC dirt races (they being Dreaming of Anna, Street Sense, Thor's Echo, and Round Pond) - the lone loser who broke from post #1 was Brother Derek, who ran 4th in the Classic.

The rail was probably the prefered place to be on BC day in '06, but as mentioned by Davidowitz and Beyer in post race writeups, the rail at CD was pretty live throughout the Derby card last year.

In fact, of the top 5 finishers in last years Derby - only 3rd place finisher Curlin did not race on the rail for a very significant portion of the race.

Thanks for clearing that up. I wouldn't want to categorize your post as sloppy and now I won't.