Nobody earns any credibility by being wishy-washy. Sorry but it's just too damn easy.

You want to " take a stand " in the JCGC? Fine, then tell me that Invasor won't be one-two, and tell me why, and then be right. Being a wise guy ( which obviously someone going against Invasor vs. Bernardini isn't being ) is about knowing when to go against the pack and being correct enough to earn credibility. Otherwise you're just another guy with a bad opinion.

I'm not saying this to be a jerk but to try to explain my position on what taking a stand is all about. I will take a stand....Fleet Indian will never win another race and I will be surprised if she even makes the Breeder's Cup. And, if she does, Baletto will finish ahead of her.

Fair enough. But he did win when he shipped to Northern California.

I would actually hold his NY and Florida races against him more if he lost by 3-5 lengths. Then at least I could come up with a hypothesis that makes sense. I could hypotehsize that O'Neil is cheating in some way and he can't do it on the road and the horse regresses by a few lengths on the road. But the horse lost those races by 15 lengths. Even if O"Neil does have some sort of secret edge in California, it's not going to be something that improves the horse by 15 lengths. In addition, I've never heard that the horse is a really nervous horse or a bad shipper. If I heard that he was a really bad shipper and becomes a nervous wreck when he ships, then that could explain his poor perfomances. But since I've never heard that, I just think the horse was either knocked out and/or hurt at the end of the year last year. I know they said his feet were bothering him. I don't know why he ran so bad in Florida. It could have been anything. I don't know why Saint Liam ran so bad in California.

I thought you were going to take a stand, not state the obvious.

True. I was trying to be clever.

I can't say that Invasor won't finish 2nd. There may not be any other good horses in the race. I will predict that Bernardidni beats him by at least 3 lengths. I haven't been particularly impressed with any of Invasor's races.

With the exception of the three races outside of Cali he hasn't run anywhere but Del Mar, Hollywood, or Santa Anita since September of his 3yo season when he ran at Fairplex.

In all three of his races outside the state he tired badly, was stalking the pace early and just didn't have anything in the tank after that. I would think a horse tiring sooner than normal could be associated with meds.

You mean about what any 3:5 or 1:2 shot rates to beat a 2:1 shot by in a reasonably uncompetitive race? Stating the obvious is not taking a stand.

I actually kind of like Invasor, though obviously his races are inferior to those of Bernardini, but at least he has won a couple of battles. I think he will prove a tougher foe than you think. However, it's a hardly a race that holds any betting interest for me.

Plus, I will already be flush with cash after Fleet Indian turns back into a pumpkin earlier in the day.

I don't get this; care to back it up ???

If you " don't get " it then you would need it explained. If you want it backed up then you get it but just don't agree.

Which is it?

Fleet Rat. Indian Rat. Fleet Donkey. Indian Mule. Fleet Cheat. Indian Turtle.

Which one do you like the best Andy? You'll be grinning like a Chesire Cat when Fleet Indian stops like an old yugo. It will be a feather in your cap.

Explain it, please.

For a number of reasons I do not believe the performances of many horses at Delaware Park are a fair representation of their actual ability. One reason I believe this is I have seen MANY horses over MANY years run high speed figures at Delaware Park that they simply do not reproduce at other tracks. Another reason is that their barn area has been populated, since the implementation of slots, with a number of trainers who win with a surprisingly high percentage of their starters. These trainers also belonged to the list of trainers who always seemed very adept at improving horses very rapidly once said horses came under their care. Yet another reason is that the State of Delaware was hardly helpful in the attempts by racing to have uniform medication rules.

with a number of trainers who win with a surprisingly high percentage of their starters. These trainers also belonged to the list of trainers who always seemed very adept at improving horses very rapidly once said horses came under their care

How is Delaware any different than NY Andy?

It seems like Delaware form does not get reproduced with anywhere close to the regularity of other tracks. I used to think it was the surface but now I believe it's the relaxed " atmosphere ".

Does Delaware have cases of trainers sawing off horse limbs and eye winking before races?

That's not my department. I just try to analyze the data.

Tim I've been told that the testing there is questionable, at best.

One of my trainers ran a horse at Delaware last year. He told me he was appalled at some of the stuff going on there. He said it's like the "old west" there, meaning that there's not much law or order and guys do whatver they want.

Retribution wins the feature yesterday. Oops, did somebody forget to go with him early? They should have just given that horse an 1/8th of a mile head start, would have looked just as straight.

Rup I do know that an agent I respect very much won't even look at horse who run there for private purchase no matter how well they run. Doesn't trust the place, I agree.

Tim thats just a silly implication.
I don't know if you realize it or not but a stakes race worth that much money isn't gonna be tampered with.

Sunshine Millions at Gulfstream was before being fit with blinkers. He's lost 3 times since the blinkers: Pacific Classic where he was vanned off the track after setting insane fractions; JCGC where he was probably rushed back too soon to the races after the PC and wasn't given any time to settle in at the barn at Belmont and he bled in that race; and the Japan Cup where all he did was tear off his foot, left a trail of blood from the track back to his barn, and left the Kenlys and Wood thinking about retiring him.

He's won 9 of his last 12 and won nearly $3.3 Million in those 12 races.

He's the richest horse off a claim in history by daylight now over Budroyale.

He's the first horse since an Eclipse winner named Vanlandingham in 1985 to win a Grade 1 on dirt and turf in the same year in North America.

He's the first horse in 40 years to win back to back Hollywood Gold Cups (Native Diver) and he's the first horse to win back to back summer Hollywood Park Horse of the Meet awards in 40 years, too.

He's the first horse since the last Triple Crown winner, Affirmed, to win the Santa Anita Handicap and Hollywood Gold Cup in the same year.

He's the first horse since Exceller to win the Whittingham/Turf Invitational and Hollywood Gold Cup in the year.

He's the first horse ever to sweep the SA 'Cap, HGC, and Pacific Classic in the same year.

You put it altogether and ask how good he is? He's a great horse. Period. You can all demean, show hate, debate, but history is on his side. I'm sure that some knuckleheads were questioning Best Pal or John Henry, but, fortunately, they didn't have Internet bulletin boards for anonymous know-it-alls back then.

You can do the same "who did he beat" crap with Cigar - let's see the only two real horses were probably Holy Bull who broke down in the Donn and Best Pal who was at the end of the road. And think of it, when he faced Skip Away in the JCGC, he lost. Cigar must've been a fraud, right guys? Concern was a fluke BC Classic winner just as Giacomo was a fluke KY Derby winner. Let's see who else Cigar beat? Wekiva Springs, Silver Goblin, La Carriere, Soul of the Matter ... none of them will be going in the HOF any time soon.

Lava Man, so far in his wins, has defeated the JCGC and Pacific Classic Winner, Borrego; Breeders' Cup Juvenile Winner, Wilko; Kentucky Derby Winner, Giacomo; Santa Anita Derby Winner, Buzzard's Bay; Grade 1 winners: Good Reward, Perfect Drift, and King's Drama. None of these dudes are going in the HOF either, but it's not like that he's only faced Grade 3 horses.

I'm NOT comparing Lava Man to Cigar as that would be ridiculous, but I am stating that the moronic b.s. about "who did he beat" should play no role whatsoever in demeaning a horse who has achieved things not seen ever or not seen for one or two generations on the track. The accomplishments speak volumes.

You are right, I'd forgotten he beat Giacomo AND Wilko. It takes a real monster to accomplish that.

I'd forgotten that you were a genius. Sorry.

Thank you for pointing out what is obvious: Lava Man is the best older horse in America. He is very special. :cool:

Ya had me in agreement until this statement. Now I am not going to overtake this thread, but don't you DARE diss my little Broad Brush son who ran his heart out everytime! Concern was three times the racehorse that Giacomo will ever be!

Not that you were saying Giacomo was a great horse, but Don't compare my little boy to him. It is demeaning.

Thanks, Bold Reasoning, but that's not my point. Truthfully, Invasor might be the best older horse running in America right now. But for historic impact and significance over the course of a career-to-date, Lava Man is a great horse because of the accomplishments that I listed previously.

And did you know that Hall of Famer Native Diver never won a stakes race outside of California?

I'm much less concerned about the immediacy of Eclipse Awards and the like for Lava Man - it's his historic importance that is being torn about by geniuses who make pithy comments on this thread and others that concern me.

Says who? Racing is about many things. If you are talking about handicapping successfully, then it most certainly is NOT about taking the kind of position that says a horse has no chance or says a horse is a lock. Those are the kind of "stands" that complete amateurs would take. Every horse has a chance. The successful capper is one who can tell that the odds he or she is getting on a bet is better than "fair" odds.

I'm sure Rupert will have a "position" when it counts, which is on race day. A reasonable position at that point is NOT "I'm going to bet Lava Man." A reasonable position would be "I'll bet Lava Man if it looks like I'm going to get 6-1", or some other number that Rupert thinks is higher than "fair" odds.

Is this your idea of "taking a position"? What does "I will be stunned" mean exactly? Would you give me 50-1 on LM hitting the board? Do you think Lava Man has less than a 10% chance of hitting the board? Without even capping the race carefully, I'll take all the action at 9-1 that you want to give. That's a good bet for you if you think Lava Man has less than a 10% chance to hit the board. But I'm pretty sure that that bet is not appealing to you. So what is "stunned" exactly?

Let me shift gears a minute. What if I say that Invasor is a great bet at 7-1 in the JCGC? Well, if he wins, am I a genius? If he loses, am I a dope?

If I like Invasor at 7-1 and he loses, so what? If I win 20% of my 7-1 bets, I would be the envy of every sports bettor and handicapper in the world. But winning 20% of the time means losing 80% of the time. (I know you knew that, ;>), but I'm stressing the downside!) So Invasor losing doesn't say much about my capping, does it?

In a similar vein, Invasor winning wouldn't make me a genius either. Maybe Invasor winning is the only 7-1 shot I'll pick in my next 20 bets in that odds range.

Over the course of time if accurate records were being kept, which they certainly aren't here, statements like "I like Invasor at 7-1" would add up and either show the person knows how to cap or doesn't know squat. But tossing out an opinion, or worse, a "stand", here and there doesn't prove anything.

And insisting that someone "take a stand" rather than voice a hedged opinion is ludicrous.

--Dunbar

Not meant to be demeaning...I was just looking at the career. Concern is probably a better horse than Giacomo, but he (Concern) only won 2 Grade 1's in his career: the Classic and the Californian Stakes when it was a Grade 1. As a footnote, Lava Man won last year's Californian when it was a Grade 2 - does he get bonus points lol.

P.S. I love Broad Brush. Great horse, great sire, should be in the hall of fame without question, as what a horse has done off the track in the breeding shed should be allowed to play a role in selection.

I've "followed" Delaware for years, but I know I'm not privy to the backstretch goings-on as you are. I'm not sure what trainers you're referring to. Scott Lake is winning at 23% there (he's a guy who's improved horses he's claimed) and he races elsewhere with even better results. Other than Klesaris and Pletcher, the leading trainers are in the 20% realm of winners. One guy I've seen improve dramatically horses he's claimed there is Howard Wolfendale, who is almost a sure thing to win off the claim; but other than that I haven't seen any more dubious outcomes than other tracks.
Delaware was the only track that wouldn't give stall space to Michael Gill after the "year" he had at Gulfstream and the questionable goings-on involving his vet. Now whether you consider that decision right or wrong, it seems to say that Delaware was somewhat concerned with "image" and reputation.

I really don't need your obvious dissertation on value wagering. Thanks for the effort but I actually understood it going in.

On the other hand, while believe it or not, I probably have a better resume of successful wagering than you, I think when discussing horses on this board it gives a poster more credibility if he or she has stronger opinions and doesn't hedge what they say constantly. That was the point I was making.

All I said was I would be shocked if Lava Man hits the board. I never said I was taking a stand though I am quite sure that come race day I will take a stand that at least somewhat hinges on that opinion ( where it counts...at the betting windows ). The fact that you have chosen to assault me as though I made some outrageous claims about that opinion is what is actually, to steal a word from your post, ludicrous.

Yes, I agree with pretty much everything you said. When it comes to taking a stand in general whether you're talking about a stock, a sports team, or a horse, I have always found that the really successful people are more conservative with their prdictions than the people who are not successful. It's fuuny how the biggest losing players are the ones who will "guarantee" you that a certain team is going to win or they are "positive" that a stock will go up. The guys who are the most successful will rarely make bold predictions, they will tell you their opinion but they will usually throw in a disclaimer as to why they might be wrong. I've got a frined who is a really successful money manager who is woth over $100 million. he doesn't give me stock picks too often but when he does his record has been incredible. He gave me one stock at $14 and it went to $70 within a year. He gave me another one at $16 that went to $80 in less than a year. As good as this guy is, he never acts like any of these stocks are "sure things".

There is another guy who was a childhood friend of mine that I hadn't spoken to in a long time. I heard he was a stock broker so I gave him a call to see what his thoughts were. He was a relatively bright guy as a kid but I had no idea whether he was a good stock broker or not. It took me about 3 minutes on the phone with him to figure out that he was not a very good broker. He told me that some $50 stock would go to $100 within 6 months. I said, "Wow, you think so?" He said, "I know so!" Right when he said that, I thought to myself "This guy is a schmuck." Who would say, "I know so!" He actually said "I know so!" about each predition that he gave me. By the way, it was no surprise to me when I heard that he was broke a couple of years later.

This is an easy one...i'm basing this on past performances and not my opinion....look at his last three finishes outside the state of California....that is called a distinct pattern, sir......he is NOT the same horse when he leaves the Golden state....

I know a little bit about Dunbar and I can tell that I would be extremely surprised if you have made more money gambling than he has. I'm not saying you haven't because I don't know anything about you. I'm saying that you would have had to have made some serious money over the years gambling because Dunbar has been successful at it for a long time. He's not afraid to step up to the plate either.

What's the big deal about all this?

Lava Man has knocks. Great year, but can he travel, etc...?

Bernidini's just a 3 yo. Great year, but can he beat older?

Invasor's not all that thrilling. Great year, but beating Sun King by a nose?

Wouldn't be surprised to see any or all of them lose or run out of the exacta. Hopefully that will be my opinion on BC Day.

I appreciate peoples' opinions and there's nothing wrong having one.

But all the salty comments are kind of silly, still seven weeks out.

I agree 100%...Fleet Indian would only be a pace factor in a race like the BC Distaff, where Balletto's late run would be much more highy beneficial....Happy Ticket would stalk and pounce on Fleet Indian and break her heart so quickly on the far turn that it would make her head spin....

Also, if Oonagh McCool can return to her best, she is the distaffer in that barn with a Spun Sugar a close second....

Certainly giving me a ridiculously simple ( and wholly unnecessary ) lecture on " any horse is playable at the right price " does not encourage me to believe he is a big winner at the racetrack. Anything is possible but his opening salvo hardly made me a believer. Now seeing that you two have some kind of relationship makes his unnecessary interuption even less interesting.

Regardless, it's all just an exchange of thoughts, nothing more. I enjoyed it.

Oonagh McCool? She was just a dress rehearsal for Fleet Indian. Her career came to an abrupt halt in the Go For Wand much like Indian Vale's did in the Shuvee.

And that's the point I was trying to attack. I'm sorry if it came across as personal.

IMO, the whole (handicapping) game is about having carefully formulated opinions. My impression from your posts in this thread was that you equate a "strong" opinion with an extreme opinion. I thought you wanted people to say "A horse is going to win" or "isn't going to win". Those are the kind of statements that I think have little value, and I don't think they give a poster credibility. Quite the contrary.

I'm not sure how that differs from what Rupert was doing, which you seemed critical of.

I'm honestly sorry if it came across as an assault on you. I was indeed ticked at the idea that a strong (unhedged?) opinion brings credibility, but I did not mean to make it personal. I could have chosen much better wording.

--Dunbar

No problem. To be honest I realized when I was posting the " take a stand " diatribe that it was, in essense, contrary to successful wagering. I was just somewhere between having fun and making a point.

I guess I just feel like in the fairy tale world of the internet it's a little more fun if we have stronger opinions of specific horses and races. It makes the arguments more entertaining. I think the depth of opinions will identify the ones worth paying attention to anyway.