I guess if I had a derby quality horse and he wasn't sound and I knew it, I wouldn't want to risk running him in a hopeless situation. I would rather try to get him right and bring him back to the races later.

5) The comments that are/were left in response to my blog entries on KentuckyDerby.com are not screened. In fact, if one was to go back and read all of the comments left on my blog entries, he would see several that are critical of me and my observations. I will say that during Derby Week, the website received a lot of traffic, and many people wrote me to say they were having trouble leaving comments. But neither I nor anyone else was screening anything.

The official site of the Kentucky Derby has to do a better job than this. I dont remember seeing any note that they were having trouble with comment traffic during this time. It just does not look good even now. I realize this is not your fault, but the official site of the Kentucky Derby should be able to handle the traffic of a dwindling % of people actually interested in racing in this country. This is the race of the year in the United States.The internet has provided an immense platform for communication. If this little site can handle the traffic, the official site of the Kentucky Derby surely should be able to.

They didn't necessarily think it was a hopeless situation. With a lot of these problems, the trainer doesn't really know how the horse will run. They know there is a problem. They treat the problem and hope for the best. Until the horse is all-out in a race, you don't know for sure whether the problem will bother the horse or not.

The Derby is such a big race, that these guys will often take chances that they shouldn't take. Last year, I heard that Bandini had a huge ankle on him going into the Derby. They should have never run him but they did.

pgardn,

KentuckyDerby.com received many millions of hits during Derby Week, and over four million on Derby Day alone. Most people were able to post without a problem, and all visitors were able to read content without interruption. Those behind the scenes at KentuckyDerby.com did an awesome job keeping the website up and running. There was a period early in the week when posting comments was more difficult. But this was fixed by mid-week.

It was even worse two years ago.

Well maybe it was coincidence, but that was about the time I tried to post something also, and I did not see that many comments in the blog section. It appeared deserted. If a site knows that people are having problems, I think the best way to remedy the situation is acknowlege the problem at the site. Maybe this was done, but I did not see it. And I did enjoy the site and reading the articles, little video pieces etc... Anyways, this is not your duty. Just something to consider next year.

i'm sure traffic goes up on this site around the derby but just go to any search engine and type in "kentucky derby" to see which site is on top.

i don't disagree with your point that they should have sufficent bandwidth at the offical site but the fact this place wasn't swamped isn't evidence it's an easy fix.

steve should be so lucky to have that problem.

Was that the year that High Fly and Noble Causeway were hobbling around all week? Those two horses were really sore.

Touche!

I'm sorry if I called you a douchebag. If I didn't, i'm sorry I didn't do so.

If a site is having problems, acknowleging such is good business.

I'm a little touchy on this subject as I see the rise of the internet a great opportunity for the sport to flourish. And then I read all the posts about people that want to access places to bet diff. tracks and all the difficulty associated with signals from diff. tracks and on and on with the haggling. It just frustrates the crud out of me. And I dont even wager over the internet.
So wasteful. One sees so many other "industries" thriving because of this medium and horse racing cant get its _____ together.

pgardn,

Also keep in mind that this was the first year that fans were able to post on KentuckyDerby.com. So it was uncharted territory to a certain extent. All things considered, this was the best version of KentuckyDerby.com ever.

I don't mind being called names like "douchebag" and 'idiot" and "moron". I have been called a lot worse in my life, and I can take it. However, I would like to correct a few things that are being incorrectly stated in this forum.


2) Both I and the clocker in question knew exactly where Hard Spun was stabled. In my email box, I received a list twice a day that told me where every Derby contender was stabled. It was widely known that Hard Spun was at Keeneland. The clocker in question had seen his workout at Churchill Downs in mid-April, and had seen him train in the mornings at Keeneland. I will admit that the way I wrote the blog entry made it sound that Hard Spun was currently stabled at Churchill Downs. That was also my fault, and the result of poor wording by me. However, Hard Spun's location was not really the point of the blog entry. The point was that a private clocker had told me that the horse was sore.


Justin,

I was probably one of your biggest critics when the events around this blog and my attempted responses on the Derby website took place. If I offended you in any way I apologize. My problem with the blog was two fold...the first was the fact that no matter what the intent of the article was, it all changed was you said "since his arrival at Churchill." I know that in situations like the Derby, you rely heavily on "heresay" but to throw out a comment like that on one of the potential favorites and to mistakingly report his location put you behind the eight ball. Then when I tried to respond on the Derby site and at first my response appeared to go through but was not visible on the site and then I attempted to repost and I received an error message that said I was not authorized to post...well I got a little cranked up....it was an unfortunate incident and all is good as far as I am concerned....all could really be forgiven if you give me a Preakness bomb.....:D

Samarta,

Any time someone who has never met me or spoken to me calls me a name, I take absolutely zero offense.

Again, while my words were chosen poorly, I did not report that Hard Spun was stabled at Churchill Downs. I said that the clocker in question had watched him train "since his arrival at Churchill." If you want to get technical, Hard Spun DID arrive at Churchill in mid-April. He just happened to leave a few hours later and head back to Keeneland. I feel people focused on this poorly-worded passage because it made it easier to dismiss what I was "reporting" in the first place, which was that a clocker told me that Hard Spun looked sore and stiff, and I would not be betting on him as a result.

I have no idea if the horse was sore or not, but he sure didn't run like it in the Derby.

Every year, there is a horse (or two) who runs a great race in defeat in the Derby. That horse then gets heavily-bet in the Preakness, but loses again. Just to name a few:

Cavonnier
Prince of Thieves
Congaree
Medaglia D' Oro
Peace Rules
Lion Heart
Closing Argument
Sweetnorthernsaint

I think Hard Spun and Curlin are in danger of joining that list this year.

You might want to take Lion Heart off that list ( I don't remember what Prince of Theives did so I will leave him alone against my better instincts ). All he did was get carried in the Derby by a wet track that hardly allowed anyone to make a significant move from behind. In fact, for that reason, perhaps Imperialism is the horse you should be using.

And, I wouldn't characterize those horses' performances as " great. " Semantics?

And...Peace Rules? He was on a pace that completely held together. He ran well but hardly special.

I didn't read about it here....I read about it in a little rag called The New York Times.

Okay, so I feel like an ass now....I apologize...

K, here's where we disagree, the story was that an expert writer for the Derby website reported on the condition of horse and when doing so didn't get his location right. That was the story...While we would all like to think that for handicapping purposes people overlooked the error, but the fact that your blog was the only report out there that would indicate he didn't look good...all other reports, accounts, phone calls, etc...said this colt was training and looked great...the only thing handicappers had to determine was whether or not, the workout took too much out of him...

Again, my apologies....

Sam

I can't believe I forgot Imperialism. He might be the best example. I'm pretty sure Andrew Beyer picked him either on top or near the top, and I remember being certain he would not run a lick.

Lion Heart ran big in the Derby, and was bet hard in the Preakness.

Same with Peace Rules.

"Great" was probably not the best word, but you catch my drift.

I do catch your drift....you're jealous of Andy Beyer.

Get in line.