Need to consider giving up the game? Although I did not bet him for my own reasons but I can not fault anyone that took a stab with him for either the win/place slot. He fired a nice workout, top trainer and has some nice graded wins. With his odds your telling a lot of good handicappers to give up the game based on two races? Interesting......


Scat

Because we have these useful little things called speed figures that can help us use our minds as well as our eyes to evaluate horses.

Aside from that, he ran on a conveyor belt in the Juvy and got as good of a trip as a horse can get in the Derby. I'd say that should factor into the discussion that you think shouldn't happen because you linked to YouTube.

He was a good horse who also got extremely lucky in his Churchill wins. This idea that he was an indisputable horse for course is bizarre. He only won the Travers and was a head behind the horse of the year on other tracks.

we all have heard the term 'horses for courses'. i just appreciate a hard fought win against tougher circumstances far more than an easy win, whether a horse benefits from some sort of home field advantage or lack of good competition. it's why i appreciate rachels preakness far, far more than i do her oaks win. that takes nothing away from that performance at ky in saying so-but i like to see a horse actually show he can get to the bottom, and keep trying.

Do you really go by that name?

CSC just said that Street Sense would've won the Preakness, for which he got a career-high 111 Beyer in running second, by open lengths if it were at Churchill. I mean seriously.

Cute pups by the way.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement in that speed figures are the only determining factor in performances, I concede they are helpful and in most cases insightful but they shouldn't be the sole means or atleast to me in determining a horses performances. The reason why I linked up the youtube videos is we could see Street Sense was a different animal at CD, The conclusion is we should also factor in competition and the ease in which he won those races, and not just compare speed figures on an individual basis.

i don't believe that. he got lucky, twice, in having fantastic trips on the track. that doesn't mean every time he'd get a fantastic trip...besides, curlin was still improving coming into the preakness. that was a heck of a spring. too bad rags got hurt, and they all retired except curlin. that would have been a great handicap year the next year.

thanks about the pups. hopefully i find them both a home.

keep in mind tho that street sense was brought along in his training to peak at that point for those two races. the fact they were both at churchill doesn't mean it was the strip that helped him do so well.

I stand by that statement, whose to say he wouldn't have run an even higher number if that race was run at CD instead of Pimlico that day. Again if we are just going to get into a numbers discussion then why discuss at all. We can just look up previous beyers.

Danzig, alot good horses don't run their best races on big days. Please don't even enter that point of discussion.

and a lot do...
what do you mean by your last sentence? if you don't want a discussion, perhaps a public message board isn't the place for you.

I really have no idea why you insist on continuing with this buffoonery. Surely you realize that Pioneer of the Nile didn't run particularly well in the Derby and then he failed to show at all this weekend. Surely you understand racing well enough that you can't possibly believe the jibberish you continue to spew about how Pioneer of the Nile supposedly proved all his critics wrong at Churchill Downs. You can't possibly believe this deliberately irrational crap that you write here day after day.

Honestly, what you are doing would be akin to me making post after post here about how Saturday's performance by Pioneer of the Nile perfectly displayed his abilities.

Move on.

Show me where I said or implied any of this. Stop twisting my words. What I said is that speed figures exist so we can use our minds as well as our eyes to evaluate performance. I use figures, replays, trip circumstances, etc. You seem to only be concerned with how visually impressive a horse's run is.

They do and they don't...Okay. So we don't really know I guess.

Then we are in agreement, thanks for clearing that up. Then we just have a plain old fashioned disagreement in regards to Street Sense.

You (and Beyer) were the one(s) that went on a limb that this horse wouldn't hit the board in the Derby. That the way to play the Derby was by not including this horse in any wager. This didn't turn out to be the case. But, you, apparently, felt the need to go on the offensive and try to convince us that the horse didn't really run well. And this continued after the Preakness. I mean, there are many ways the horse didn't run well, I suppose, but since he ran 2nd in the Derby, you were wrong. Nothing wrong with that as we're all wrong, more often than not. Whether the horse is good to your standards is really irrelevant. After all, you were very impressed by Imperial Council in the Gotham.

I'll stop pointing out the fact that the horse ran 2nd in the Derby just as soon as you (and your crew) stop pointing that he's not fast enough. The 1st part is a fact; the 2nd is irrelevant, given your initial claim.

He has now run once on a dry dirt track.....and finished 10th beaten a city block. As soon as I figure out that I was wrong I will let you know. Please stand by.

He lost the Derby by seven lengths. You are conveniently deciding that since no horse, save Mine That Bird, ran a step that day that he somehow ran well despite losing by a margin that rarely gets a finisher better than 6th ( or worse ).

Sorry if you don't like my logic. Tough sh it.

But that's not the point. You contention was that the horse wouldn't hit the board in the Derby. Let's assume you went over to Betfair and took bets that he wouldn't. Would you have been payed off? No.

Whatever the case, in or after, the Derby, you'd have lost.

And, if you understand the dynamics of the Preakness, which you clearly do, you also can understand why the horse collapsed.

Logic is one thing. Real world facts are another.

Nothing against RA, she did run a great race and did what she had to do, MTB wins the Belmont for fun, he had to come out 4 wide and came charging, did not have a clean trip. This horse is the real deal.

Yeah and so was Big Brown last year. Bottom line is that this is going to be 3 races in 5 weeks for MTB. Don't discount the fact that there might be a fresher horse that gets the jump on MTB.