:D


I'm thinking it would be no more than a five spot for ya on B. :D

Haynesfield had nothing to prove when he beat Blame who was undefeated this year by daylight in a slightly less important recent fall classic race either .

And didn't .

" Desparately " beating Rinterval is apropo of nothing if " desparate " is a matter of opinion .

Same logic applies to thrashing a horse that finished third by 10 when you finish second . And blatting on about it .

With that logic, thrashing Qr by 29 should mean something. Not to me .

Blame ran a good race with a nice trip .

The race was a thriller as no one can deny.

Without Zenyatta in it , it would not have been .

And no she didn't get a great trip .

And no she needs no excuses .

There was a huge sigh of relief from many when her head wasn't in front at the wire .

Hence the thread title in all its cleverness .

Dear Prudery,

I love you.

Signed,

Prostate Operatard.

PS Way to show up those Z haters!!

You must be naked...

What the heck was wrong with her trip? If I had $$ on her I would have been thrilled with that ride right up to the wire.

There was nothing wrong with it, she was farther back then usual and she was slightly steadied when she had to avoid QR when he threw in the towel, the pace was honest, everyone talks about a fast pace but what did anyone expect, the 3 plugs setting the pace to steal the race...the fact is Blame had a better trip, if she gets a perfect trip she wins, but obviously she was not good enough to overcome it, that's as objective as one can be whether you are impartial, a hater or a fan of her. I think we are unanimous she ran a great race.

First of all, her trip was as close to perfect as a horse like her is going to get. Secondly, she had every chance to run him down and couldn't do it. No ifs ands or buts this time.

I like the usage of like her, I think I said she wasn't good enough to overcome it so we agree. And I think you mentioned she ran a good/great race, so all is well with me and you.

Something tells me you wouldn't be trying to be so diplomatic and genial had she won the race. I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that she had something 'to overcome'. She couldn't have been beaten more fairly.

I pretty much do stick to those. Whoever you state as greatest horse, people will object to it. Period. who do you think is the greatest horse of all time?? I bet you 100 percent some people will object to it and disagree with it. Just because she isn't the greatest of all time, does not mean she isn't a "great" race horse.

She is the only mare to win the BC Classic. She is the only mare to run 2nd in the BC Classic. She ran 2nd in the BC Classic at age SIX by a nose. She is the only mare to run in two consecutive BC Classics. Ignore the rest of her schedules and who she beat and just state that and what type of horse would anyone consider that to be?

She lost her first race of her career in the top race in America at age SIX to the top older handicap at his home track in the top race in America by a nose (well head!, perhaps that head instead of nose margin saved the integrity of the sport!).

This is a great race horse.

Churchill Downs is blame's home track and favored surface. That's part of the game though. The set up was certainly fair and the way the surface was prepared (it seemed that they went lengths to ensure the rail was dead) certainly made it as fair as it could possibly be.

However, if you are saying that she "couldnt have been beaten more fairly" a neutral track would have done the trick and perhaps a dirt prep for Z. Either way, the connections can only blame themselves.

Blame runs well everywhere. If he's better at Churchill, it's marginally. His best race this year came at Saratoga. I think the idea that he had 'home field advantage' is retarded. She handled the track fine. She had every opportunity to run him down, but Rinterval he ain't.

Did I say she was beaten unfairly? She ran a great race and a perfect trip as the one Blame got yesterday probably wins it. I'll stress this point again, since you will probably point out this is sour grapes, she wasn't good enough to get away with anything less than a perfect trip yesterday with the trip Blame got, whereas in the past she had a larger margin for error. You don't have to be impartial, a hater or fan of hers to know this, like I said yesterday, running well and proving the critics wrong means more to me than her winning the race. Now if you want to dispute her running well, then we can hash it out, if not then we are fine .

Blame has run 5 times over the surface in his 13 race career. Yesterday was his best race in my opinion. Its safe to say that Churchill downs is his home track for no other reason than he has run more there than anywhere else. Why is this not logical?

His Jockey said it took her a few steps to get use to the track and he said it last night when I was talking to him in front of Jeff Ruby's.

Do I think that there are any valid excuses? NO. I think Blame won fair and square. I just dispute the notion that having multiple runs over a track while and opponent has never run on said track should be considered an advantage. Of course it is. And if you don't incorporate "horse for course" in your handicapping i would be surprised.

Even if that's true, what if that hadn't happened? Would she have been sitting 5th early? She ran the same race she always runs and it wasn't good enough. Any racetrack outside of California, Blame was going to beat her yesterday. To say otherwise is unfair to him.

I think what is fair, and we could differ on this, is that Blame was best yesterday and had a better season hands down. Anything beyond that is pure speculation.

There are a lot of factors that could come into play when a horse wins or loses by a head. We are not talking about open daylight here Joey. Maybe Blame hits a track that he doesn't like so much (he didnt seem to love belmont by the way) for the FIRST TIME, could that have made the difference of a head?

I get it, speculation is cool when it provides an excuse for Zenyatta. The idea that Blame had the jump on her because of the racetrack should be an accepted fact. But the fact that she still looked as if she'd blow by him and he looked her in the eye and never let her past can't be extrapolated to other racetracks by me.

He did not run well at Belmont. A race that was supposed to be his big coming out party, getting to go 10f for the first time.

He ran fine. Haynesfield speed popped the field and no one in the country would've caught him that day.

I thought he should have been closer, especially at those odds. Gomez scrubbed hard on him and he barley outfinished Fly Down... Part of the reasson I was so against him yesterday.