Interesting.

Thanks, guys!

Hoss, I took the same approach and liked Dance and Dance for most of the same reasons you mentioned. I got blindsided myself by the winner with Leparoux giving him Rolls Royce ride.

Perfect Shirl maybe the wiseguy horse next time out, but she ran huge to almost get up. Tab for later.

For Dance and Dance one thing that turned me off of him was the trainer had never tasted graded success, even though he was a bit unlucky to Side Glances in his last in Europe in a gr 3, it seemed a bit of a stretch to me, not the strongest european contingent.

After watching the race, taking into account he was completely blocked for nearly the entire stretch, isn't it fair to say he was probably best on Sunday?

I realize this wasn't Europe's best but our milers aren't much as a whole. Vaughan hasn't won a stakes yet, but he's a pretty competent horseman. Didn't he break Dubail Millenium as a yearling?

Yes he had some trouble, perhaps he deserved a better fate, I have viewed the race twice, for me Right One may have been more unlucky, had he gotten a cleaner trip he might have won the race. There were a few horses that were inconvenienced in the stretch, the horse with the best trip won. I can't say with certainty Dance and Dance would have won had he had a clean trip, a better result perhaps but IMO he was not the sure fire best horse Sunday.

That's a foolish comparison, and you know it.

Right One had a very good trip and was simply not good enough. What more needed to go Right One's way?

I think you should watch it again, maybe a few more times.

Yes, he had a reasonably good trip, but he was buried behind horses and Gomez looked indecisive, he wanted to go outside, but changed course to the the inside as a last resort. The horse did run on and closed, no one is saying he is the best horse in the field, like Dahoss is with Dance and Dance, it's really splitting hairs, the horse that won the race got the best trip, that's all and given the margin of victory of the first 3 finishers, if Gomez got the split with Right One, I don't think it's unreasonable to say he could have won.

What split didn't he get? Right One had a clear run for the final furlong, reached the front with roughly 40 yards to go and finished third. This, of course, was after he saved ground every inch of the way while horses like Side Glance and Dance and Dance raced wide (the latter having broken slowly as well).

There were a lot of poor trips in the race but Right One's certainly was not one of them.

He may be a good horse to bet back, I won't argue that. Again it is subjective to each handicapper.

This is why I was hesitant to even respond to you Same old tricks. You enjoy twisting words and aren't really interested in discussion. I don't know how good a bet back he is and said it earlier. So there is nothing to not argue. His trouble was so obvious to anyone not named Mike Watchmaker that he'll be overbet next time and I think the time to have him was Sunday.

Courageous Cat was the best horse in the field on Sunday going in and coming out IMO. Take a look at where the 2 other horses that were near the lead finished. Even after Right One came to him, Courageous Cat outfinished him.

What I said was based on being totally shut off for the entire stretch I thought Dance and Dance would have won had he been able to find ANY running room in the stretch. I think he was probably best on Sunday and Sunday alone and would want Courageous Cat going forward.

What is amusing to me is you're talking about Right One who might have had a 2 or 3 second wait before he found a huge running lane, then still got outfinished by Courageous Cat. Yet downplaying the horse who had the worst trip of the race because 1) I'm the one saying it 2) you didn't like him before the race and therefore can't imagine he would outrun your opinion.

As I said, watch the race again. Trips are subjective but I don't see how the trips of Right One and Dance on Dance are even remotely similar. One got through when he needed to, had dead aim and couldn't get the job done. The other never had a fair chance to run through nearly the entire stretch.

:wf

I don't know how he would have ran if he got the split to CC's outside, perhaps he is more comfortably with a horse to his inside, he closed well from last at Belmont on the outside in the prep I recall, again I think we are splitting hairs here, but I do see your point, and accept it as a possibility. As a handicapper you have to look at all the points and make that assessment.

You have to stop attacking posters that want to legitimately discuss things, a reason why no one wants to post here anymore. I assumed you would bet back a horse that you said was the best in the W mile that wasn't clear to atleast to me, I stand corrected then, and you have clarified your position you aren't.

Thanks for proving my point.

Just so I'm clear, who exactly did I attack here? If you are implying I attacked you, I really do give up.

Since you're always giving me tips on how I should post, I have one for you. Don't assume. Most people write what they mean, so there is no need to try and assume or guess what they are really saying. Just read and go from there. As I have said for a long time I think the reading part is where you fail in these discussions. Maybe a remedial class in the future?

A line that is always the surest sign the poster is in the wrong.

Don't get me wrong, there are some very good posters here, Nick for one, I can disagree with him and still learn something.

Let's try this again, to me it's not clear he was the best Sunday, incase you missed it, I did say he probably deserved better. But we have all seen horses with suspect trips come back to run less to what was expected where they may have looked best. I can think of Al Khali in the C Intl last year. So with allowing that DD did have trouble in the Mile, while disagreeing it is inconclusive he was probably best, why are you telling me to watch the race again? In betting horses opinions differ.

I was merely talking about the race Sunday. That's it. Not before it, not after it, just Sunday.

In my opinion based on the trouble he had and where he ultimately finished Dance and Dance should have won Sunday. It doesn't mean in the long run he's the best horse in the race or coming out of it. It just means on that particular day he (in my opinion) should have been in the winners circle. As we all know the best horse doesn't win every race. Trips, pace, rides, conditions, etc dictate order of finish.

Running up the track next month or wherever he shows up next doesn't make the trouble Dance and Dance had in THIS RACE any less significant. Which is why I am suspect of him next time. I think his day was Sunday and the opportunity was blown when his rider failed to get him a clear path.

Just because a horse has a bad trip doesn't mean they are good bet backs, nor does it mean they are contenders next time. It just means they had a trip that ultimately compromised their order of finish and it's another factor that needs to be considered for future races.

Hopefully this clears up any confusion. Me telling you to watch the race again was because I truly find it hard to believe someone could compare the trips you were. I could see doing it if you just read the chart comments, because they are extremely misleading. If you actually view the race, the difference in trips isn't even close....at least not in my opinion.

That's fair and I understand where you are coming from, we just differ on the significance of being blocked behind horses, he never got a run, so for me it is a big question mark where he would have finished with the exception he would have made it more interesting.

I would lean more towards the side that he may have won, had he had atleast a graded win in europe or a past record of successes in NA, but that's the subjective part of the game. As mentioned in my first reply, he did deserve better, that I can say and believe. If he shook loose and got his run and missed, then there would no disagreement.