Cannon Shell |
05-05-2009 09:23 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardus
I guess we are doing our "ABC's" tonight:
A) So if not buying all of the Derby starters, at what point can it be diminished? Isn't there is a certain point at which reasonable, intelligent people can conclude with some believability that a Derby has been "bought?" For me, I know that it is not 20.
B) I need a refresher: how many of the Godolphin starters have not been prepared in Dubai? Am I wrong, but haven't Godolphin started all of its Derby starters in Dubai? Shake Mo has a program, and he is going to stick to it.
C) It's not myopic if we are not considering how much Godolphin spends to win the Derby. Again, it's back to the "Yankees Syndrome." For instance, how much of a genius was Ahmed Salman for buying War Emblem in April? That is only one example, but it serves the point.
|
If you cant see by now that it is pretty much impossible to buy the Derby there is nothing that I can say to make you not believe that. They could have bought IWR and FF the day before the race and still not hit the board let alone win. There is a certain amount of luck needed to win the Derby and you cant buy that. It would be almost impossible to diminish winning the Derby.
Obviously Sheik Mo's plan takes preference over winning. He may be obsessed with winning 'his' way but again i doubt that he is devastated over another loss.
Again what difference does it make how much one spends? Did Thunder Gulch's win feel like it was bought? Coolmore spends a whole lot more than anyone else not from Dubai. Are the Phipps laughable because they have never won the Derby despite having the best American broodmare band over the last 40 years?
So the whole theory is that if they win it is diminished because they spend so much but if they dont win they are assholes? Maybe they arent a warm, fuzzy story but the fact they havent won shows the challenge of the sport and why it attracts so many diverse people from all walks of life. Jesus i sound like a freakin liberal...
|