Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

would still remain one of the single most puzzlingly stupid decisions in riding history.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

terrible ride? yes.

but, my goodness, did you just take hyperbole to a new level.

Originally Posted by Bystander

I don't know, the mistake cost $25,000, didn't it? And isn't Contessa accountable to Darlene Bilinski and Harry Patten, having to explain why their horse missed a $30,000 check?
I bet there's a bit more said than "don't let it happen again."

Originally Posted by paisjpq

"Please don't do it again?":D

Originally Posted by Bystander

I don't know, the mistake cost $25,000, didn't it? And isn't Contessa accountable to Darlene Bilinski and Harry Patten, having to explain why their horse missed a $30,000 check?
I bet there's a bit more said than "don't let it happen again."

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It may be much worse than just losing the money. When a horse is forced to check like that, they often times come out of the race with injuries. I owned a filly once that was bottled up on the rail turning for home. The jock checked pretty good off heels but the rail did open up and he got through and won. That was the good news. The bad news was that she wrenched her ankle pretty bad and we had to put a blister on her and turn her out for a couple of months. Two months at the farm means no racing for 6 months. Luckily the horse came back off the 6 month layoff as good as ever, but a 6 month layoff costs a lot of money in terms of expenses.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

terrible ride? yes.

but, my goodness, you just took hyperbole to an unprecedented level.

Originally Posted by Bystander

I don't know, the mistake cost $25,000, didn't it? And isn't Contessa accountable to Darlene Bilinski and Harry Patten, having to explain why their horse missed a $30,000 check?
I bet there's a bit more said than "don't let it happen again."

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Well, Brian, in the vast encyclopedia of rides in your memory why don't you come up with a few more baffling decisions. Be sure they were simple situations in races that absolutely cost the horses involved victory.

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

He's riding for them on Sunday - 2nd race aboard "Keep your Day Job".

The Irony is painful.

Wanna see the ride of his life? I won't be betting against him....

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

There are not many more baffling rides in my memory. However, I am 23. I watch about 8 races a day. I have only been following racings since I was 16.

So my "vast" encyclopedia probably adds up to somewhere around roughly one ten thousandth of a percent of all the races in "history."

So who cares if I can name them?

One of the dumber ones I've seen? Sure, I'll give you that.

To assume it is one of the dumbest/most puzzling in history (mind you, not that you've ever seen, or in the last ten years, but you claim "history)? That seems folly, purely from a mathematical standpoint.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

So, let's see, you claim to have been watching 8 races a day, or approximately 2500 races a year for seven years, or over 17,000 races yet are unable to come up with a more baffling ride.

Was this the BEST criticism you could come up with of my posts ( in some pathetic attempt to defend another poster in this thread I assume )?

Next time, if you don't have something to add to the discussion, an opinion about what was actually being discussed, and simply have a pathetic and desperate need to attack the poster and not the issue, keep your fingers off the keyboard.

Thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

First, I didn't defend anyone in this thread. I didn't "attack" you one bit. I didn't call you names. I didn't do anything but point out that you indulged in a bit of hyperbole in one post. It wasn't a criticism of anything you've said in regards to the entire ride, except that I found it mathematically unlikely that it was one of the worst rides in history.

Is that really what you consider an "attack?" Seriously?

Secondly, I said it was a terrible ride. I said that my "history" is such a tiny bit of the overall history, that it doesn't matter how many I can think of. But for starters, I'd say the stakes on closing day at Turf Paradise two or three years back when the rider misjudged the length of the race by an entire 7 furlongs would have been a dumber, more puzzling ride than this one. So, if in 17,000 races, I can think of even ONE ride more dumb or puzzling than this one....how does that bode for its place as one of the dumbest rides "in history?"

I generally steer clear from anything you post, agree or not, because you're a total loose cannon and are liable to fly off the handle at any second....ie, right now.

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

*Sitting on my hands.*

Originally Posted by Danzig188

lol
you type that with your nose??

and does it tickle to sit on your hands??:eek:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I guess your final paragraph wasn't personal either.

The deletion of your initial " apology " was a real knee slapper.

The simple fact is you made an unnecessary post directed towards me and are now compounding it by being further insulting.

Good to know.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

The final paragraph was personal, surely. An observation that I am certainly not alone in making -- I'm just not really that afraid anymore of saying it to you because you spend half of your time on the forums demeaning other posters for what seems like nothing more than the fun of it. There's nothing respectable about that. It really sucks too, because you're a smart guy who knows a lot about racing and any respect you gain from many forum members for your knowledge and insight is squandered when you accuse other posters of personal "attacks" in the same post in which you attack them. Somebody here's gotta call a spade a spade, eh?

Your definition of "unnecessary" is that you don't feel like reading it. I felt like posting to point out your hyperbole, therefore it was wildly necessary. Now we're just arguing semantics.

And yes, now I'm starting to border on insulting -- but in touch enough with the reality of the situation to admit it. My best. Not sure where I'd need to apologize.