I think i'm going to be like you and question everyone's intelligence, ya ****in prick.

Funny that those pathetic horses have accounted for 5 grade one wins since then huh?
WRONG. If anything the pace and tough trips accounted for her winning, and I agree that it was fluky.
But you are lying to yourself if you think she was closing at TP. I saw her that day, and she was even paced and inder a drive for a half mile and could make up no ground. If you wanna make a little bet on this I'd be happy to.

Lawyer Ron only ran on poly as a 2yo before he'd ever run on dirt. If he were to run on it now and struggle I'd give it some credence but because he ran so poorly on it so early he could have just improved in that first dirt race in the slop on the quirky Keeneland surface. His next start on dirt wasn't until December which for a 2yo has little relevance to how they were running 3-4 months prior. His turf races after the first dirt race were 25 points higher than all his turf starts early in his career so there is a lot of evidence that he was just simply a much better horse later in the year.

Lemons ran twice on polytrack, winning once and finishing a fast closing third in the stakes falling a length short of winning. I don't see how that is so inconsistent with her form.

I'm looking for a good example of an established dirt horse not running well. Say Happy Ticket or Spun Sugar really tank. Then I'd give some more credence to the theory that good dirt horses won't like poly. You know what though, I betcha they wind up running 1-2 because they are the best horses in the race and the best horses won't have a problem with poly.

Yeah that loss to Top Notch lady with that "fast closing third place finish" was really powerful.
So she misses the board then she gets beat by Top Notch Lady(anybody seen her after that?) and then wins the Oaks. I definitely see the correlation there:rolleyes:

It's hardly ike she tanked, it was her first Stakes race and she got third. If you want to get this ridiculous with your arguments how about the fact that she moved forward 30 points from her maiden on dirt to her maiden on polytrack. You want polytrack to fail so are trying to find reasons for it. I don't care for polytrack either but I still haven't seen an established dirt horse hate the surface. I don't buy that Barbaro or Bernardini or Discreet Cat wouldn't be great on polytrack. The only major effect I have seen is that turf horses like it a lot more than dirt.

I think everybody jumping to conclusions and being prophets of doom is premature at least and plain silly at best. I think we should just watch and observe Keeneland this meet and see how a higher caliber of horse performs over it. This silly notion of it changing the evolution of the horses is pure b.s, and if it were in fact true than we should hardly be complaining, I mean do we really need to preserve the sires that are producing fragile, broken down sprinters capable of 5 races in a campaign?

If I recall Turfway shippers did quite well at Keeneland this spring but that's simply not enough data to say that Polytrack is a winner either. It boggles the mind how the naysayers are so resolute.

Which horses?

I would say Lawyer Ron qualifies as an established dirt horse and he couldn't break his maiden over the stuff. Seen that longshots have dominated most of the stakes on the main big stakes days at TP in the past year, I'd say there's a number of at least decent dirt horses who didn't care for it.

Turf horse may like it IF they also handle dirt, but you're already talking about a versatile horse then.

I'm not going to take the time to look that up.

Instead i'm going to say I talked to the top trainers but I can't name names and they said their horses did well at Keeneland and they like how their horses transitioned from poly to dirt. They also talked about the season premiere of Lost but that's where I faded out of the convo because I don't watch it.

You were at Turfway the day she finished 3rd. That is funny because I was there too. Here is the chart comment from her race. "Bumped foe, nice outside advance for third, one length behind Top Notch Lady" Notice--NICE OUTSIDE ADVANCE FOR THIRD.

I said I saw her, they showed the race on Tv.
She was under a hard drive for a half mile and spinning her wheels, and got beat by two dregs.
WHich part of that do you deny?

He absolutely sucked on the turf at the beginning of his career as well as on polytrack. He improved and finally tried the dirt. At that point he moved back to the turf and ran two straight 78 Beyers after his first three races on turf were 53-55. So he'd improved 25 points on the turf surface he couldn't break his maiden on as well. What is to say that he wouldn't have improved 25 points if he went back to polytrack or that he wouldn't have been running in the 50s early in his career on dirt.

I am not denying anything. I am saying she had a nice close to get third. She wasnt spinning her wheels at all. She looped along and then found her best stride and closed nicely for third. Funny she was 8th behind about 6 lengths at the half pole. Then she closed nicely to miss by 1 length. Hmmmm...doesnt sound like she was spinning her wheels that day at all.

You are a joke when it comes to race watching if you think that.
That day was my first and only day of betting polytrack.
I played her that day and keyed her. I was watching her the whole way. Guidry had her in a hard drive on the turn and she couldnt gain an inch. It wasn't a real close, the two horses she was chasing droppewd dead after a duel and she passed those two only after getting passed by the other two.
Never at any time did she ever look she had any chance whatsoever of winning.
Then WIth A City won, and that was enough polytrack for me thanks!!!

Larhage,
Again you speak sense in the midst of "madness".
I'll also watch.

And some memory you must have to not be able to tell me about the race like I told you. I guess folks who cant watch races and retain what they see have to go to equibase and look up charts.
Guys who really watch races can quote chapter and verse what happened in a race and how a horse was ridden and what they did, I guess thats the difference here.
Too bad you have to waste so much time looking up charts on the net in order to talk about a horses's race. Lame.

Wouldn't you say that your wager has clouded your view of the race? I'm not sure because i'm not as smart as you. Hell...nobody on this board is.

Oracle knows everything. Didn't you know that. That is why he is such a big player in the game. I read about him everyday on the bloodhorse. LOL.

There really is no rule when betting Keeneland. It is a new surface and the best way to bet it is to bet on class alone. It is a good meet to save all the information and charts from. There probably will be all sorts of little angles.

Yeah he's the guy behind the guy behind the guy.

My wager was on Lemons, and I don't see how that could cloud anything mr advocate.
You have a pretty big mouth so perhaps you could enlighten me as to teh finer points of the race of which I KNOW what happened.
Coronados Vision went out and dueled with someone else. My basis of playing the race was that I HATED the favorite sabatini of Biancone's who was a ridiculously overbet odds on fave.
Top Notch lady who I believe was casse's horse won teh race and Lemons was under a HARD drive halfway through the turn and spinning her wheels. She then passed the duelers eventually(I cant remember who Coronado dueld with, I admit that) and never looked like a winner.
Now please explain to me how that wager clouded my vision. I know what i saw and it was a very lackluster performance with no excuses at all.
YOu wanna watch knowledge of this game with me? Go for it, I'll enjoy smoking you right here on any topic you choose!!!
Now please give me your take of that race that lemons lost. Tell me how you think it set up and your visual impressions of what the participants that you can recall did.
I'm very much looking forward to it.
People who comment on races they didn't see or about as absurd as any people I can imagine. How teh hell can anyone question what someone else saw in a race if they didn't see it themselves? Its insane.

By the way Top Notch went on to win a grass stakes race or high priced allowance at Woodbine later on this past year. But pillow, I'm sure you knew that right?

It's amazing you're so resolute in the running of the race yet you wagered on the horse. This all comes down to your inability to find fault in anything you do that is horse racing related. Unfortunately for polytrack it is to blame for your failure to pick the winner. And thus polytrack is bad for the game because you lost a bet. Boo hoo.

How about we duel in a game of tetris?

You need me to mock you a little harder until you finally get a clue, punchy?

Losing by a 1 length and you say your horse had no chance of winning--ha ha. That is funny. She ran a good race. You dont know how to watch a race on PolyTrack.

I don't see how who I wagered on would change the outcome of how who ran where and what and how.
I'm tellin ya what I saw.
If you had actaully seen the race you might be able to debate it.
But alas, you didnt, so you wanna try and make witty quotes about dueling with tetris.
I thought I made a horrible bet at the time to be honest, and didn't blame anyone but me. I cursed myself out for betting Dallas Stewart who I have had VERY little luck wagering on. I sure didn't blame Polytrack. So you can strike that as a theory.

Im stll waiting for you to describe the running of the race as you saw it.

Ok I was just a little thrown off at this quote and I went with it.

It's obvious you don't blame poly. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

That was based on With A City, and I notice you left that part of the quote out.
You aren't a very good sleuth, to say the very least.

So it's With A City's fault now?

Spin spin spin. I GOTTA BE RIGHT!

I already answered this. Lemons Forever, broke slowly, looped around in 3rd about 6 lengths from the 1st place horse. Found her best stride (like she always does) and closed nicely to lose by 1 length. Watch her previous races and it is the same pattern.

My question to you--how can a horse who spins her wheels close to lose by 1 length?

Again,
I don't know whats so hard to grasp about a race being so unformful as With A City's being a kinda negative experience in your first start playing Poly.
I certainly didn't think Lemons was any kind of cinch, I just though she was value, and it certainly didn't shock me that she lost.
WHen you can beat me in knoweldge of something, get back to me.

You are reading me a chart call. You are't telling me what you saw. Which I take to mean that you can't. You haven't given me any specifics about her trip or things like who she chased and when she was put in a drive.

IQ test for 50k. Anytime. Anyplace.

Seattleallstar offered me that same challenge, ask him how he made out with that one.:)

What was so bad about With a City winning that race? The field was dreadful. Would it have been so much better if Hemingway's Key or Superfly won? Seaside Retreat? Malameeze? More than Regal? Pair of Kings? Sharp Attack? Tahoe Warrior? Laity? Silent Times? Starspangled Gator? In a race full of nags someone has to win.

Yes or no. No more spin.

And it has to be Oracle's horse. Don't you see?

With A City's form on dirt was absolutely dreadful, and I mean woeful. It wasn't like he had ever been even remotely competitive in anything. He failed in claimers.
Seaside Retreat was just about as bad. When they ran 1-2 I said ok, thats it.
You devils advocate guys are piss poor. You can make that argument in hindsight with any horse.
So how much did you guys have on him? You musta made one hell of a killing because if you can justify him winning that race(of course now its in hindsight, as usual) then you should have had a bundle on him at those odds.
WHo exactly is bull****ting who here?
You guys wanna get on me because I think an impossible horse won and admit it. Then you guys wanna tell me how he figured. Gee, how much did you guys have on him then? If you didn't bet him then its pretty obvious who the bull****ters are.