Originally Posted by horseofcourse

I wish someone could explain this logic to me. If he was running a race an hour after the Preakness, I can see how this may be bad. But is it really meaningful in a race THREE weeks later that running .20 slower will make you win the race in THREE weeks? I mean running 9.5f fast is tough on a horse regardless. Is a tenth of a second slower really gonna mean the difference between winning and losing three weeks later?? It must be true because all the experts agree...but how is it true??

Personally if I run 2 miles today 2 seconds faster than normal...in 24 hours I will feel exactly the same regardless. How is it so much different than a horse that 3 weeks later, running 9.5 furlongs 0.2 seconds slower makes so much physiological difference??

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

First of all, we're not talking about 1/10th of a second. One length is about 1/5th of a second. So if a horse wins by 10 lengths instead of 5 lengths, we are talking about a full second. Under one scenario, the horse is all out. Under the other scenario, the horse is not even close to being all out. It makes a huge difference.

By the way, I saw Smarty Jones train between the Preakness and the Belmont and he didn't look like the same horse. In his morning gallops before the Derby and the Preakness, he couldn't have looked any sharper. He had his neck arched and ears pricked and he looked unbelievable. He didn't look the same way after the Preakness. That race knocked him out.

Originally Posted by geeker2

only if I have to read one more Big Browny threat...then please end it for me...please

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

First of all, we're not talking about 1/10th of a second. One length is about 1/5th of a second. So if a horse wins by 10 lengths instead of 5 lengths, we are talking about a full second. Under one scenario, the horse is all out. Under the other scenario, the horse is not even close to being all out. It makes a huge difference.

By the way, I saw Smarty Jones train between the Preakness and the Belmont and he didn't look like the same horse. In his morning gallops before the Derby and the Preakness, he couldn't have looked any sharper. He had his neck arched and ears pricked and he looked unbelievable. He didn't look the same way after the Preakness. That race knocked him out.

Originally Posted by Mortimer

Steve;



I would love to take you up on you offer....you know...the smart offer only smart posters get and not the TwiceVaporized ones.






The truth is...I'm getting a lot of flak about this from Andy.

I have only been on his show ......briefly---but still....and no other ones.

So he advertises as being the only public handicapper to have a direct funnel to me and that I have appeared on his show, although briefly---but still,and no others.






And so...I feel kind of an allegiance there.

I hope you understand....but to you I must say no.





I do wish you and the Tataglias the best of luck .

Originally Posted by philcski

How about THE DUDE with Australian racing handicapping angles?

Originally Posted by Kasept

Originally Posted by Kasept

"Hello Carlo.."

Originally Posted by Mortimer

HOC...SJ was second by 8 lengths...he got beat by 1 length...Birdstone..number 4.



My best guess, AFTER the fact, is he got beat by a better horsey that particular day.

I ddin't recognize the ZC that day---wish I had...others did.




But Pumpkin is trying to be a NewYorkSharpie here.


Believe me---he isn't.

Originally Posted by Kasept

"Hello Carlo.."

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Barzini is dead. So is Phillip Tatagllia. Moe green. Slacci. Cuneo. Today I settled all family business so dont tell me that you are innocent. Admit what you did.