| Scurlogue Champ |
06-15-2008 10:50 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
Since the majority of our important racing has been on dirt and the euros almost never beat us there couldnt you say that they are inferior to us? As a matter of fact we beat them a hell of a lot more on the turf than they beat us on the dirt. I have seen lots of superior euros come here and lose. I have also seen lots of mediocre euros come here and improve, often bleeders due to lasix use. Are they superior also? We ran 4 BC races on the turf last year in soggy conditions that should have favored the euros yet they won zero. Of the last 13 BC turf races they have won 4, hardly dominant. I remember a horse named Var who was just a horse over here, was sent to France and became the top rated sprinter in Europe. Turf horses in this country are still not really desired and are considered 2nd class citizens at least until they show they can be stakes horses. to be fair there are a whole lot more good American turf horses than there are european dirt horses. If dirt racing was eliminated in the US and the breeders and trainers concentrated strictly on turf racing, the euros would soon be second class. And that is actually a plausible situation.
|
I can't argue with your points here, especially the last sentence.
But I must stick to my guns in saying that their top class on turf are superior to our top class on turf. I know the statistics from the Breeders' Cup, and last year's results were baffling to me.
I think a good example is Powerscourt coming over and making Kitten's Joy look like a crow in the Arlington Million. That was a horse that was third string for Coolmore, and absolutely stroked that race two years in a row.
On certain days, we can beat them on our home turf. But overall, I am strongly convinced that they are much better than our bunch. |
