Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kasept
The most telling example of this was the hyper-critique overkill of Bernardini post-BC Classic. In a perfect world, we'd get to see Bernardini at least all this year in maybe 2-3 more matchups versus Invasor, Premium Tap and this year's 4 year olds. Only then could we truly determine if Bernardini was a true great or near great or better than average. Instead, he loses by a length to a fabulous and nearly undefeated champion six months his elder, and is decried a "fraud" by many eager to tear down anything that resembles a quality runner.
|
I agree for the most part Kasept. With Bernardini however I think the level of hype was appalling enough to deserve some critique. The critique should have really been directed more at the racing press instead of the horse. Beyer is a perfect example -- he cranks superstar figures for a horse that beats weak/injured fields and then when Bernardini loses to a relatively mediocre performance by Invasor -- Beyer instantly changes his tune and says, "Bernardini is no superstar".
Like I said before -- if some of the racing press worked in the financial services industry they would be in jail for fraud. Yeah, I know, it's gambling -- but the betting public (especially the novice) bettors deserve a fair shake from the "experts". Maybe they'd stick around and become horseplayers if so many weren't led astray from the start.
Just my $2 worth.