[King Glorious]

We can definitely agree that she's a talented filly and I'll even agree that the sky is the limit for her. What I didn't mean to infer at all was that she wasn't that good. I looked back at her maiden race and was much more impressed with that effort than I was the Las Virgenes. I feel like the circumstances she overcame have been overblown and looked better than they actually were due to what I felt were very inferior performances by the others. What I was basically saying is that had the runner-up and third-place horse been anything at all, Rags' race would be seen as a tough luck third in which she still was the best horse but not have gotten the overwhelming reaction that it has gotten.

I'm sorry that I wasn't impressed with the race. The maiden race did more for me. Some of u people seem to feel that u have to praise everything and that once u like a horse, everything he/she does is golden. Some of u are unable to be objective in your assessments because u have become emotionally invested in the horses. There's nothing wrong with being emotional about them but when it clouds your judgements, that's when u start to lose your perspective. Sometimes, good horses turn in performances that aren't their best yet they still are able to win because they are good horses. Doesn't mean they run their absolute best everytime. Take Invasor's Donn. It wasn't his best or fastest effort. But it was good enough to win. So if I come on here after the race and say that I wasn't impressed (in comparison to some of his other races), am I wrong for saying so? I guess saying that Rags is talented and the sky is the limit for her is still not enough. I suppose I need to have an orgasm everytime she steps on the track in order to safisfy some of u. I"ll keep that in mind for next time.