Quote:
|
Originally Posted by brianwspencer
Obviously I'm thrilled to see her not point the horse for the Preakness.
Am I really that out of line in thinking that while it's great that she's doing the right thing for the horse in passing the Preakness, that there was no mention of exactly where he will go after that? So he's skipping the Preakness, it doesn't make her the Messiah for holding him out of one race, just so she can inevitably enter him over his head shortly after the Preakness. If I'm wrong and he gets a real vacation, I'll be glad to own up to it at that time.
It's not outlandish to doubt that she will do right by the horse. Skipping one race doesn't mean she's going to actually do right for the horse.
She made one right decision. That puts her batting average at about .0001, something I'm not exactly rushing to wet my pants over while excusing everything else she's done. Sorry if that's the wrong answer, Somer.
|
Look, I think it's fine to cast a critical eye at her record but the horse had as much right in the Derby as at least half the field, she was harshly criticized here (including remarks about her physical appearance) for even thinking about the Preakness. As it turns out, all she has done is take the proper amount of time to consider her options and then pass. IF the horse is entered in subsequent races where folks think he's overmatched etc, then a critical comment is justified...but using this news, that she decided not to run thinking of what is best for the horse, seems an odd place to criticize her again...seems a bit like overkill to me, folks have already made their point. I think giving her credit here is the proper response!