Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kasept
Rarely have I seen such inane reaction to an off performance. I suppose it's because we get so few starts from the classic-campaigning runners, but some of what's been written is so outlandish that it's hard to believe.
People claim they're fans of racing... Well if they are, then they should be well aware that horses lose. They have off performances and toss clunkers. They run through issues like spiked fevers and stay on schedule for races and get beat because they aren't 100% that day.
No one recalls Holy Bull being beaten 24 lengths in the Fountain of Youth? Afleet Alex' Rebel? Real Quiet's Golden Gate Derby? Obviously not because the same ridiculous comments that are sprinkled throughout this thread, and the laughable 'oh my gosh' thread, were said about those 3 year olds, Croll, Ritchey and Baffert at the time.
It could be that we've been conditioned to think that an off effort means a soon-to-be-discovered hidden problem and immediate retirement because connections don't work through issues anymore. And while everyone is entitled to offer their opinion on the topic, some degree of reasonable and rational reaction coupled with a dash of historical perspective is highly suggested.
|
You got a recent example of a horse who ran that poorly(7-8 weeks before the Derby,)and still won the Derby? Would make more sense.Somebody run last in March,and then win the DERBY? I'd say the evidence points the other way,and people are putting a bib on a horse.You want us to be reasonable,but thinking this one has a decent chance to still win the Derby(if that's what you're selling) seems to be a statement without much reason.