Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ateamstupid
Nick and Andy both nailed it, and you've got it backwards. POTN was relatively slow before the Derby. People who hammered him to 6-1 were the ones making the assumption - that he'd improve on dirt. He had to in order to contend for the win. People who tossed him were simply saying that if he doesn't improve on dirt, which he didn't, he won't win. I don't call that "pure speculation."
And he's still relatively slow. He ran OK in the Derby and anyone who thinks he ran better has some explaining to do, not us. He was stomped by the winner, drifted out badly and should've been DQ'ed from 2nd.
The argument wasn't "he's going to suck on dirt" or "he won't be a dirt horse," it was "he'll have to be faster on dirt than he was on synthetic to win big dirt races." He still isn't. He's still an average three-year-old. Maybe that'll change in Pimlico, but he's still average, and how you think otherwise is puzzling.
|
Let me jump in here because this BS has gone on long enough.
The position by both Serling and Beyer was that POTN was a BET AGAINST in the DERBY. They both explicitly stated that the way to make money, this year's strategy, was to NOT USE this horse. Whatever that might mean, it certainly WASN'T validated when the horse HIT THE BOARD.
Any ****in way you spin this, and the primary one is that the horse is SLOW, still doesn't account for the fact that the horse RAN 2nd. Doesn't matter who was in the race because these claims were made when IWR was still in the race---which means that POTN, AT WORST, runs 3rd.
For those whose handicapping is not driven by BEYERS and who basically have a clue when it comes to evaluating horses, they missed the mark. The horse is nothing special but he's not the rat they make him out to be.
And, P.S. those who don't bet POLY on a regular basis really shouldn't be commenting about it under the guise of experts.
Gimme a ****in break already.