Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
I really have no idea why you insist on continuing with this buffoonery. Surely you realize that Pioneer of the Nile didn't run particularly well in the Derby and then he failed to show at all this weekend. Surely you understand racing well enough that you can't possibly believe the jibberish you continue to spew about how Pioneer of the Nile supposedly proved all his critics wrong at Churchill Downs. You can't possibly believe this deliberately irrational crap that you write here day after day.
Honestly, what you are doing would be akin to me making post after post here about how Saturday's performance by Pioneer of the Nile perfectly displayed his abilities.
Move on.
|
You (and Beyer) were the one(s) that went on a limb that this horse wouldn't hit the board in the Derby. That the way to play the Derby was by not including this horse in any wager. This didn't turn out to be the case. But, you, apparently, felt the need to go on the offensive and try to convince us that the horse didn't really run well. And this continued after the Preakness. I mean, there are many ways the horse didn't run well, I suppose, but since he ran 2nd in the Derby, you were wrong. Nothing wrong with that as we're all wrong, more often than not. Whether the horse is good to your standards is really irrelevant. After all, you were very impressed by Imperial Council in the Gotham.
I'll stop pointing out the fact that the horse ran 2nd in the Derby just as soon as you (and your crew) stop pointing that he's not fast enough. The 1st part is a fact; the 2nd is irrelevant, given your initial claim.