Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ogygian
Looks like I took a beating on this one, which is ok. I will try to explain the reasoning behind my opinions.
When I said the word "greed", it had nothing to do with finances at all, it had everything to do with breeding. I have to be honest, if I had not heard Hal Wiggins talk about Rachel and the plan he had already mapped out for her and the fact that he "liked" to have 5 weeks in between races I may not have been as pissed. In hindsight now we can say..."it was good for the game".
In my eyes it felt like he swooped in, bought her, rushed her back. He wasn't thinking at the time, "This will be good for the game" or "this is a great filly, Hal isn't testing her, let's buy her and test her". No he bought her with the sole intention of saying I am going to breed two Preakness winners together. She ran one heck of a race and he made the right decision...by the way everything is working out, my guess she will not run in the Belmont will have been correct, there is way to much back and forth going. And I still won't be surprised if a phantom injury pops up...
|
if his sole intent in buying her was for breeding, she'd already be in the shed. as for a 'phantom injury'...i'm not quite sure where that's coming from. he may have had no choice but to run curlin, but he certainly showed no fear in doing so once he had no other option.
i can't believe i'm at all in the position of defending jess jackson... he had the wherewithal to buy the top filly in the country, quite possibly the top horse in the country. he likes her pedigree, he once tried to buy her sire and was unable to.