Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bobby Fischer
i think you are the missing the point. No one can draw any conclusions about the 7 week layoff, from the performance in the derby because the trip was so bad.
|
the only thing i've mentioned regarding the seven week layoff was the remark that maybe that indicated a problem with the horse physically that they didn't tell us at the time. but indian charlie says that's not the case. i think there are several reasons why friesan fire didn't run well-the layoff didn't help in my opinion. i think the main reason he finished far back is that the race went quicker early than many he had run this year, so of course he'd get left behind. the guy wrote in bloodhorse when making his pick (this was the magazine so i can't look up his name, exact quote because i'm at work) but he referenced the faster pace expected in the derby than what FF had faced in La this spring, that it caused doubt in his mind because of that.
at any rate, it's hard to say for sure exactly what is going on with all the trainers speak. all the horses do well before, but they're full of excuses after. but, my main point was that too many are blaming injuries suffered in the running of the derby-and my question is just how serious could they possibly have been since it didn't knock him out of training or running two weeks later? it's my opinion based on what they did after that the injury was dramatically overblown.
the horse ran well training up to the preakness, so i would imagine the injuries occurred during the running of the race.