Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NTamm1215
I get it, so what you're saying is that a filly who's perfect on the year, has beaten males twice, scored in a field of 13, has an on the pace running style that keeps her free from trouble and a jockey who cut his teeth at bush tracks in Louisiana is susceptible to all types of hypthetical trip problems. Gotcha.
And if through some confluence of events making all the things you mentioned above happen then a horse who has basically one race of consequence which was run at a distance that suited him to a T can reverse a decision in which he was beaten like a drum by the filly in question. Gotcha.
Look, it's OK if you're gonna bet against Rachel Alexandra, really it is. I'd just suggest you say you're gonna bet against her instead of coming up with some of these ridiculous scenarios that could lead to her defeat.
NT
|
But that's what we do in this game, we look for reasons to make cases to make money in this game. Taking the personal feelings out of it there are certain rationales we could apply to handicapping. On paper there is no reason to run this race, but to use an overused analogy "races are rarely run on paper." I'm not even sure this would be a worthwhile betting race without Rachel in it, but from strictly a monetary point of view this is an interesting test for her if not all the horses in the field. The only way this race could be better is to have the The Pampelmousse and IWR were in it. This has the makings of one of the more interesting races in a long time for bettors, handicappers and fans alike.