Quote:
Originally Posted by HomerS
What races should they be running in at this time of the year?
Are you saying they should be racing exclusively against males?
Was that a criteria for all fillies and mares of the past?
Has it occurred to you that connections of both know their horses and dont think they can withstand a campaign exclusively against males.
Did Personal Ensign have rigerous campaigns? Was Winning Colors run into the ground?
Dont mean to bombard with questions just think its a much more complex issue then is being made out to be. Holding these horses or their connections responsible for the trend in racing to less races is not really fair. Especially when you look at how often Rachel in particular ran last year.
Forget what I say. If they never run another race they go into the Hall of Fame. They are stars
|
This is laughable. This isnt complex, the connections make it complex. The industry isnt keeping these guys from running in top races and ducing each other (well i guess Monmouth would be complicit now). The idea that the sorry group of males is something to be feared is also laughable. It isn't as though we are asking them to run against Forgeo or Seattle Slew or Sunday Silence or Skip Away or just about anybody any good. Hell they cant even race against each other in filly races. What is your excuse for that?
Lady's Secret may have eventually been run into the ground but during the process of doing so she accomplished a hell of a lot against much rougher competition that these two cream puffs. And I keep wondering why Personal Ensign is being brought back into the conversation. There is a horse that absolutely didn't have to be brought back due to the fact she had her leg pinned back together. And because of that she had to have briefer campaigns than normal in her day. But of course we understood that back then because you know she had a bag full of screws in her leg. That would seem to be a touch more valid excuse than what we are being fed now.