The Belmont Stakes...the double Bunny

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

IMO, he appeared to make that connection when he concluded his post with:

"Justify has already beaten 23 different horses in 2 legs and if he were to best probable newcomers Blended Citizen, Gronkowski, Restoring Hope and Bandua in the Belmont, the number swells to 27.

"So GTFO with the 'reduced competition' nonsense."



BTWind, I had already quoted Walden in full, and I had no intention of "skewing" the meaning when I wrote that final sentence.

How did you interpret what Walden wrote? Given the way it followed, "It's different when you've won two out of three than when you've won one out of three,", which seemed to be explaining why they're tempted to NOT run Audible, I interpreted "can't manufacture a TC" to mean 'you shouldn't try to manufacture a TC'. But I could certainly understand you're hearing it differently.

I'm also interested in how you feel about the central question. Do you have any misgivings at all about ownership conglomerates holding out horses merely to make the the TC more likely for the Derby/Preakness winner?

I interpret Steve's comments as saying that in an historical context, should he win the TC, Justify would stand up just fine compared to some supposed greats of the past from a competition standpoint. Sure seems fair to me.

I take great exception to how you have chosen to interpret what Elliot said. In fact, I think it's VERY clear that he was saying you can't manufacture a TC win....you know, exactly what he actually DID say. In other words, a horse that wins those three races, 3 an 15/16ths of a mile over five weeks, achieved something that stands up to whatever scrutiny one chooses to throw at it, including the absurd notion that it was somehow manipulated ( specifically by an owner choosing to not run ONE horse in ONE of the races ).

To me, you are looking through comments made by others for meanings that simply aren't there. I find it particularly surprising in this case considering you have always, at least in the past, seemed pretty reasonable.

As far as where owners choose to run, in this case I would encourage them to make the same move, as it makes perfect sense. It also makes sense for Audible, as I doubt he could get 1.5 miles on a flat bed. I think it's extremely important for owners and trainers to try to make the most financially responsible decisions with their horses. That's why I think it's idiotic that City of Light is staying in CA to run in a relatively meaningless race at 10 furlongs as supposed to the Met Mile at eight furlongs. So much more upside for one over the other....just as the upside to NOT running Audible in the Belmont far exceeds the upside of running him. It's a business, and even wealthy people ( at least sometimes ) have to run it as such.