Shirreffs' latest gem

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You have a point but at this point, winning the Goodwood doesn't do anything for them. There's no real upside. There's only downside. They don't need to run there to win HOY.

I'm sure they think they could win the Goodwood, but they probably figure "Why gamble at this point?". She would have to run harder in the Goodwood than the filly race. The harder you run, the more risk you take in terms of not coming out of a race good. Since their goal is to win the BC Classic, how dumb would they feel if she ran her butt off to win the Goodwood and it knocked her out? They are so close to their goal at this point. Why take a risk (even if it's only a small risk) when there is really no upside to that risk. They want to be 100% healthy for the BC Classic. The best way to ensure that happens is by having an easy race rather than a tough race for her final prep.

In addition, they are going to be taking a risk of getting beat in the BC Classic and ending her streak. At this point, I think they'd rather take that risk just once rather than twice.

you could have just said this instead of the long paragraph:

The owners are chickens.


Seriously? There is no upside to winning a G1 against males? That is absolutely incorrect.

There is no upside in winning your 15th race against the same crappy females in the same crappy situation (aka the Zenyatta Stakes).

The owners are such chickens that it almost makes you root for her to lose so maybe they will actually take some chances with their horse..