5/21 (PIM): Preakness (G1), DuPont, Sprint, Gallorette, Schaefer (G3's)

[Scav]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

She looks like a pretty obvious bleeder. . . not that I'm really concerned at all with her Euro form. Who cares if it was the Chad Brown juice (not that it is)? I was very impressed with her two starts at Gulfstream. . . I guess I'm the only person on the planet who was. That makes me happy. I'll still use some Shared Account and maybe a little No Explaining as a back-up.

Please explain how you can tell if she is a bleeder from PP's

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by Scav

Please explain how you can tell if she is a bleeder from PP's

Like I said - her Euro form has nothing to do with my opinion of her. . . But, are we to assume that when she lost by 101 1/4 lengths in her four most recent starts that she was running to the best of her ability? She came to the U.S. and hmmm all of a sudden she's better while getting Lasix.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

Like I said - her Euro form has nothing to do with my opinion of her. . . But, are we to assume that when she lost by 101 1/4 lengths in her four most recent starts that she was running to the best of her ability? She came to the U.S. and hmmm all of a sudden she's better while getting Lasix.

Dude, not knocking ya, but assuming she was a bleeder is not solid reasoning. Alot of horses bleed to different degrees.

How about she likes a firm course and maybe a cut back in distance.

I like her, No Explaining and Dyna Waltz equally. I like betting Sheppard's horses 2nd off the layoff and between May and September. Shared Account sucks, and far from good enough to give 10-12lbs away those fillies

[hockey2315]

I don't need solid reasoning, because I'm not evaluating her based on that form. . . Phil's comment that she was a "pig in Europe" just seemed sort of irrelevant to me, so that's why I mentioned that she's probably a bleeder. Here's an interesting quote from her trainer when they decided to run her in the Irish Oaks: "It's raining over there, and that's good for her."

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Scav

Dude, not knocking ya, but assuming she was a bleeder is not solid reasoning. Alot of horses bleed to different degrees.

Assuming she was a bleeder isn't solid reasoning? But assuming her improvement was due to a firm surface is?

What is the difference between the two?