IEAH still whining, threatening to go to Haskell

There are more than a few people who said
after the race, more than a day after the race,
SOMETHING HAD TO BE WRONG. And they would
find it.
So now apparently what was wrong was deep track...

At Belmont time we had a horse running with a quarter
crack, that was laboring badly when asked, and filly who
had died at Churchill. The media was all over racing.
Kent pulls the horse up when Brown does not move.
Whats he thinking with his "super horse". I might be thinking,
"OMG this horse has something very wrong, I better take
it easy. What are the repercussions of running the horse
through to the finish line full bore and find an injury after."

I dont blame Kent for this at all.
Who on the board posted or thought
something had to be wrong (medically) with Brown right
after the race...

And now people come back and say the horse is done.
The horse performed very poorly. I find it hard to just
pronounce the horse as done.

What exactly is wrong with him? Was he the only horse
to run all 3 legs of the TC? Seems Belmont was pretty darn
hot that day also.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by pgardn

And now people come back and say the horse is done.
The horse performed very poorly. I find it hard to just
pronounce the horse as done.

What exactly is wrong with him? Was he the only horse
to run all 3 legs of the TC? Seems Belmont was pretty darn
hot that day also.

Didn't you just get done saying he had a quarter crack?

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Didn't you just get done saying he had a quarter crack?

Apparently that was not a problem.

No problem with that after the race.
I read nothing about it.

Now this problem would go through my head during
the race if I was Kent D.after all the press at the Derby(8 belles)
and during the Belmont when Brown did not move
as before.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Apparently that was not a problem.

No problem with that after the race.
I read nothing about it.

Now this problem would go through my head during
the race if I was Kent D.after all the press at the Derby(8 belles)
and during the Belmont when Brown did not move
as before.

his foot hurt him due to the fact that he lost training time. basically, he was a short horse that day. i read he had one work between the derby and the belmont. his fitness level dropped.
pg, you run-just think if you didn't train for the weeks prior to a race. you're still in shape, but you're not racing fit. how would you do?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Apparently that was not a problem.

No problem with that after the race.
I read nothing about it.

Now this problem would go through my head during
the race if I was Kent D.after all the press at the Derby(8 belles)
and during the Belmont when Brown did not move
as before.

The foot is still by far the most likely culprit for the poor performance. That was a bad quarter crack. Just because it doesn't bother him when he gallops or even works, that does not mean that it won't bother him when is all-out in a race.

By the way, I don't buy the argument that the lack of training hurt the horse. He hardly did anything between the Derby and Preakness and he still ran great in the Preakness. He only galloped 4 days between the Derby and Preakness. He jogged the other days and he never worked between the Derby and Preakness. The horse probably did more between the Preakness and Belmont than he did between the Derby and Preakness. When you are running for the 3rd time in 5 weeks, you don't need to do much training.

I will still be somewhat surprised if that horse runs again. We will see if that foot holds up or not.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Apparently that was not a problem.

No problem with that after the race.
I read nothing about it.

Now this problem would go through my head during
the race if I was Kent D.after all the press at the Derby(8 belles)
and during the Belmont when Brown did not move
as before.

Just because you read nothing about it does not mean there was not a problem with it......