Can't make wine from sour grapes

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

Well if you make this about principle, Repole doesn't have a leg to stand on (I don't agree that most people who understand things like rank horses and rabbits would agree with Repole). It's ironic that he has the nerve to make the claim. He was trying to set up the race for himself. It takes a lot of nerve to argue that someone else got to it before you. And Noble Indy wasn't going fast enough to get that lead. He just wasn't. They argue things don't make sense that do, trying to create a sense of impropriety where none exists. Things that are observable. If you're talking how RH was behaving, Jay Privman saw it and he's not the only one I've heard bring the rankness up. As for why he was up there in the first place, are you gonna argue that Baffert horses are not typically forwardly placed versus back in the pack? That it's not better to use tactical speed in the Belmont Stakes? RH's position and ride made sense. Castellano claims Noble Indy hit the gate among other things. I didn't go back and look at it, but if Repole expected him to go up there and wear Justify out for Vino Rosso while being sacrificed, how's he getting around that ethical issue?

People are mad their horses lost, they shouldn't have expected to win, and it's tacky as hell to make it be the first thing out of their mouths when we just had a worthy TC winner. Maybe Repole and Coburn need to go have a beer and commiserate.

Rabbits have been used for years. They are part of the game. There is a difference between sending a rabbit and sending a horse that borderline fouls other horses. Geroux was right on the verge of fouling Bravazzo. He came in on him and caused him to check. And don't tell me I'm biased. I didn't like Bravazzo at all. I bet on Justify. I got +135 on him offshore. I wanted Justify to win. But I can still look at what happened objectively.

There are thousands of people out there including tons of trainers who had a problem with what happened. It's not as if it's just Repole saying something. He's simply saying the same thing that thousands of other people are saying. That is not sour grapes. How do you explain all the people out there who said the same thing as Repole?

What is going to happen next? Is a guy going to enter another horse to take out half the competition at the break? If that did ever happen in a big race, it would put the stewards in a tough position. The rider would obviously claim it was unintentional. Are the stewards going to disqualify the winning horse, if the trainer's uncoupled entry mate fouls a couple of other horses at the break?

I'm not claiming that anyone should have been disqualified in the Belmont. But I think it was an unethical, reckless and potentially dangerous thing to do. What if Bravazzo would have clipped heels and gone down? It would have created a huge scene, even if nobody got hurt. Would they have disqualified Justify? I would say probably not, but you would have people screaming twice as loud as they are right now. By the way, the stewards do have the power to disqualify an uncoupled entry mate (even with a different owner), if he fouls someone to the benefit of the other entry mate.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Rabbits have been used for years. They are part of the game. There is a difference between sending a rabbit and sending a horse that borderline fouls other horses. Geroux was right on the verge of fouling Bravazzo. He came in on him and caused him to check. And don't tell me I'm biased. I didn't like Bravazzo at all. I bet on Justify. I got +135 on him offshore. I wanted Justify to win. But I can still look at what happened objectively.

There are thousands of people out there including tons of trainers who had a problem with what happened. It's not as if it's just Repole saying something. He's simply saying the same thing that thousands of other people are saying. That is not sour grapes. How do you explain all the people out there who said the same thing as Repole?

What is going to happen next? Is a guy going to enter another horse to take out half the competition at the break? If that did ever happen in a big race, it would put the stewards in a tough position. The rider would obviously claim it was unintentional. Are the stewards going to disqualify the winning horse, if the trainer's uncoupled entry mate fouls a couple of other horses at the break?

I'm not claiming that anyone should have been disqualified in the Belmont. But I think it was an unethical, reckless and potentially dangerous thing to do. What if Bravazzo would have clipped heels and gone down? It would have created a huge scene, even if nobody got hurt. Would they have disqualified Justify? I would say probably not, but you would have people screaming twice as loud as they are right now. By the way, the stewards do have the power to disqualify an uncoupled entry mate (even with a different owner), if he fouls someone to the benefit of the other entry mate.

You must have watched a different race than I did to suggest Restoring Hope did anything that remotely came close to making Bravazo clip heels and go down. In reality, he drifted out slightly going into the first turn before straightening and holding the two path, i.e. the same trip anyone who wanted to be aggressive could’ve gotten. Then he packed it in just in time for Vino Rosso to take his best shot at Justify, which wasn’t near good enough.

I love the idea that rabbits are just good old-fashioned gamesmanship but running an anti-rabbit is somehow a disgrace that needs to be investigated. No amount of hysteria or exaggeration or made-up hypotheticals will allow you to have that both ways. Killer redboard on your 6/5 Justify bet though.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

You must have watched a different race than I did to suggest Restoring Hope did anything that remotely came close to making Bravazo clip heels and go down. In reality, he drifted out slightly going into the first turn before straightening and holding the two path, i.e. the same trip anyone who wanted to be aggressive could’ve gotten. Then he packed it in just in time for Vino Rosso to take his best shot at Justify, which wasn’t near good enough.

I love the idea that rabbits are just good old-fashioned gamesmanship but running an anti-rabbit is somehow a disgrace that needs to be investigated. No amount of hysteria or exaggeration or made-up hypotheticals will allow you to have that both ways. Killer redboard on your 6/5 Justify bet though.

How did you know that I mentioned the bet to redboard and not to let Merlinsky know that I was not biased? That was an astute observation on your part. I'm a big redboarder, especially with 6-5 shots. Winning with a 6-5 favorite is a huge accomplishment.

I just watched it again. The incident with Bravazzo was not as bad as I originally thought. He came in on him a little bit and put him in a little tight, but it wasn't that bad. But still, one minute he is trying to force horses wide, then the next minute he is coming in to try to put Bravazzo in a tight spot. Trying to interfere with other horses is more extreme than putting a rabbit in a race IMO.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

How did you know that I mentioned the bet to redboard and not to let Merlinsky know that I was not biased? That was an astute observation on your part. I'm a big redboarder, especially with 6-5 shots. Winning with a 6-5 favorite is a huge accomplishment.

I just watched it again. The incident with Bravazzo was not as bad as I originally thought. He came in on him a little bit and put him in a little tight, but it wasn't that bad. But still, one minute he is trying to force horses wide, then the next minute he is coming in to try to put Bravazzo in a tight spot. Trying to interfere with other horses is more extreme than putting a rabbit in a race IMO.

That’s a hell of an accusation to make right after admitting that you exaggerated what the horse actually did in the first place.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

That’s a hell of an accusation to make right after admitting that you exaggerated what the horse actually did in the first place.

Let me ask you a question. If you had to guess, what do you think Geroux's instructions were?

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Let me ask you a question. If you had to guess, what do you think Geroux's instructions were?

Be forwardly placed. Don't get into a speed duel is probably understood. Maybe even the first part was understood given that it was a Baffert horse, but I don't know. Mig saw Geroux's ride the same way Privman and others have. The moving out and then back in was legit.

Which horse was he interfering with? Noble Indy who wasn't fast enough to get up there in the first place? Last time I checked, you can't be expected to get out of the way for a slower horse. There's no 'after you, good sir' required in the process of getting a good position for your horse going into the first turn. If another horse gets there first, too bad.

As for the interfering's worse than a rabbit, uh no, the accusation was it was a set up (when really neither's wrong per se, just strategy). Well Repole was trying to do his own set up, and if his horse is too slow to make it happen, oh well. There wasn't interference. RH belonged where he was. This shouldn't be hard to understand unless there is Coburn-level sour grapes which is bad for the sport and needs to stop.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

Be forwardly placed. Don't get into a speed duel is probably understood. Maybe even the first part was understood given that it was a Baffert horse, but I don't know. Mig saw Geroux's ride the same way Privman and others have. The moving out and then back in was legit.

Which horse was he interfering with? Noble Indy who wasn't fast enough to get up there in the first place? Last time I checked, you can't be expected to get out of the way for a slower horse. There's no 'after you, good sir' required in the process of getting a good position for your horse going into the first turn. If another horse gets there first, too bad.

As for the interfering's worse than a rabbit, uh no, the accusation was it was a set up (when really neither's wrong per se, just strategy). Well Repole was trying to do his own set up, and if his horse is too slow to make it happen, oh well. There wasn't interference. RH belonged where he was. This shouldn't be hard to understand unless there is Coburn-level sour grapes which is bad for the sport and needs to stop.

Noble Indy IS fast enough to "get up there."