Final Verdict ... Fog Is A Fraud

ArlJim78 · #1 07-17-2006, 08:43 PM

RP “You statement that "he fires in every race that fits the pace description and competition level that I previously gave and he mis-fires every time he is in against tough horses" is totally untrue. He's gone :43 1/5 and won by 10 lengths. “

That was at Golden Gate and it was a three horse field!!!! You should pay less attention to times and more to pace figures, the quality of the competition, and the way the horse ran, how many obstacles did he overcome, how hard was he asked, etc.

RP “The only race he lost last year was the BC Sprint. That was one race. That is hardly proof of anything. A more obvious reason for his poor performance was because he had one too many trips across the country and one too many hard races. “

Is it really more likely that it was due to the travel? Take a look at the following. I alluded to his performances being predictable with the Bris pace and speed figures.
Below I am using Bris terms E1-pace figure to the quarter, E2-pace figure to the half, LP-pace figure from the half to the end, SPD-final speed figure. Here is the average pace profile for LITF. This is an average of all his races.
E1 E2 LP SPD
95 107 92 102

Now here are the figures he ran in his last four races prior to the Smile

Aristides - finished first
E1 E2 LP SPD
88 103 102 107

Golden Gate sprint - finished second in four horse field. Only one real competitor.
E1 E2 LP SPD
101 110 81 96

BC - Sprint - finished seventh
E1 E2 LP SPD
100 115 82 100

Bay Meadows Speed – finished first in a five horse field
E1 E2 LP SPD
94 103 105 109

You say he didn’t fire in the races that he lost. I am saying that he most definitely did fire and he actually ran faster initial pace figures than he normally does to the quarter and the half. In fact they were too fast for him to sustain and his late pace suffered as well as his speed. Those races caused him to work harder early than he did when he went 43 and change against two horses at GG. I don’t know the numbers for the Smile yet but I’m sure that they were huge for E1 and E2. LITF looks to have run his worst race to date but I will also say that I think it was the most challenging field he’s faced in terms of front end speed.

Maybe it’s you who needs to learn a bit more on evaluating horses when they race against weak fields. I was the one who wasn’t fooled by his wins over weak fields. Frankly this is so obvious I’m surprised that it is taking people so long to catch on.

Athletics005 · #2 07-17-2006, 09:43 PM

Retirement a possibility for Lost in the Fog
By CHUCK DYBDAL
In the wake of Lost in the Fog's ninth-place finish Saturday in the Grade 2 Smile Sprint at Calder, trainer Greg Gilchrist said that he and owner Harry Aleo are giving thought to retiring the colt. Lost in the Fog, the champion sprinter of 2005, will get a rest, Gilchrist said, and a decision on his future will be made when he returns to training.

"We're not leaning one way or the other," he said. "We'll give him time to get his feet underneath him and see how he is. We want to determine if he can be competitive at the level he should be. If it were going to take two or three months to bring him back, and there was only one race left for him this year, we'd probably retire him."

Gilchrist said Lost in the Fog didn't seem to try in the Smile, in which he carried high weight of 125 pounds and was the even-money favorite. Aleo and Gilchrist have said that Lost in the Fog, a 4-year-old by Lost Soldier, would race as both a 4-year-old and 5-year-old, and this is the first time they have questioned that plan.

"You can't put a positive spin on it," Gilchrist said. "It's the first time I've seen him not try. He carried a lot of weight, but that had nothing to do with running that poorly. He's got a lot of problems, things like quarter cracks and bumps and bruises. It's nothing life-threatening or career-ending, but they catch up with him."

Earlier at Calder on Saturday, the Gilchrist-trained Victorina won the Grade 3 Azalea Breeders' Cup Stakes. Gilchrist said he expected a good race out of Victorina but that he wasn't sure how Lost in the Fog would run.

"There were no surprises for me Saturday," trainer Greg Gilchrist said. "I wasn't surprised she ran well, and it didn't surprise me the other horse didn't."

Lost in the Fog and Victorina, both owned by Aleo, were scheduled to arrive at Golden Gate Fields late Tuesday afternoon.

blackthroatedwind · #3 07-17-2006, 09:51 PM

Now he " didn't try ".

He was outrun.

I gotta say, I have enjoyed reading this thread, and am strongly on the side of the posters who claim he was never as good as his unearned reputation and is now being exposed. Hey, I give a lot of credit to his connections, he danced every dance last year ( save perhaps the Vosburgh ) and shipped back and forth across the country. He ran in all the big 3YO races and it is hardly his fault the competition sucked ( and sucked it did ). But, it is a very dangerous thing to evaluate horses by being overly result oriented.

The truth is out now and the Emporer has no clothes.

Athletics005 · #4 07-17-2006, 09:55 PM

I think you have 6 options with the Fog:

1. Retire him due to injuries (sounds like he is not near 100%)

2. Continue to try him in G1 sprints, and try to overcome the extremely fast fractions.

3. Pick and choose easier graded spots, with smaller fields, likely get another win streak and look impressive like last year, but won't silence any skeptics.

4. Try the turf... his pedigree says he should handle it, and it may help with the injuries.

5. Strech him out, see what he can do at 8-8.5F when he is assured to have everything his own way on the front end. No longer any pressure to go the BC.

6. Give him one more start to fittingly go out a winner, knowing its his last, at Golden Gate called the 100k Lost in the Fog Stakes, and give the fans one last chance to appreciate one of the best bay area sprinters of all time showcasing his talent. (Hope Carthage does not show up).

While I don't think he was near as bad as he looked at Calder, it may be clearer now that he needs a softer early pace if he is going to look like he did last year. While this means he is not the greatest sprinter of all time, he certainly is a very solid horse who deserves all the credit in the world.

So, which option would you choose?

#5 07-18-2006, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athletics005

I think you have 6 options with the Fog:

1. Retire him due to injuries (sounds like he is not near 100%)

2. Continue to try him in G1 sprints, and try to overcome the extremely fast fractions.

3. Pick and choose easier graded spots, with smaller fields, likely get another win streak and look impressive like last year, but won't silence any skeptics.

4. Try the turf... his pedigree says he should handle it, and it may help with the injuries.

5. Strech him out, see what he can do at 8-8.5F when he is assured to have everything his own way on the front end. No longer any pressure to go the BC.

6. Give him one more start to fittingly go out a winner, knowing its his last, at Golden Gate called the 100k Lost in the Fog Stakes, and give the fans one last chance to appreciate one of the best bay area sprinters of all time showcasing his talent. (Hope Carthage does not show up).

While I don't think he was near as bad as he looked at Calder, it may be clearer now that he needs a softer early pace if he is going to look like he did last year. While this means he is not the greatest sprinter of all time, he certainly is a very solid horse who deserves all the credit in the world.

So, which option would you choose?

OaklandA's.. I guess you have gone to the LITF well one too many times (either that, or you need more options). I will go with Door No. 3, however, it sure sounds like retirement is next on his dance card. Hope you get to see him win one more in the Bay Area, I really do.

Ez

#6 07-17-2006, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athletics005

Retirement a possibility for Lost in the Fog
By CHUCK DYBDAL
In the wake of Lost in the Fog's ninth-place finish Saturday in the Grade 2 Smile Sprint at Calder, trainer Greg Gilchrist said that he and owner Harry Aleo are giving thought to retiring the colt.

From my post on page 2 of this thread on Saturday, July 15 at 11:31pm ...

"Not gonna be a 'next out' ... they'll retire him while they still can round up some gullible investors to form a stallion syndicate. If they run him again ... they won't be able to con anyone. Look for the staged 'bone chips ... best interest of the horse' press conference by next week."

And from my post on page 3, Saturday, 11:52pm ...

"Lost Like A Fraud 'won' an Eclipse Award ... and he's from the Danzig branch of the Northern Dancer line ... and he's got Secretariat, Ribot, and Native Dancer in his pedigree ... that's enough to sweet-talk some eager, wealthy investors into buying into a syndicate. It won't be a $100 million dollar syndicate ... but if you can get $5 million or even $3 million ... that's a heckuva lot more than this fraud will ever win in ungraded stakes races at Golden Gate. Dontcha think? Yeah ... it'll be 'bone chips' and 'for the good of the horse' ... any day now."

I can see through these people like a laser beam through tissue paper. At least they're being a little more honest about it than Lying-Through-My-Nose-Tubes "Chappy" was with Smarty Jones ... and I applaud them for that.

Rupert Pupkin · #7 07-17-2006, 10:53 PM

"Maybe it’s you who needs to learn a bit more on evaluating horses when they race against weak fields. I was the one who wasn’t fooled by his wins over weak fields. Frankly this is so obvious I’m surprised that it is taking people so long to catch on."[/quote]

As I said before, I have no problem judging a horse's ability even off a maiden win. Practically every horse I have bought or have tried to buy privately was off a race where they pretty much beat nobody. I usually don't buy horses after they have won a stakes race. I usually buy horses off a maiden win and sometimes an allowance win. It's the way the horse moves that is the most important thing. I don't care who is behind them. There doesn't have to be anyone behind them. As I told you before, I can judge a horse's ability from watching them work alone. At the 2 year old sales, the horses don't work in company. They usually work either an 1/8th of a mile or a 1/4 of a mile alone. If I didn't have a great eye, people wouldn't fly me all over the country on private jets to pick out horses for them. My eye is as good as anyone's in the business. I don't think anyone's batting average is higher than mine when it comes to picking out huge winners to buy. I tried to buy both Roses in May and English Channel before either of them had ever won a stakes race. We tried to buy Wild Fit off of her maiden win. We were offering huge amounts of money for these horses too. We offered $800,000 for Wild Fit off her maiden win. We offered $700,000 for English Channel off an allowance win and $1 million for Roses in May off an allowance win. These horses beat nobody in the races I tried to buy them off, yet we had no problem offering huge money for these horses because I was extremely confident in the ability off all three of these horses. I didn't look at any pace figures either. I am one of the only people in the business who gets a free 10% ownership in every horse I select. It must be beacuse I'm a nice guy.

#8 07-17-2006, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

"Maybe it’s you who needs to learn a bit more on evaluating horses when they race against weak fields. I was the one who wasn’t fooled by his wins over weak fields. Frankly this is so obvious I’m surprised that it is taking people so long to catch on."

As I said before, I have no problem judging a horse's ability even off a maiden win. Practically every horse I have bought or have tried to buy privately was off a race where they pretty much beat nobody. I usually don't buy horses after they have won a stakes race. I usually buy horses off a maiden win and sometimes an allowance win. It's the way the horse moves that is the most important thing. I don't care who is behind them. There doesn't have to be anyone behind them. As I told you before, I can judge a horse's ability from watching them work alone. At the 2 year old sales, the horses don't work in company. They usually work either an 1/8th of a mile or a 1/4 of a mile alone. If I didn't have a great eye, people wouldn't fly me all over the country on private jets to pick out horses for them. My eye is as good as anyone's in the business. I don't think anyone's batting average is higher than mine when it comes to picking out huge winners to buy. I tried to buy both Roses in May and English Channel before either of them had ever won a stakes race. We tried to buy Wild Fit off of her maiden win. We were offering huge amounts of money for these horses too. We offered $800,000 for Wild Fit off her maiden win. We offered $700,000 for English Channel off an allowance win and $1 million for Roses in May off an allowance win. These horses beat nobody in the races I tried to buy them off, yet we had no problem offering huge money for these horses because I was extremely confident in the ability off all three of these horses. I didn't look at any pace figures either. I am one of the only people in the business who gets a free 10% ownership in every horse I select. It must be beacuse I'm a nice guy.[/quote]

Rupe ... now I know why you're the King Of Comedy.

Rupert Pupkin · #9 07-18-2006, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

As I said before, I have no problem judging a horse's ability even off a maiden win. Practically every horse I have bought or have tried to buy privately was off a race where they pretty much beat nobody. I usually don't buy horses after they have won a stakes race. I usually buy horses off a maiden win and sometimes an allowance win. It's the way the horse moves that is the most important thing. I don't care who is behind them. There doesn't have to be anyone behind them. As I told you before, I can judge a horse's ability from watching them work alone. At the 2 year old sales, the horses don't work in company. They usually work either an 1/8th of a mile or a 1/4 of a mile alone. If I didn't have a great eye, people wouldn't fly me all over the country on private jets to pick out horses for them. My eye is as good as anyone's in the business. I don't think anyone's batting average is higher than mine when it comes to picking out huge winners to buy. I tried to buy both Roses in May and English Channel before either of them had ever won a stakes race. We tried to buy Wild Fit off of her maiden win. We were offering huge amounts of money for these horses too. We offered $800,000 for Wild Fit off her maiden win. We offered $700,000 for English Channel off an allowance win and $1 million for Roses in May off an allowance win. These horses beat nobody in the races I tried to buy them off, yet we had no problem offering huge money for these horses because I was extremely confident in the ability off all three of these horses. I didn't look at any pace figures either. I am one of the only people in the business who gets a free 10% ownership in every horse I select. It must be beacuse I'm a nice guy.

Rupe ... now I know why you're the King Of Comedy.[/quote]
There are plenty of people on this board who know who I am including Steve. Everything I said in that post is true.

blackthroatedwind · #10 07-17-2006, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

As I said before, I have no problem judging a horse's ability even off a maiden win. Practically every horse I have bought or have tried to buy privately was off a race where they pretty much beat nobody. I usually don't buy horses after they have won a stakes race. I usually buy horses off a maiden win and sometimes an allowance win. It's the way the horse moves that is the most important thing. I don't care who is behind them. There doesn't have to be anyone behind them. As I told you before, I can judge a horse's ability from watching them work alone. At the 2 year old sales, the horses don't work in company. They usually work either an 1/8th of a mile or a 1/4 of a mile alone. If I didn't have a great eye, people wouldn't fly me all over the country on private jets to pick out horses for them. My eye is as good as anyone's in the business. I don't think anyone's batting average is higher than mine when it comes to picking out huge winners to buy. I tried to buy both Roses in May and English Channel before either of them had ever won a stakes race. We tried to buy Wild Fit off of her maiden win. We were offering huge amounts of money for these horses too. We offered $800,000 for Wild Fit off her maiden win. We offered $700,000 for English Channel off an allowance win and $1 million for Roses in May off an allowance win. These horses beat nobody in the races I tried to buy them off, yet we had no problem offering huge money for these horses because I was extremely confident in the ability off all three of these horses. I didn't look at any pace figures either. I am one of the only people in the business who gets a free 10% ownership in every horse I select. It must be beacuse I'm a nice guy.

No disrespect intended, as regardless of your unnecessary boasts, you are obviously extremely knowledgable about racing. However, how exactly do you think your supposed respect in the industry bolsters your case for LITF? It seems to me if you felt your opinion, in this instance, stood well enough on its merits you wouldn't have had to have told us how respected you are in the game.

kentuckyrosesinmay · #11 07-17-2006, 11:21 PM

LITF clearly did not run his race and was never himself. He is a much better horse than he showed this past weekend. I can't believe the arguments I am hearing that are saying this horse is a fraud when it is obvious that something was definitely bothering him. He may not be a great horse, but he is a good one. I hope that the connections can overcome whatever is troubling this horse. They've done right by him so far and will make the right decision.

#12 07-17-2006, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

No disrespect intended, as regardless of your unnecessary boasts, you are obviously extremely knowledgable about racing. However, how exactly do you think your supposed respect in the industry bolsters your case for LITF? It seems to me if you felt your opinion, in this instance, stood well enough on its merits you wouldn't have had to have told us how respected you are in the game.

Again intending no disrespect .. somehow that post reminds me of the awful Shirley Temple version of "The Story Of Seabiscuit" ... where Barry Fitzgerald ... the feisty wee Irish "trainer" of Seabiscuit ... claims he can tell a good race horse "by lookin' 'im in the oye."

I don't think looking at a horse's stride is much more worthwhile than "lookin' 'im in the oye" ... because good horses come in all sizes, shapes, and strides ... from the mighty-mite Dark Mirage to the really mighty Forego.

The only sure way to tell if a horse is good ... is to put him on a track with other horses in a competitive race for a purse ... and see what happens.

kentuckyrosesinmay · #13 07-18-2006, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Again intending no disrespect .. somehow that post reminds me of the awful Shirley Temple version of "The Story Of Seabiscuit" ... where Barry Fitzgerald ... the feisty wee Irish "trainer" of Seabiscuit ... claims he can tell a good race horse "by lookin' 'im in the oye."

I don't think looking at a horse's stride is much more worthwhile than "lookin' 'im in the oye" ... because good horses come in all sizes, shapes, and strides ... from the mighty-mite Dark Mirage to the really mighty Forego.

The only sure way to tell if a horse is good ... is to put him on a track with other horses in a competitive race for a purse ... and see what happens.

I'll answer that since he hasn't and I can say from personal experience that your assessment is far from the reality. I don't have to see them race against other horses to tell if they are good...I just have to see them gallop and breeze. Astute horsemen can look them "in the face", their conformation, and their movement over the track to distinguish the good ones from the not so good. It is very difficult to explain because so many elements are involved. It takes years of experience in watching two year olds mature, judging movement and conformation, watching them race, and much, much more. Most of the two year olds that turn into great horses have a quality about them that distinguishes them from the other horses.

There are exceptions to some exceptions to this though...Seabiscuit is a prime example...God what an ugly gallop! But Smith saw it in his face. Just like Lava Man. You could see it before it showed up in his performances. I'll tell you one thing, Lava Man has more heart than any horse I have ever seen. I know this may sound weird, but I can feel it when I look at him, but, then again, all true horseman can.

Some other examples of great purchases based solely on movement, character, and how they breezed over the track were in Funny Cide and Showing Up, both of whom Barclay Tagg picked out. They weren't really expensive horses and it is not a mere coincidence that both of these horses ended up in his stable. He picked them because he knew what he was looking for and knew what he was doing. There are quite a few out there in this business that have that kind of ability such as Tagg, and the really good ones are treasured in this game.

Rupert Pupkin · #14 07-18-2006, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

I'll answer that since he hasn't and I can say from personal experience that your assessment is far from the reality. I don't have to see them race against other horses to tell if they are good...I just have to see them gallop and breeze. Astute horsemen can look them "in the face", their conformation, and their movement over the track to distinguish the good ones from the not so good. It is very difficult to explain because so many elements are involved. It takes years of experience in watching two year olds mature, judging movement and conformation, watching them race, and much, much more. Most of the two year olds that turn into great horses have a quality about them that distinguishes them from the other horses.

There are exceptions to some exceptions to this though...Seabiscuit is a prime example...God what an ugly gallop! But Smith saw it in his face. Just like Lava Man. You could see it before it showed up in his performances. I'll tell you one thing, Lava Man has more heart than any horse I have ever seen. I know this may sound weird, but I can feel it when I look at him, but, then again, all true horseman can.

Some other examples of great purchases based solely on movement, character, and how they breezed over the track were in Funny Cide and Showing Up, both of whom Barclay Tagg picked out. They weren't really expensive horses and it is not a mere coincidence that both of these horses ended up in his stable. He picked them because he knew what he was looking for and knew what he was doing. There are quite a few out there in this business that have that kind of ability such as Tagg, and the really good ones are treasured in this game.

Jessica is 100% correct. I don't know about the part of looking a horse in the eye. I have no ability to do that. It's possible that some people might be able to do that. Some people make the mistake of thinking that just because they can't do something, that it can't be done. I can't tell anything from looking a horse in the eye but I guess it's possible that some people may have some ability to do that. But even if someone can get information from looking a horse in the eye, I highly doubt that this would be nearly as accurate of a method as watching a horse work out. It's not that difficult to judge a horse if you know what you're doing, if you can watch them run full-speed like they do at the sales.

#15 07-18-2006, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

I'll answer that since he hasn't and I can say from personal experience that your assessment is far from the reality. I don't have to see them race against other horses to tell if they are good...I just have to see them gallop and breeze. Astute horsemen can look them "in the face", their conformation, and their movement over the track to distinguish the good ones from the not so good.

Hmmm ... yes, I said "hmmm" ... then ...

... then how come 90% of all the high-priced yearlings that these "astute" horsemen recommend ... turn out to be garbage?

Once again ... I say, "hmmmm .... "

Buffymommy · #16 07-18-2006, 10:50 AM

You all can bash this horse all ya want. He was and is good for racing. He has a big following and brought many to racing. So whether he is the best sprinter ever or not, does not matter to me in the least. He was good for racing!

kentuckyrosesinmay · #17 07-18-2006, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Hmmm ... yes, I said "hmmm" ... then ...

... then how come 90% of all the high-priced yearlings that these "astute" horsemen recommend ... turn out to be garbage?

Once again ... I say, "hmmmm .... "

You can argue with me all you want to on this subject, but you are dead wrong. I know from personal experience that you are dead wrong, and there are many horseman that consistently pick out moderately priced two year olds in training and turn almost every one of them into winners. Don't get in an arguement about a subject that you know nothing about. You have obviously never worked around horses and wouldn't know from experience.

Because the horsemen who have filthy rich clients that buy the ridiculously high-priced horses aren't the great horsemen I am talking about. They are usually not as hard pressed to find good horses because there is so much money to piss away that they can just go buy another one anytime they want to. I would have never paid the amount for some of the high priced horses that some of these people have paid even if I had an endless money pit. Take Chekov for example...I never liked that horse. Just like a good bettor, a good horseman looks for value. I'm talking about the horsemen who can find quality in the cheaper animals. Most of the time, it is the Darley, Godolphin, and Coolmore stables pissing away money anyway...like the Green Monkey. While he is a nice colt, he will get beaten on the track. I've seen some others this year that I like a lot better than him.

Why did you think that I said that Orientate was going to be the one of the new top sires? Because I have seen his two year old trainees. He already is ranked 7th in the overall national standings for first crop with only 11 starters. His foals will only get better as they mature.

Rupert Pupkin · #18 07-18-2006, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Hmmm ... yes, I said "hmmm" ... then ...

... then how come 90% of all the high-priced yearlings that these "astute" horsemen recommend ... turn out to be garbage?

Once again ... I say, "hmmmm .... "

First of all, I was not talking about yearling sales. I was talking about 2 year old in training sales. At 2 year old in training sales, you get to watch a horse work out. At yearling sales, you don't. I personally have no expertise at picking out yearlings. But there are some people who are really good at it. With yearlings though, there really is no such thing as a horse who is a slam dunk to be a good horse. Even the guys who are great at picking out yearlings will have a relatively low batting average. If 20-25% of the horses you picked turned out turned out to be good enough horses to break their maidens within their first couple of races at major tracks, that would be a very good batting average for yearlings. With 2 year olds in training, a person with a good eye, could do much better than this. You could expect more like 60-70% of the horses you pick to win early at major tracks. The number will obviously be much lower for horses who don't have much speed and look like they want to run long.
To clarify your question about a horse's stride, there are all different types of strides. Just because a horse has a short stride, it doesn't mean that his stride is bad. By the same token, just because a horse has a long stride, that doesn't mean his stride is good. As long as the stride is fluid and smooth, that is the most important thing.

Rupert Pupkin · #19 07-18-2006, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Again intending no disrespect .. somehow that post reminds me of the awful Shirley Temple version of "The Story Of Seabiscuit" ... where Barry Fitzgerald ... the feisty wee Irish "trainer" of Seabiscuit ... claims he can tell a good race horse "by lookin' 'im in the oye."

I don't think looking at a horse's stride is much more worthwhile than "lookin' 'im in the oye" ... because good horses come in all sizes, shapes, and strides ... from the mighty-mite Dark Mirage to the really mighty Forego.

The only sure way to tell if a horse is good ... is to put him on a track with other horses in a competitive race for a purse ... and see what happens.

That is completely untrue. You can totally tell which horses are good at the 2 year old sales if you know what you're looking at. There are certain things you can't tell. You can't tell how much heart a horse has. But you can make a good assessment of a horse's ability. Why do you think What a Song(who didn't have much pedigree) went for $1.8 million? It was because it was obvious that he could really run. He worked a quarter in :20 3/5 and he had a great way of moving. He was a slam dunk to be at least a half-way decent horse. I would have never paid anything close to that for him, but he could obviously run. He was easy to pick. That's why he went for so much money. The trick is not to pick one like him. The trick is to pick one that isn't so obvious, so you can get a bargain. Tim Ritchey picked Afleet Alex for $75,000. Now that is one to be proud of.

Rupert Pupkin · #20 07-18-2006, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

No disrespect intended, as regardless of your unnecessary boasts, you are obviously extremely knowledgable about racing. However, how exactly do you think your supposed respect in the industry bolsters your case for LITF? It seems to me if you felt your opinion, in this instance, stood well enough on its merits you wouldn't have had to have told us how respected you are in the game.

I wasn't saying that it proves that I am right about LITF. I was simply responding to Jim's comment that maybe I am not that good at judging horses who beat nobody. I was simply saying that that is not true. I am very good at judging a horse's abilty simply by watching the horse run. I can make a good judgement of a horse's ability by watching them work an 1/8th of a mile alone. That's much tougher than judging a horse's ability based on a maiden win. With LITF, it was much easier than that. We got to watch him run 10 times.
I agree with you that it is not good to boast and boasting can be obnoxious. However, there is a difference between boasting out of the blue and boasting to defend yourself. In fact, I think I can make a good argument that if you use your credentials to defend yourself, that is not boasting. For example, if a guy went to college at Harvard and he always brags about it, then that is boasting. But if a guy who went to Harvard is accused of being uneducated, I think it would be appropriate for him to say, "Of course I am educated, I went to Harvard." In that situation, I would not call that boasting. The guy is simply defending himself.