Final Verdict ... Fog Is A Fraud

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

So what are you saying? That he was a deserving champion? There may not have been a "worthy" champion last year and LITF may have been the best of a bad lot. But does that mean he still wasnt overrated?

You said earlier in this thread that you wont "judge him when he doesnt fire" but when do you judge him if that is the case? When he is dancing past overmatched garbage?

Let me give you what i have heard over the last couple of months and tell me what you think:

Sept 05- he doesnt need to go to belmont for a prep. Nah...he just needs to stay home and collect a check and not tire himself out before the big dance. This is one of the best sprinters of all time.

Oct 05- (after bc loss) he just wasnt himself today. It just wasnt him. I mean- look who beat him. Those horses arent any good and it proves that he just wasnt right. Too much travel.

April 06- He doesnt need to go to gulfstream for the richter scale or Aqueduct for the carter. For the first time out, lets just give him an easy preop.

May 06- (after loss) The layoff and the weight took its toll. It wasnt the real foggy. You will see next time.

June 06- (after aristides win) That was the real fog today. It didnt matter what he beat, he beat what dared to load against him.

July 06- (after loss in smile) He didnt show up today. Nope- he didnt fire. Hes acting studdish. He has a quarter crack. The post hurt. He didnt like the track. He was giving too much weight. This wasnt the real fog.



When is it ever going to be "the real fog" that loses? Horses dont "fire" for a reason and when you disregard the factors that lead to a hrose not "firing" you are being blinded by the hype. It seems fog doesnt "fire" when there is a horse in the race that is capable of beating him. Its as simple as that.

He isnt a pig but he isnt close to being the best sprinter in the country. And if that is the case, he is a fraud.

Now, look at kentuckyrosesinmay's "reasons" as to why LITF didnt fire and tell me that there arent some shocking similarities.

Amazing.

Goo-gooism at its finest.

The fact that this horse has NEVER beaten a decent field and has lost every time he has faced one is not enough to convince the goo goos that this horse was overrated.

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Goo-gooism at its finest.

The fact that this horse has NEVER beaten a decent field and has lost every time he has faced one is not enough to convince the goo goos that this horse was overrated.

Sidebar:

For those of you who were never members of the "other" forum ...

... it was I ... little old me ... who coined the term "goo-goo" 2+ years ago ... to describe the naïve dreamers who ... in the Spring of 2004 ... had declared that year's 3YOS to be the greatest crop in American history.

So, yes ... I'll take both the credit ... and the blame ... for coining that term.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Now, look at kentuckyrosesinmay's "reasons" as to why LITF didnt fire and tell me that there arent some shocking similarities.

Amazing.

Goo-gooism at its finest.

The fact that this horse has NEVER beaten a decent field and has lost every time he has faced one is not enough to convince the goo goos that this horse was overrated.

He's never beaten a decent field? That's absurd. He's won six graded stakes races the past year and a half. You guys say the most ridiculous things. I could say that Afleet Alex has not beaten a decent field. Who did he beat in the Belmont? Andromeda's Hero and Nolan's Cat. Who did he beat in the Preakness? Scrappy T. Afleet Alex never beat an older horse and when he faced really tough fields like in the Ky Derby and the BC Juvenille he lost.
Who did Leroidisanimaux ever beat? He never beat any really good horses. When he finally faced a tough field in the BC Mile, he lost.
I could make the same arguments that you guys made about practically any horse. There are only a few horses over the past 10 years, that you couldn't make these argumnets about. The only horses that you couldn't make such arguments about are horses that are pretty much undefeated and have beaten really good horses. The only horse I can think of that you could say that about would be Ghostzapper. He was practically undefeated and he beat a couple of very good horses in Saint Liam and Roses in May. But there's even a big knock on Ghostzapper. He hardly ever ran. You could argue that the only reason his recrd was so good was because he ran so infrequently.
You guys think you're making these brilliant arguments but you're not. We know that LITF is not doing well. We know he's got physical problems. His trainer has been very concerned about these problems, so concerned that they may retire the horse in July. Horses don't retire in July unless they are hurt. What more do you need to know?

[dr. fager]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You guys think you're making these brilliant arguments but you're not. We know that LITF is not doing well. We know he's got physical problems. His trainer has been very concerned about these problems, so concerned that they may retire the horse in July. Horses don't retire in July unless they are hurt. What more do you need to know?

Ok, my only question is why run him this past Saturday then? Why not keep him in California instead of shipping him across the country?

Bing Crosby is coming up, or didn't they want him to lock up with Bordonaro?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dr.fager

Ok, my only question is why run him this past Saturday then? Why not keep him in California instead of shipping him across the country?

Bing Crosby is coming up, or didn't they want him to lock up with Bordonaro?

These trainers run their horses all the time when they're not doing well. It would be easy to name 1000 horses that have run when they weren't doing well. Most horses don't stay in form for very long. One of the main reasons is because they are very fragile and most of the time they are battling some type of physical problem. If trainers only ran horses when they were at the top of thier game, we'd have nothing but 3 horse fields. I doubt Gilchrist knew for sure that the horse would run bad. The horse was coming off a nice win. I think he probably had some of the sme problems going into that race, yet he still won, so I'm sure that Gilchrist was hopeful that maybe the horse would win despite the fact that he wasn't at his best. The reason he chose the Calder race was because of the timing and because of the huge purse, not to mention that the horse had won at Calder before.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I have one more point to make. I've already said it, but I don't know if I really made it clear. In my opinion, you don't assess a horse's ability simply based on who they beat. It's not who they beat. It's how they did it. Case in point is Afleet Alex. He may not have beaten anyone great in the Preakness or Belmont, but you could still see that AA was a great horse based on his performance in those two races. It doesn't matter who he beat. It was how he did it.
Giacomo, on the other hand, won the KY Derby and he beat a great horse in Afleet Alex(who obviously did not run his best in the Derby ) that day. So not only did Giacomo win a huge race, he beat a great horse. Despite this, Giacomo is far from a great horse.
So we have Afleet Alex who never beat anyone and he is a great horse. Then you have Giacomo who did beat someone, yet Giacomo is not a great horse.
This type of stuff is quite typical in horseracing. There are many ordinary horses out there who have beaten great horses. And there are many great horses who have never beaten good horses. It's not who you beat. It's how you do it.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I have one more point to make. I've already said it, but I don't know if I really made it clear. In my opinion, you don't assess a horse's ability simply based on who they beat. It's not who they beat. It's how they did it. Case in point is Afleet Alex. He may not have beaten anyone great in the Preakness or Belmont, but you could still see that AA was a great horse based on his performance in those two races. It doesn't matter who he beat. It was how he did it.
Giacomo, on the other hand, won the KY Derby and he beat a great horse in Afleet Alex(who obviously did not run his best in the Derby ) that day. So not only did Giacomo win a huge race, he beat a great horse. Despite this, Giacomo is far from a great horse.
So we have Afleet Alex who never beat anyone and he is a great horse. Then you have Giacomo who did beat someone, yet Giacomo is not a great horse.
This type of stuff is quite typical in horseracing. There are many ordinary horses out there who have beaten great horses. And there are many great horses who have never beaten good horses. It's not who you beat. It's how you do it.

In my opinion it is definetely not an either or. It has to be both, who the horse beat and how. No question. The who and the how are both important.
To say that it doesn't matter who a horse beats seems somewhat absurd to me. The best situation is to find a horse that beats classy fields and looks good doing it.

I also don't agree with your comment that AA didn't run his best in the derby.
Are you saying he didn't "fire". I'm sorry but to me it was the single best performance in that derby all things considered. It was an incredible race. If you're saying he could have won it with different rating tactics I would agree, but how much more could AA have given that day?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

He's never beaten a decent field? That's absurd. He's won six graded stakes races the past year and a half. You guys say the most ridiculous things. I could say that Afleet Alex has not beaten a decent field. Who did he beat in the Belmont? Andromeda's Hero and Nolan's Cat. Who did he beat in the Preakness? Scrappy T. Afleet Alex never beat an older horse and when he faced really tough fields like in the Ky Derby and the BC Juvenille he lost.
Who did Leroidisanimaux ever beat? He never beat any really good horses. When he finally faced a tough field in the BC Mile, he lost.
I could make the same arguments that you guys made about practically any horse. There are only a few horses over the past 10 years, that you couldn't make these argumnets about. The only horses that you couldn't make such arguments about are horses that are pretty much undefeated and have beaten really good horses. The only horse I can think of that you could say that about would be Ghostzapper. He was practically undefeated and he beat a couple of very good horses in Saint Liam and Roses in May. But there's even a big knock on Ghostzapper. He hardly ever ran. You could argue that the only reason his recrd was so good was because he ran so infrequently.
You guys think you're making these brilliant arguments but you're not. We know that LITF is not doing well. We know he's got physical problems. His trainer has been very concerned about these problems, so concerned that they may retire the horse in July. Horses don't retire in July unless they are hurt. What more do you need to know?

What is absurd about that statement? Now lets not start double talking. Earlier in the thread, you said that we were too fixated on race grading and NOW you have the nerve to use it as the basis for this weak argument. Quit flip flopping.

Who did he beat? Name one quality field

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

What is absurd about that statement? Now lets not start double talking. Earlier in the thread, you said that we were too fixated on race grading and NOW you have the nerve to use it as the basis for this weak argument. Quit flip flopping.

Who did he beat? Name one quality field

I'm not double-talking at all. I still stick to my statement that you can't always rely on the grading of a race to decide how good the field is. A grade III race can sometimes play tougher than a grade I. If the only information you knew about a horse was that he once won a graded race, it wouldn't tell you a whole lot about how good he is. It could have been a weak graded race. If the only thing you knew about a horse was that he was a grade I winner, that wouldn't really tell you that much. It could have been a weak grade I. However, if you know that a horse has won six graded stakes races, that tells you something. One or two graded wins could be a fluke. A horse could have caught one or two weak fields. When a horse does it six times, it means something.
You guys think that the LITF supporters are making excuses for him. You think the excuses we are making to explain his bad performances are weak excuses. You guys are making way more excuses than we are. I'm making excuses for 3 sub-par races. You guys are making excuses for 11 wins, including 10 stakes races and 6 graded stakes races. When he ran a really fast time, it was only because the track was really fast. When he ran all of these huge speed figures, the figures must be wrong. When he won all of these graded stakes races at major tracks, every one of those races must have been weak. When he beat older horses, the older horses weren't that good. You guys have a million more excuses than I do. All I have to do is explain 3 sub-par races. You guys have to explain away an incredible record that includes 11 wins from 14 starts including 6 graded stakes wins.
How many other horses won 10 out of 11 races in a year including 5 graded races? If it's not that hard to do and a trainer simply needs to pick easy spots, then name me some mediocre horses that have done it.
It's not that the LITF supporters are desperate for a hero, it's that the LITF knockers are desperate to knock down a champ. That's the way message boards are. People knock Tiger Woods on message boards. They say, "Aha, he lost this week. You see, he's not that good. He's a choker." The nonsense you read on these board is comical.
All that being said, I don't think LITF is in the league of some of the great horses I've seen like Ghostzapper.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm not double-talking at all. I still stick to my statement that you can't always rely on the grading of a race to decide how good the field is. A grade III race can sometimes play tougher than a grade I. If the only information you knew about a horse was that he once won a graded race, it wouldn't tell you a whole lot about how good he is. It could have been a weak graded race. If the only thing you knew about a horse was that he was a grade I winner, that wouldn't really tell you that much. It could have been a weak grade I. However, if you know that a horse has won six graded stakes races, that tells you something. One or two graded wins could be a fluke. A horse could have caught one or two weak fields. When a horse does it six times, it means something.
You guys think that the LITF supporters are making excuses for him. You think the excuses we are making to explain his bad performances are weak excuses. You guys are making way more excuses than we are. I'm making excuses for 3 sub-par races. You guys are making excuses for 11 wins, including 10 stakes races and 6 graded stakes races. When he ran a really fast time, it was only because the track was really fast. When he ran all of these huge speed figures, the figures must be wrong. When he won all of these graded stakes races at major tracks, every one of those races must have been weak. When he beat older horses, the older horses weren't that good. You guys have a million more excuses than I do. All I have to do is explain 3 sub-par races. You guys have to explain away an incredible record that includes 11 wins from 14 starts including 6 graded stakes wins.
How many other horses won 10 out of 11 races in a year including 5 graded races? If it's not that hard to do and a trainer simply needs to pick easy spots, then name me some mediocre horses that have done it.
It's not that the LITF supporters are desperate for a hero, it's that the LITF knockers are desperate to knock down a champ. That's the way message boards are. People knock Tiger Woods on message boards. They say, "Aha, he lost this week. You see, he's not that good. He's a choker." The nonsense you read on these board is comical.
All that being said, I don't think LITF is in the league of some of the great horses I've seen like Ghostzapper.

And i ask yet again- NAME ONE DECENT FIELD THAT THIS HORSE HAS BEATEN. Just One

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

And i ask yet again- NAME ONE DECENT FIELD THAT THIS HORSE HAS BEATEN. Just One

I will answer again. It's not who you beat, it's how you do it. Who did Afleet Alex beat?
The question is irrelevant. A horse does not need to beat a great field for me to figure out that he's a really good horse.

[Danzig]

the thread that wouldn't die.....can't believe the life span of this thing.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I will answer again. It's not who you beat, it's how you do it. Who did Afleet Alex beat?
The question is irrelevant. A horse does not need to beat a great field for me to figure out that he's a really good horse.

Rup..Class = the Company you keep. I guess two legs of the TC gets AA a little more credit. LITF did everything he was suppose to do in restricted company..it was when he stepped up that he lost his glitter. I don't knock the horse, just don't feel he is as good as many thought he was.

Ez

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I will answer again. It's not who you beat, it's how you do it. Who did Afleet Alex beat?
The question is irrelevant. A horse does not need to beat a great field for me to figure out that he's a really good horse.

so basically you are saying that competition and race set up have no impact on performance?

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

He has won 11 of 14, come on hardly fraudulent to me.

How can a great record be fraudulent?

Two words ... Andy Kaufman.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

I will ask this question for the third time because NOONE WANTS TO GIVE IT A RESPONSE...

Why did many of the top contenders in July 15th's races at Calder not win? Were they all just not good enough or could there be some other logical explanation?

Hmmm....I wonder.

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

I will ask this question for the third time because NOONE WANTS TO GIVE IT A RESPONSE...

Why did many of the top contenders in July 15th's races at Calder not win? Were they all just not good enough or could there be some other logical explanation?

Hmmm....I wonder.

Perhaps the reason no one is reponding to the question ... is that it's totally irrelevant.

Does anyone know or care who won or lost on the undercard when Smoke Glacken defeated Wise Dusty in the DeFrancis Memorial? Or when Housebuster defeated Senor Speedy in the Forego Handicap?

What difference does it make what happened in races that Lost In The Fog didn't run in?

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Perhaps the reason no one is reponding to the question ... is that it's totally irrelevant.

Does anyone know or care who won or lost on the undercard when Smoke Glacken defeated Wise Dusty in the DeFrancis Memorial? Or when Housebuster defeated Senor Speedy in the Forego Handicap?

What difference does it make what happened in races that Lost In The Fog didn't run in?

The relevance is that some of the horses didn't take to the track which is why no one would answer my question.

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

The relevance is that some of the horses didn't take to the track which is why no one would answer my question.

Yes ... you're correct ... some horses didn't take to the track ... but ...

... other horses did ... and ...

... other horses weren't affected ... and ...

... all of that happens every single day wherever horse races are held.

And the relevance to Lost In The Fog's inability to win open G1/G2 sprints is ... ?

[Damascus '67]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

The relevance is that some of the horses didn't take to the track which is why no one would answer my question.

Did Calder's racing strip change so much in one year that he went from liking it to disliking it? I really don't see the relevance.