Very Mixed Feelings

[alphanumeric1]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i just think that wins by horses for shady connections somehow glosses over their uh...'contributions' to the sport. as tho they achieve legitimacy by having a top horse. sort of like steve asmussen last year. he went from pariah down a years suspension for two huge drug positives (the second six month suspension was waived for some reason) to being a media darling... all past transgressions seemingly forgotten.

I'm with you on the human connections. The cream doesn't rise to the top..it seems like the scum rises to the top. Asmussen and Dutrow are not trainers for the ages.
To me it's about the horses...I can't forget the excitement of seeing Affirmed/Alydar (yes, I'm admitting my age) in the Belmont. I want to see a horse like this again. This horse seems like he could be that kind. That will be the fun will be in rooting for Brown. I'd be hard pressed to remember the names of the horses involved in some of my biggest scores at the track but I still have the uncashed $2 win ticket on Affirmed.
Good luck to you and all the lively posters on DT.

[Payson Dave]

hmmmm I'm not so sure that Laz Barrera was squeaky clean.

[alphanumeric1]

Originally Posted by Payson Dave

hmmmm I'm not so sure that Laz Barrera was squeaky clean.

Touché.

[Zippy Chippy]

Just like you can't pick your parents, a horse can't pick his or her connections. I understand why people feel the way they do, but in the end the only thing that matters is the horse. As much as I hate that he beat me on Saturday, I can root for Big Brown because the only thing he is guilty of is winning race after race.

[Danzig]

yeah, four times! he just passed danzig for wins in a row.

no, seriously...i had a thought. maybe for dutrow and assmussen, it's poetic justice. they remain in a sport( that if it had the same teeth as other sports, they would NOT still be a part of) and manage to find a legit horse. but now (thanks to karma?) they'll always feel slighted, because the horse will always be questioned..because of their shady, cheating, conniving, thieving pasts. so, they'll always be defensive, and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it but take it.
of course, they'll laugh all the way to the bank-but part of them will always feel this slight, the doubt some will have that the horse really did it the right way.

[westcoastinvader]

I do think the competion or lack there of (so far) is an issue. Right now, he looks much the best of a shallow 3 year old pool.

I'm old enough to remember Seattle Slew quite well, and in fact walked in Belmont at about 6AM or so on the morning of his Triple Crown win and ended up with primo seats at the finish line. I'll never forget it, and still have at least one uncashed $2 dollar ticket.

Point is, that Seattle Slew had all kinds of naysayers during his unbeaten run up to and through the Triple Crown. Lots of 'em.

At Belmont, not only was he "no Secretariat" to fans in the stands before the race that day, he was also "no Forego."

"He's just run well enough to win against mediocre horses" was the near universal mindset of racing fans and writers in 1977, with visions of Secretariat fresh in the mind.

I heard it so much at the time, I sort of believed it myself.

That's why I was especially happy in the years after his Triple Crown that he so excelled as a stallion.

Even more proof for eternity Seattle Slew was the real deal.

[westcoastinvader]

For the record, there's no way I can pull against an undefeated Kentucky Derby winner in the remaining Triple Crown races.

Especially one who won the Florida Derby, and then the Kentucky Derby in such spectacular and dominating fashion.