Don't Trash Kent, On Bb's Race Here's Why.......

Kasept · #1 06-10-2008, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdjcom

Now all the experts on ATR including Steve Byk who i admired
and respect have flip-flopped on this issue. i held on the phone with KC
yesterday put could not get thru to Steve. Steve nor steve Haskin, or John
perrotta said anything about BB might need to be scratch 14 days before race.

Now john said BB was taken out of his work-out routine. Steve and others on Atr for 2 weeks said everything is a go for BB. now after BB ran terrible due to no fault of his own, and has a DNF on his record, All these experts are saying BB didn't get his long gallops in and had only 1 meaniful work-out at 5 furlongs. Well hell if you knew this days before race none of them said a damm thing after, 5 million dollars was bet on BB?

This is a rather bizarre assertion. I didn't know I had a say in the horse making the start. Big Brown worked out and looked good earlier in the week. The connections were comfortable with where he was and expected a good effort despite the hoof and lost training. I suggested Friday he didn't look nearly as good in his gallop as he had earlier in the week. What else exactly am I supposed to offer up?

The horse running or not running is not my, Steve Haskin's, John Perrotta's, or any other member of the media's responsibility. I reached out Monday for John Nerud to get the foremost opinion available on what may have occured. More expert than mine.. Rupert's.. or yours. And I'll take Nerud's interpretation as the cause of the poor performance. Big Brown's raw talent couldn't overcome the other issues, and that was what the connections and most that thought he would win Saturday were counting on and expecting.

Rupert Pupkin · #2 06-10-2008, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kasept

This is a rather bizarre assertion. I didn't know I had a say in the horse making the start. Big Brown worked out and looked good earlier in the week. The connections were comfortable with where he was and expected a good effort despite the hoof and lost training. I suggested Friday he didn't look nearly as good in his gallop as he had earlier in the week. What else exactly am I supposed to offer up?

The horse running or not running is not my, Steve Haskin's, John Perrotta's, or any other member of the media's responsibility. I reached out Monday for John Nerud to get the foremost opinion available on what may have occured. More expert than mine.. Rupert's.. or yours. And I'll take Nerud's interpretation as the cause of the poor performance. Big Brown's raw talent couldn't overcome the other issues, and that was what the connections and most that thought he would win Saturday were counting on and expecting.

Steve, For the record I was in no way endorsing sdjcom's criticism of you. I was just saying that sdjcom's suggetion that the horse should not have run was not a crazy suggestion. It was a reasonable point of view.

Kasept · #3 06-10-2008, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Steve, For the record I was in no way endorsing sdjcom's criticism of you. I was just saying that sdjcom's suggetion that the horse should not have run was not a crazy suggestion. It was a reasonable point of view.

The criticism is fine. I'm not sure what the criticism is... It's not my responsibility or place to suggest on a radio show to Rick Dutrow or any other trainer that they may be running a less than perfectly fit horse in the third leg of the Triple Crown with immortality on the line. I think they already knew that...

And the suggestion that Dutrow and Desormeaux were "tense" Saturday is an interesting revelation... I wonder why they might have been tense? Was there anything riding on the day's outcome?

They were hoping the horse's talent would be enough. It wasn't.

ELA · #4 06-10-2008, 10:45 PM

Steve -- on a related note, having John Nerud on the show was fantastic. As you know, I truly enjoy sitting around with Angel Cordero or Jorge Velasquez, maybe the Chief, whoever might be around, and listening to their stories about the history of this game.

I remember watching races and then hearing someone like Georgie talk about what was going through his mind or what he was looking to do -- it's just incredible.

Could you imagine sitting with John Nerud and talking about training, breeding and just the sport in general?

Eric

Danzig · #5 06-10-2008, 10:58 PM

i don't think it was sdj's suggestion that got him grief so much as it came from sdj.
as for his remark that the horse should have scratched, i believe it was a general consensus that had it been any race other than the belmont, and the tc on the line, the horse would have been scratched.

and in hindsight, he would have been better off, and the connections as well, had he scratched. much better for all of them if everyone was allowed to speculate 'what if' rather than know.

Swale84 · #6 06-11-2008, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ELA

Steve -- on a related note, having John Nerud on the show was fantastic. As you know, I truly enjoy sitting around with Angel Cordero or Jorge Velasquez, maybe the Chief, whoever might be around, and listening to their stories about the history of this game.

I remember watching races and then hearing someone like Georgie talk about what was going through his mind or what he was looking to do -- it's just incredible.

Could you imagine sitting with John Nerud and talking about training, breeding and just the sport in general?

Eric

John Nerud is always great when he is on the show. Unbelievable wealth of knowledge-Tartan surface, being around when NYRA passed on OTB, great trainer and horseman

Any chance of Steve Haskin writing a book with/about Nerud?

Cannon Shell · #7 06-11-2008, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Steve, For the record I was in no way endorsing sdjcom's criticism of you. I was just saying that sdjcom's suggetion that the horse should not have run was not a crazy suggestion. It was a reasonable point of view.

Even a blind squirel finds a nut once in awhile. Just because he guessed right doesnt mean his reasoning or logic was correct.

Rupert Pupkin · #8 06-11-2008, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Even a blind squirel finds a nut once in awhile. Just because he guessed right doesnt mean his reasoning or logic was correct.

That is true.

westcoastinvader · #9 06-11-2008, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Even a blind squirel finds a nut once in awhile. Just because he guessed right doesnt mean his reasoning or logic was correct.

At least no one with the connections has said Big Brown stepped on a tack in the barn before the race.....

sdjcom · #10 06-11-2008, 07:04 AM

Steve i was not implying anyone on ATR say anything or question a trainer.
i meant saying this to the listeners if a high profile horse is out of training routine for a big race. Atr and guest i understand was at Belmont all week. on the radio show it sounded to me everything was fine, with the patch job on hoof and so i took it for granted training to. now i did not bet BB and will say it's one's own responsibility to watch w/o reports so maybe i was out of line.
however everyone listen's for an advantage.

Kasept · #11 06-11-2008, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdjcom

Steve i was not implying anyone on ATR say anything or question a trainer.
i meant saying this to the listeners if a high profile horse is out of training routine for a big race. Atr and guest i understand was at Belmont all week. on the radio show it sounded to me everything was fine, with the patch job on hoof and so i took it for granted training to. now i did not bet BB and will say it's one's own responsibility to watch w/o reports so maybe i was out of line.
however everyone listen's for an advantage.

I understand.. And your suggestion about consideration for scratching was certainly a valid one. Understand that everyone was going on visual impression and what you heard from the Dutrow/McKinlay end. When the horse is out there early in the week looking solid going 5f in 1:00.3 and cooling out fine, there is no reason to question his status. He looked considerably worse for wear to me Friday when he jogged and I said so on the air... I also had again reminded people on the wagering front that the prudent play was to go against him in race, cover him in multis. That was the best I could do in terms of advising people to be wary of embracing him totally to the exclusion of any other possible result.

Remember that we were dealing with a horse that had dusted everything he faced in Florida, Kentucky and Maryland. The thought process is to conclude that even if he is less than 100% he should still beat the crew he was facing. Remember too that Baffert and Frankel expected Point Given and Empire Maker respectively to be simply better than the rest at less than 100% in their Kentucky Derbies. And most experts, fans and horseplayers agreed with their assertions.

CSC · #12 06-11-2008, 09:15 AM

I think the point here is nobody in their right mind expected the horse to lose nevermind finishing last, afterall the Trainer said neither bad trip, bad ride, bad hoof, bad post, subpar competition and even off training routine, were all irrevelant factors. To use 20/20 hindsight now is really after the fact.

stevepopyak · #13 06-11-2008, 10:14 AM

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/hor...ory?id=3437035

jms62 · #14 06-11-2008, 10:52 AM

"He also said that he will resume the horse's regular regiment of Winstrol injections on Sunday, despite claiming that Big Brown does not need steroids.
Dutrow has maintained that Big Brown was properly prepared for the race, dismissing speculation that the horse underperformed because he had been taken off steroids in May.

"He doesn't need any drugs; the Winstrol had nothing to do with it,"

Dutrow said. "I've never even had a vet look at this horse."

Dutrow like all the Experts on ATR have said the lack of Winstrol had nothing to do with his performance... Then why put him back on his cycle ?

CSC · #15 06-11-2008, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jms62

"He also said that he will resume the horse's regular regiment of Winstrol injections on Sunday, despite claiming that Big Brown does not need steroids.
Dutrow has maintained that Big Brown was properly prepared for the race, dismissing speculation that the horse underperformed because he had been taken off steroids in May.

"He doesn't need any drugs; the Winstrol had nothing to do with it,"

Dutrow said. "I've never even had a vet look at this horse."

Dutrow like all the Experts on ATR have said the lack of Winstrol had nothing to do with his performance... Then why put him back on his cycle ?

Obviously something caused the horse not to run Saturday, and really that is the million dollar question. Short of not feeling like performing, which is hard to take at face value as horses are bred to run and love running, who knows... the only plausible reason I can rationalize here is he may have been protecting himself, the horse is spent and I agree if Winstrol is not a factor then why have him on it?

Cannon Shell · #16 06-11-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jms62

"He also said that he will resume the horse's regular regiment of Winstrol injections on Sunday, despite claiming that Big Brown does not need steroids.
Dutrow has maintained that Big Brown was properly prepared for the race, dismissing speculation that the horse underperformed because he had been taken off steroids in May.

"He doesn't need any drugs; the Winstrol had nothing to do with it,"

Dutrow said. "I've never even had a vet look at this horse."

Dutrow like all the Experts on ATR have said the lack of Winstrol had nothing to do with his performance... Then why put him back on his cycle ?

Maybe because he is rundown after 3 races in 5 weeks after having 3 races in 8 months? You know the actual legitimate use for the stuff?

asudevil · #17 06-11-2008, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevepopyak

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/hor...ory?id=3437035

"Hey Kent, sorry I was an A-hole babe. You ride real good. Let's move on and get ready for the Travers, babe."

witchdoctor · #18 06-11-2008, 06:55 PM

Here is the real reason BB didn't run well.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...ASMUSSENBR.DTL

sdjcom · #19 06-11-2008, 04:41 PM

My statements were in my post 8 days before race. You can go back and read it if you so choose. My comments were not 20/20 hindsight

CSC · #20 06-11-2008, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdjcom

My statements were in my post 8 days before race. You can go back and read it if you so choose. My comments were not 20/20 hindsight

I went back to that thread out of courtesy to read what you said, you make some bold points and yes you were correct on many. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, it is America afterall but even knowing what we know now 20/20 hindsight. I would have still ran Big Brown, you can't achieve anything if you don't atleast try.

Lindbergh was quoted as saying "What kind of man would live where there is no danger? I don't believe in taking foolish chances. But nothing can be accomplished by not taking a chance at all."