Curlin & the Classic

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

As I have stated many times in the past, I'm not sure who is calling Curlin this great horse, but it has never been me. I don't personally believe he was among the best of the last 25 years. What I have maintained is he was a very good horse on dirt. He was consistent, accomplished a hell of a lot in a short amount of time and was a very good horse in a time when that is rare.

Frankly, I could care less how he stacks up with champs of the past. Like I said earlier in this thread, there is no speed figure for his World Cup win, but if i had to take a guess, I think it would be closer to the 115-119 range you guys were looking for. You follow the game, do horses progress like they used to? Horses that run for trainers that take their time seem to. But I just don't think that a horse that wins the Preakness in his 5th start, 3 months after his career began is going to take the big step forward like some do as a 4 year old. Maybe if Curlin was a superhorse he would have, but he clearly is not. I'm not sure who says he is, but he is not. I could really care less what Asmussen says, because you know well enough to take trainerspeak as what it is.

I guess the arguement here is because Curlin wasn't running beyers in the 120 range that it somehow diminishes what he did. Sorry, I disagree. It's 2008. The game has changed, and for the worse. but, I know you know that. The days of the champs of the past are over.

I did acknowledge in my post that I know you don't subscribe to all that talk about him being some superhorse. And the argument here, at least not from me, isn't about trying to diminish what he did accomplish this year. Without question, he was the best older male to compete in the U.S this year. I don't think anyone is disputing that. His accomplishments are what they are. The only thing I'm arguing is that if a horse has established that he can run at the 114-119 level then he's set his par there. If he comes back and goes 110, 111, 112, that's below the par he's set for himself. My part of the argument has nothing to do with what he did this year or how good he was this year in comparison to what he had to face. He's not running below the par for the competition but he's below his personal par.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Gotcha. That makes sense. Although i do think his World Cup was the Curlin of last year. He was pretty good that night. Maybe the trip took that much out of him, but I doubt it. Maybe he peaked last year. I just don't subscribe to the theory that he is any noticeably different with or without steroids, because he wasn't on steroids in Dubai and he was pretty good. And, would you not agree that we watched champions for decads that were on steroids?

I would not agree or disagree because that is an area that I honestly know nothing about. I do suspect that a lot of horses were getting help of some sorts but I have nothing to base it on factually other than my own suspicions and rumors. I will say this though. If the difference in Curlin was strictly because he was using them last year and he wasn't this year, it was such a minimal difference that maybe that will discourage more people from using them. If he had dropped off noticeably, that would have been a problem but even if he was below his numbers from last year, and as I said in the previous post, that could have had as much to do with being worn out from constant training as it did with being off steroids, he was still close enough to show that the difference made is not worth the risk taken.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I appreciate the logical way you are looking at the whole thing. It's refreshing. I'm not sure who was using what then or now. But I know that Lukas was rumored to have been using steroids before everyone. Who had more champions than he in the 80's or 90's? My point is, the whole thing is speculation. We hear about Ghostzapper a lot when it comes to Curlin. Curlin isn't Ghostzapper. Ghostzapper was a special horse. But, I think it would be extremely naive to think Ghostzapper was on nothing but oats and water in his career. I'm not accusing him of anything, but come on.

When it's a horse that has exhibited signs of greatness from the start, I'm more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. When it's a horse like say Cost of Freedom (or Whatsthescript or Dearest Trickski.....but I'm not making accusations here), that suddenly jumps from lower levels and becomes a graded stakes monster, I have real doubts. We all have our beliefs and suspicions. Curlin is one that for some reason, I've never had my suspicions about. Perhaps I would have if he had started out with Asmussen but I remember his first race and thinking that he really had something.