Rachel Alexandra

[CSC]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Are you trying to say that Ghostzapper's career has something to do with Frankel's usage of drugs on his horses? If so, I think you're absolutely dead wrong.

NT

GZ would probably been a very good racehorse regardless if he was on anything or not, just as Roger was a very good pitcher before he his physique began noticably changing. Then he became even better, wonder why... I hate to generalize but back in those days Frankel horses would win with bad trips, good trips, peculiar trips, I know I bet him quite often to some success. I'm not sure why you think I am dead wrong, if so I am interested why you think so.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by CSC

GZ would probably been a very good racehorse regardless if he was on anything or not, just as Roger was a very good pitcher before he his physique began noticably changing. Then he became even better, wonder why... I hate to generalize but back in those days Frankel horses would win with bad trips, good trips, peculiar trips, I know I bet him quite often to some success. I'm not sure why you think I am dead wrong, if so I am interested why you think so.

First of all, you're equating two things that are incredibly different. Roger Clemens' alleged HGH usage and you accusing Frankel of using steroids (i think) are pretty different.

Frankel had a great run in the early part of this decade because he had excellent horses. Having Edmund Gann's business was strong, he was getting good horses from Juddmonte left and right and Stronach basically gave him everything that could run.

He has since fallen on hard(er) times but to try to soil a horse like Ghostzapper's record because you suppose Frankel was using steroids on him is unfair. It takes away from a horse who despite a wealth of physical problems, accomplished many incredible feats and brought his best every time he ran.

Most of all, I think you're wrong because of your complete generalization. You seem to remember Frankel horses winning with all kinds of trips, and now you don't, so I guess he was using. Those just aren't steps I have in my way of thinking.

NT

[CSC]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

First of all, you're equating two things that are incredibly different. Roger Clemens' alleged HGH usage and you accusing Frankel of using steroids (i think) are pretty different.

Frankel had a great run in the early part of this decade because he had excellent horses. Having Edmund Gann's business was strong, he was getting good horses from Juddmonte left and right and Stronach basically gave him everything that could run.

He has since fallen on hard(er) times but to try to soil a horse like Ghostzapper's record because you suppose Frankel was using steroids on him is unfair. It takes away from a horse who despite a wealth of physical problems, accomplished many incredible feats and brought his best every time he ran.

Most of all, I think you're wrong because of your complete generalization. You seem to remember Frankel horses winning with all kinds of trips, and now you don't, so I guess he was using. Those just aren't steps I have in my way of thinking.

NT

It does for me, You don't think he has talented horses in his stable right now? We saw 2 just yesterday in Visit and Zambezi Sun. You'll probably say it is a generalization but there was a time when Frankel entered in a stakes race, regardless of trip, class jump, layoff you would most likely find him in the winner's circle.

[CSC]

I am curious would the same thought process apply to St. Liam? Or is his reputation tarnished via association with a known cheater. If not why the different standards?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by CSC

I am curious would the same thought process apply to St. Liam? Or is his reputation tarnished via association with a known cheater. If not why the different standards?

there were doubts/questions about st liam. and the horse that was sent to canada....the name escapes me. i hate when that happens.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by monipenny

That's quite a exaggeration about Frankel and the horses he entered. He was MORE well meant when going up in class rather then running in maidens, alw, overnight stakes, etc. He had a phenomenal run just like previously stated by other poster cause he had horses coming out of his arse.

The obvious question is why did he lose horses when he could do no wrong.. Valid question correct? That is if you subscribe to the theory he's running a bunch of stiffs right now...

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by CSC

The obvious question is why did he lose horses when he could do no wrong.. Valid question correct? That is if you subscribe to the theory he's running a bunch of stiffs right now...

Are you basing your entire opinion on the performances of Visit and Zambezi Sun on Saturday? Because it's starting to look that way.

NT

[CSC]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Are you basing your entire opinion on the performances of Visit and Zambezi Sun on Saturday? Because it's starting to look that way.

NT

No, I simply asked the question when he was winning at an alarming rate for a span of 3 years or so I believe. Eclispe after Eclispe...what happened? Why did owner's suddenly decide to go with other trainers? That is if he indeed has a lesser talent base to draw from.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I fail to see the connection. Walden quit training to work for Winstar, he's probably making a lot more money doing that.

That's what I remember, plus comparing Walden to Frankel is well...not a good comparison.