134th Preakness Field Close to Set

Originally Posted by gales0678

what is wrong with the math

if a horse is 50/1 , and the form suggests he s/b 200/1 - why wouldn't an alarm go off in your head saying something is not right here

Because it's the derby and there is a ton of dumb money in the pools.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Because it's the derby and there is a ton of dumb money in the pools.

dumb $ can account for some it , not all of it , certainly not the majority of it

Originally Posted by gales0678

dumb $ can account for some it , not all of it , certainly not the majority of it

It's a conspiracy!!!

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

It's a conspiracy!!!

coach surely you don't think every horse is trying every time they run - do you really think that?

trainers send horses out to run in a race just for a run thye don't try, then wham bam , they come back the next time or the time after that and the horse wins and outruns his form and they get a better price to win

fig's people scratch their head at this thinking this horse was an underlay and shoudn't be bet, but , it can't always be explained away by saying it was dumb $ in the pools , dumb $ don't last forever

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by gales0678

coach surely you don't think every horse is trying every time they run - do you really think that?

trainers send horses out to run in a race just for a run thye don't try, then wham bam , they come back the next time or the time after that and the horse wins and outruns his form and they get a better price on the win

fig's people scratch their head at this thinking this horse was an underlay and shoudn't be bet, but , it can't always be explained away by saying it was dumb $ in the polls , dumb $ don't last forever

I think horses "don"t try" a lot less than you, or others may think. And you are giving trainers (and owners) too much credit for manipulating a race so there is a better "price ( not sure what you mean by that?? odds??) next time out. Just getting a horse to a race is a bigger challenge than actually winning sometimes so wasting a start as a set up is very risky. There may be a low expectation, but to not try and win a race or have the horse go all out is asking for trouble most of the time.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I think horses "don"t try" a lot less than you, or others may think. And you are giving trainers (and owners) too much credit for manipulating a race so there is a better "price ( not sure what you mean by that?? odds??) next time out. Just getting a horse to a race is a bigger challenge than actually winning sometimes so wasting a start as a set up is very risky. There may be a low expectation, but to not try and win a race or have the horse go all out is asking for trouble most of the time.

bob - i don't disagree with you on that , maybe i think it goes on more than it really does

but - to think that it doesn't go on ever at all is not right either

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Just so I'm clear, Gales are saying that maybe the connections weren't trying in the Sunland races, so they could cash in big in the Derby?

There is more than one Gales?




Regarding his point, if indeed there are horses/connections out there "not trying", I can pretty much guarantee they are not on the Derby trail doing it.

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Just so I'm clear, Gales are saying that maybe the connections weren't trying in the Sunland races, so they could cash in big in the Derby?

I think it is quite apparent the connections had no intention of running in the Derby. They bought the horse with hopes of running in the lucrative Sunland 3 yr old raced focusing on the Sunland Derby and if all went well there perhaps the Belmont Stakes. There was great uproar over Dunkirk's 150,000 graded earnings not being enough. At the start of 2009, with the 138,000 graded earnings of Mine That Bird I'm sure the connections weren't thinking that was enough and they made no attempt to run in a graded race. For anyone to say they weren't trying in the Sunland races is absolutely nuts. Those races were the reason they purchased the horse. A win in the Sunland Derby would have earned them more than what they paid for him.

Once the calvacade of injuries started...lo and behold they actually had enough graded earnings to get in the Derby and the legendary left footed drive to Louisville commenced. Their only goal in the Derby was to not get embarrased and finish top 10 and do enough to move on to the Belmont Stakes. Things changed.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by gales0678

coach surely you don't think every horse is trying every time they run - do you really think that?

trainers send horses out to run in a race just for a run thye don't try, then wham bam , they come back the next time or the time after that and the horse wins and outruns his form and they get a better price to win
r

I've certainly seen trainers run their horses at distances and over trips that the horse had demonstrated it despises, often as the first off the layoff. Like a 2-turn turf horse starting in a dirt sprint. And running them way over their heads in a race at the right distance, with no obvious reason (like it won by 10 last out). Is that what you are talking about? Or more like putting the wrong equipment on him (changing the bit) or getting a new jock, and telling him the wrong way to ride him? None of it technically a violation of the rules, but the sort of thing that leads to suspicions of skulduggery.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by gales0678

dumb $ can account for some it , not all of it , certainly not the majority of it

um yes. its the derby