Change of Plans for Lava Man

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You can't offer caveats in this argument...either you think the Tin Man will beat Cacique in the BC Turf or you don't ( at least in this particular argument ). Surely you can wait until the pps are drawn and give your opinion but you basically can't be excused from being wrong should a certain scenerio develop...save perhaps the rider falling off. At least considering the opinions you shared earlier in this thread.

There's no shame in being wrong, and I'm the weasel that has very little opinion on the subject because I am not a fan of either horse, though I would gladly take even money that Cacique finishes ahead of the Tin Man in the BC. Like you, I feel the Tin Man will lose steam late in the race after at least trying to win a race he can't win, while the unmighty Cacique will suck up for some irrelevent piece while doing next to no running.

I won't necessarily make an excuse if TTM loses to Cacique. I usually don't have an excuse when a horse I bet loses. Once in a while there may be a legitimate excuse but not very often, maybe 10% of the time or so.

When I bet a speed horse and they get passed and run 4th or 5th, it is very rare that I will say that they would have won the race if the winner wasn't in the race. Here is a situation where I may say that my horse who ran 3rd would have won the race if the winner was not in the race. Let's suppose that I bet a 2 year old first-timer in a sprint race and he goes head and head in :21 3/5 and they have a 5 length lead on the rest of the field. So he is hooked with some monster going head and head and the monster puts him away and draws off to win the race by 5 lengths. My horse fades to 3rd about 50 yards before the wire and gets beat for 2nd by less than a length and my horse's stride looked good. He was on his right lead and was moving well. In a case like that, where my horse would have had a 3 length lead under a tight hold, if the monster wasn't in the race, I may say that my horse would have probably won the race if the winner wasn't in there. I wouldn't automatically say this. It would depend on how my horse was moving coming down the stretch, etc. If he was on his left lead and was taking short strides, I probably wouldn't say that he would have won if the winner wasn't in there. There are no set rules. I watch every race on a case by case basis.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I won't necessarily make an excuse if TTM loses to Cacique. I usually don't have an excuse when a horse I bet loses. Once in a while there may be a legitimate excuse but not very often, maybe 10% of the time or so.

When I bet a speed horse and they get passed and run 4th or 5th, it is very rare that I will say that they would have won the race if the winner wasn't in the race. Here is a situation where I may say that my horse who ran 3rd would have won the race if the winner was not in the race. Let's suppose that I bet a 2 year old first-timer in a sprint race and he goes head and head in :21 3/5 and they have a 5 length lead on the rest of the field. So he is hooked with some monster going head and head and the monster puts him away and draws off to win the race by 5 lengths. My horse fades to 3rd about 50 yards before the wire and gets beat for 2nd by less than a length and my horse's stride looked good. He was on his right lead and was moving well. In a case like that, where my horse would have had a 3 length lead under a tight hold, if the monster wasn't in the race, I may say that my horse would have probably won the race if the winner wasn't in there. I wouldn't automatically say this. It would depend on how my horse was moving coming down the stretch, etc. If he was on his left lead and was taking short strides, I probably wouldn't say that he would have won if the winner wasn't in there. There are no set rules. I watch every race on a case by case basis.

Lose the necessarily...unless the rider falls off.

I'm having fun with you, but trying to make a point, which I think you understand. I understand everything you said in your second paragraph and pretty much completely agree. I also understand sometimes we like a horse and we know after the race that for whatever reason our horse just didn't show up. However, in this specific argument, I feel like it's either I think the Tin Man will finish in front of Cacique.....or he won't. I am ready to be either right or wrong. The problem with your side of the argument, IMO, is that there are many more scenerios where The Tin Man runs a better race than Cacique and loses to him than the opposite. The Tin Man will most likely be doing some work early and Cacique is more likely to be sucking up. Sort of the opposite of the Arlington Million.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Lose the necessarily...unless the rider falls off.

I'm having fun with you, but trying to make a point, which I think you understand. I understand everything you said in your second paragraph and pretty much completely agree. I also understand sometimes we like a horse and we know after the race that for whatever reason our horse just didn't show up. However, in this specific argument, I feel like it's either I think the Tin Man will finish in front of Cacique.....or he won't. I am ready to be either right or wrong. The problem with your side of the argument, IMO, is that there are many more scenerios where The Tin Man runs a better race than Cacique and loses to him than the opposite. The Tin Man will most likely be doing some work early and Cacique is more likely to be sucking up. Sort of the opposite of the Arlington Million.

Are there going to be any other speed horses in there? I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't much speed in the race. TTM may get a very soft pace again.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Are there going to be any other speed horses in there? I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't much speed in the race. TTM may get a very soft pace again.

Depends if Tagg learns to be more flexible and runs Showing Up in the Mile where he would at least have a chance. It also depends on whether or not the race is oversubscribed as someone ( Coolmore for instance should they run Hurricane Run ) could employ a rabbit.

Personally, I don't think it matters, as I have to believe the Euros that will come will simply be too good. Remember, Cacique fled to the easy pickings over here because there was little chance he could still be effective at any kind of high level over there. Good move.

[Danzig]

not all horses leave europe to find easier pickings, but to find firmer ground....or to get on the dirt, like mineshaft and cigar.

[Gander]

Cigar didnt leave Europe to get on dirt. He raced quite a bit on turf before Mott decided to try dirt.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Gander

Cigar didnt leave Europe to get on dirt. He raced quite a bit on turf before Mott decided to try dirt.

Yes, that is right. Cigar started his career in California. Most if not all of his races in California were on the turf. I actually thought he was a very good turf horse here. To this day I can't figure out why he was running poorly on the turf in New York and then started running great on the dirt. I could understand if he was runing well on the grass back there and then moved up to another level on the dirt, but he was running lousy back there on the grass. It doesn't make any sense because he was a good grass horse out here. I have to think there was something more to his improvement than just moving to the dirt. I have no idea what. It could have been anything.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

not all horses leave europe to find easier pickings, but to find firmer ground....or to get on the dirt, like mineshaft and cigar.

Well, I think we can rule out dirt in Cacique's case, but I can't argue with everything you said. On the other hand I don't believe this was the case for 5YO Cacique.

Cigar never ran in Europe.

[Danzig]

hmmm...thought he did. maybe it was just turf over here....been a while!!

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

not all horses leave europe to find easier pickings, but to find firmer ground....or to get on the dirt, like mineshaft and cigar.

You left out one of the big reasons. Many leave because of the more lax medication rules over here.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

You left out one of the big reasons. Many leave because of the more lax medication rules over here.

that's true as well...

i find it a bit humorous, and very ironic, how the euros are always so 'holier than thou' about our 'lax' rules. and they love to brag about how their horses run with so little, or no meds...but as soon as they get here for races such as the bcc, and it's call the vet, get the lasix!