Rachel to Monmouth on July 24...

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by CSC

This is a silly argument, if you are betting real money and you are looking at the past performances, you mean to tell me it isn't useful to look at what a horse has done prior to 2010? You are correct, some cannot comprehend the constant of logic.

The horse showed last year it couldn't get 10F (on TWO occasions). This year the horse has been limited to 2 8F races and a 9F race on the speed favoring GP oval. And has yet to face a REAL horse. YET, the suggestion that last year's 10F races are relevant gets his supporters out in force. Funny how simple things seem to escape them. It'll be interesting to see how eager they all are to bet their money on him going 10F in the Classic, where he just might face some competition. Of course, this assumes he shows up for it. Not a done deal, at all. Last I heard the race was at CD not GP.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

The horse showed last year it couldn't get 10F (on TWO occasions). This year the horse has been limited to 2 8F races and a 9F race on the speed favoring GP oval. And has yet to face a REAL horse. YET, the suggestion that last year's 10F races are relevant gets his supporters out in force. Funny how simple things seem to escape them. It'll be interesting to see how eager they all are to bet their money on him going 10F in the Classic, where he just might face some competition. Of course, this assumes he shows up for it. Not a done deal, at all. Last I heard the race was at CD not GP.

Couldn't get 10f? One was off a layoff with nothing but a 6.5f prep and he was on a very fast pace and weakened very late, the other he ran very well to narrowly lose to the Belmont winner. That means he can't "get" 10f?