7/24 (MTH): Lady's Secret S. feat. Rachel Alexandra

[prudery]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Besides, Randall's quote was about Rachel's entire campaign. Cherry-picking just the Woodward and comparing it on its own to the Classic is disingenuous.

FYI--the Woodward and the Classic were the only unrestricted races both girls ran in--nothing disigenous there . Of course there was a surface variable, but the former still applies--one unrestricted race each ...

Every other race each ran in was age or sex restricted ..

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by prudery

FYI--the Woodward and the Classic were the only unrestricted races both girls ran in--nothing disigenous there . Of course there was a surface variable, but the former still applies--one unrestricted race each ...

Every other race each ran in was age or sex restricted ..

FYI: Your pomposity and obsessive use of ellipses doesn't substitute for a meaningful point.

[prudery]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

FYI: Your pomposity and obsessive use of ellipses doesn't substitute for a meaningful point.

Mirror mirror on the wall ...

Serling beat you to it--I am easily the most pretentious poster he said, and don't you forget it, stupid ...

The post had plenty of meaning--you just chose to be a he- beeyotch about it ..

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by prudery

Mirror mirror on the wall ...

Serling beat you to it--I am easily the most pretentious poster he said, and don't you forget it, stupid ...

The post had plenty of meaning--you just chose to be a he- beeyotch about it ..

No, it didn't. You rambled about age and sex restrictions in an attempt to isolate the Woodward and Classic and ignore the rest of Rachel's indisputably superior campaign. Not going to cut it ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

No, it didn't. You rambled about age and sex restrictions in an attempt to isolate the Woodward and Classic and ignore the rest of Rachel's indisputably superior campaign. Not going to cut it ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Super Fly, 10f on dirt, the 2 of them in there vs a few other plugs, maybe Life at Ten is in there. Who wins? I think Z wins for fun.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

Super Fly, 10f on dirt, the 2 of them in there vs a few other plugs, maybe Life at Ten is in there. Who wins? I think Z wins for fun.

Nice goatee.

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Nice goatee.

Ok your running out of **** to say, dont cross the line.

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Nice goatee.

Speaking of, what do you call the **** under your chin on your facebook picture?
Is that in, in Long Island?

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Nice goatee.

I changed my avatar for you, since you like looking so much, now you see yourself. It was no problem, no need to Thank me.

[herkhorse]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Nice goatee.

Sprekende Kut

[prudery]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

No, it didn't. You rambled about age and sex restrictions in an attempt to isolate the Woodward and Classic and ignore the rest of Rachel's indisputably superior campaign. Not going to cut it ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

I did not ramble at all .

The only two races that were unrestricted were the Woodward and the Classic . Ergo they are the only two comparable WITHIN THAT FRAMEWORK...

Whether Rachel's campaign was superior or not is where the rambling comes in--from you .

I NEVER mentioned whose campaign was the better and it was not germaine to the discussion, which you quickly ducked, feinted and brought in defense to...

Some folks need to move on from 2009, and simply can not in the face of a real let down .

While it is disappointing that both horses could be more aggressively raced, one doesn't ship, and the other ships to escape ...

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by prudery

FYI--the Woodward and the Classic were the only unrestricted races both girls ran in--nothing disigenous there . Of course there was a surface variable, but the former still applies--one unrestricted race each ...

Every other race each ran in was age or sex restricted ..

Right, a mare winning races like the Milady, Vanity, Clement Hirsch and Lady's Secret is as significant as a filly winning the Preakness and the Haskell.

[prudery]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

Right, a mare winning races like the Milady, Vanity, Clement Hirsch and Lady's Secret is as significant as a filly winning the Preakness and the Haskell.

Off topic ..

We were not talking comparing races other than the only two UNRESTRICTED RACES both ran in --that was the topic .

And another FYI--it is 2010--let me know how that works for your bias at the year's end ..

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by prudery

Off topic ..

We were not talking comparing races other than the only two UNRESTRICTED RACES both ran in --that was the topic .

And another FYI--it is 2010--let me know how that works for your bias at the year's end ..

Speaking of being off topic . . . . . The title of this thread is Horse of the Year Rachel Alexandra's next start . . . . not selectively choosing which of Rachel Alexandra's 2009 races to compare to zenyatta's fake dirt win over turf horses.

To fully appreciate Rachel Alexandra's historic 2009 campaign, you must look at her entire body of work that year. For some reason, the zetards don't like to do that.

[prudery]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

Speaking of being off topic . . . . . The title of this thread is Horse of the Year Rachel Alexandra's next start . . . . not selectively choosing which of Rachel Alexandra's 2009 races to compare to zenyatta's fake dirt win over turf horses.

To fully appreciate Rachel Alexandra's historic 2009 campaign, you must look at her entire body of work that year. For some reason, the zetards don't like to do that.

Duh Truth---I looked at Rachel's historic 2009 campaign LAST YEAR .

Very spiffy . And deserving of its reward .

For some reason Rachelistas can't get over 2009 a year later . And yes, you did say the topic was Rachel's next race, not last year's races ... Off topic ..

Her campaign this year is somewhat less historic--in particular this faux race coming up .

You can spin that all you want, but this Monmouth endeavor is historic only in its absurdity .

Time to look forward and get the shades of delusion off .

If this campaign was run by any other horse, they would be laughed at for Breeder's Cup potential, and even more so as a potential candidate for HOY .

[johnny pinwheel]

Originally Posted by prudery

Duh Truth---I looked at Rachel's historic 2009 campaign LAST YEAR .

Very spiffy . And deserving of its reward .

For some reason Rachelistas can't get over 2009 a year later . And yes, you did say the topic was Rachel's next race, not last year's races ... Off topic ..

Her campaign this year is somewhat less historic--in particular this faux race coming up .

You can spin that all you want, but this Monmouth endeavor is historic only in its absurdity .

Time to look forward and get the shades of delusion off .

If this campaign was run by any other horse, they would be laughed at for Breeder's Cup potential, and even more so as a potential candidate for HOY .

someone with a realistic outlook. i don't even understand the argument, seeing that i'm not a bandwagon jumper. so, i won't even mention names....just the facts. one horse is doing really well, the other is not. one horse shipped in (oaklawn) ready to run for 5 million......on dirt, the other did not. one horse is knocking down grade 1's, the other is running in some ridiculous set up race. one horse will be at the BC classic...on dirt, if all is well. from the schedule of the other horse....well, i'll believe it when i see it.....its so painfully obvious....its not even funny. i hope the race happens and i get to bet it because if the odds are even close...its free money........lol. i could care less about the rachelist or the zentards.. i care about the reality of who is winning and who is not...when i bet. this is 2010, not 2009....throw last years forms out and its not even close.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

....throw last years forms out and no horse is even close to Quality Road.

FTFY

[Merlinsky]

When it comes to Rachel v. Zenyatta v. whatever straw man people wanna put together, I'm slowly going bonkers. I imagine this guy muttering to himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8CrvGndKzE

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

someone with a realistic outlook. i don't even understand the argument, seeing that i'm not a bandwagon jumper. so, i won't even mention names....just the facts. one horse is doing really well, the other is not. one horse shipped in (oaklawn) ready to run for 5 million......on dirt, the other did not. one horse is knocking down grade 1's, the other is running in some ridiculous set up race. one horse will be at the BC classic...on dirt, if all is well. from the schedule of the other horse....well, i'll believe it when i see it.....its so painfully obvious....its not even funny. i hope the race happens and i get to bet it because if the odds are even close...its free money........lol. i could care less about the rachelist or the zentards.. i care about the reality of who is winning and who is not...when i bet. this is 2010, not 2009....throw last years forms out and its not even close.

One horse had a 5 month layoff hanging around in a stall without a stitch of training, one did not. One had a winning formula that came apart when they tried to change her running style, her bit, and her training methods. One did not. One has an owner a la Jerry Jones who enjoys the micromanaging experience. One does not. We could do this all day. And bringing up number of G1s is kinda silly when it's more like "G1"s that she's won 2-3 times apiece. It's more significant that she won them with her running style--that's where Zenyatta gets more points from me. Not that she won so many G1s or maybe even the Classic. It's that she gives everybody a bloody head start each time, 17 straight. Tout that. To me, it's more impressive than beating Anabaa's Creation could ever be. She should've lost regardless of talent just from getting into trouble. What's painfully obvious to me is neither one is in a position to win HOY as they stand right now--we gotta see more in the next few months or both connections will remain seated at the Eclipse Awards when they get to that category.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by prudery

FYI--the Woodward and the Classic were the only unrestricted races both girls ran in--nothing disigenous there . Of course there was a surface variable, but the former still applies--one unrestricted race each ...

Every other race each ran in was age or sex restricted ..

So if a bunch of Grade I winning turf horses had shown up for Rachel's Woodward on conventional dirt, and she had rolled by 10, you'd naturally admit that it was the stronger race?

Please. She ran on dirt, against dirt horses who were in solid form at the time.

Zenyatta won the year's biggest "dirt" race against a bunch of turf horses.

Of course it's disingenuous, but that's nothing new.