Shirreffs' latest gem

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You have a point but at this point, winning the Goodwood doesn't do anything for them. There's no real upside. There's only downside. They don't need to run there to win HOY.

I'm sure they think they could win the Goodwood, but they probably figure "Why gamble at this point?". She would have to run harder in the Goodwood than the filly race. The harder you run, the more risk you take in terms of not coming out of a race good. Since their goal is to win the BC Classic, how dumb would they feel if she ran her butt off to win the Goodwood and it knocked her out? They are so close to their goal at this point. Why take a risk (even if it's only a small risk) when there is really no upside to that risk. They want to be 100% healthy for the BC Classic. The best way to ensure that happens is by having an easy race rather than a tough race for her final prep.

In addition, they are going to be taking a risk of getting beat in the BC Classic and ending her streak. At this point, I think they'd rather take that risk just once rather than twice.

you could have just said this instead of the long paragraph:

The owners are chickens.


Seriously? There is no upside to winning a G1 against males? That is absolutely incorrect.

There is no upside in winning your 15th race against the same crappy females in the same crappy situation (aka the Zenyatta Stakes).

The owners are such chickens that it almost makes you root for her to lose so maybe they will actually take some chances with their horse..

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

you could have just said this instead of the long paragraph:

The owners are chickens.


Seriously? There is no upside to winning a G1 against males? That is absolutely incorrect.

There is no upside in winning your 15th race against the same crappy females in the same crappy situation (aka the Zenyatta Stakes).

The owners are such chickens that it almost makes you root for her to lose so maybe they will actually take some chances with their horse..

Considering they are running in the BC Classic, I don't think there is any real upside to running in the Goodwood. If she can beat the boys in the BC Classic for the second year in a row and finish her career 20 for 20, she will be immortalized forever. I don't think winning the Goodwood would really add anything to that legacy. It all comes down to this year's BC Classic.

If she's 20 for 20 with 2 wins in the BC Classic, I doubt anyone will look at her PP's and question why she didn't run in the Goodwood.

[Smooth Operator]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Considering they are running in the BC Classic, I don't think there is any real upside to running in the Goodwood. If she can beat the boys in the BC Classic for the second year in a row and finish her career 20 for 20, she will be immortalized forever. I don't think winning the Goodwood would really add anything to that legacy. It all comes down to this year's BC Classic.

If she's 20 for 20 with 2 wins in the BC Classic, I doubt anyone will look at her PP's and question why she didn't run in the Goodwood.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Considering they are running in the BC Classic, I don't think there is any real upside to running in the Goodwood. If she can beat the boys in the BC Classic for the second year in a row and finish her career 20 for 20, she will be immortalized forever. I don't think winning the Goodwood would really add anything to that legacy. It all comes down to this year's BC Classic.

If she's 20 for 20 with 2 wins in the BC Classic, I doubt anyone will look at her PP's and question why she didn't run in the Goodwood.

Her losing the Goodwood would be more respectable than winning her 19th race in the Zenyatta IMO. I wouldnt be surprised if other people felt the same way too.