What are they waiting for? Nominate her to the Matriarch

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Even if she's not retired, she's obviously not going to run again this year.

They can't fool you Rupert.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

They can't fool you Rupert.

I have an honest question for you. I heard your analysis of the BC Classic. You obviously watched the first 10 races of the day before the
BC Classic and saw how the track was playing, not only in terms of any possible biases but also in terms of exactly how fast the track was. Five minutes before the BC Classic, if I would have told you that they're going to run the half in :47, would you have said, "In that case, no horse within 5 lengths of the lead will have any chance".?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I have an honest question for you. I heard your analysis of the BC Classic. You obviously watched the first 10 races of the day before the
BC Classic and saw how the track was playing, not only in terms of any possible biases but also in terms of exactly how fast the track was. Five minutes before the BC Classic, if I would have told you that they're going to run the half in :47, would you have said, "In that case, no horse within 5 lengths of the lead will have any chance".?

I made my analysis of the BC Classic no later than 6 hours before the race....and I took closers ( Blame and Fly Down, with a little Lookin at Lucky and Musket Man ).

I don't know what your post means.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I made my analysis of the BC Classic no later than 6 hours before the race....and I took closers ( Blame and Fly Down, with a little Lookin at Lucky and Musket Man ).

I don't know what your post means.

I was talking about your post-race analysis. In you post-race analysis, you basically said that there was a speed-duel and it favored the come-from-behinders. So I'm asking you whether 5 minutes before the race, you would have predcited it would be death to be within 5 lengths of a :47 half.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I was talking about your post-race analysis. In you post-race analysis, you basically said that there was a speed-duel and it favored the come-from-behinders. So I'm asking you whether 5 minutes before the race, you would have predcited it would be death to be within 5 lengths of a :47 half.

Why don't you just ask what you really want to know. I don't really have the patience for silly internet games.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Why don't you just ask what you really want to know. I don't really have the patience for silly internet games.

I think my question is clear. I will word it differently. If you were told right before the race that the half will go in :47. First Dude will have the lead by a length. He will be followed by Quality Road, Espoir City, and Haynesfield who will be laying 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. If you were told that right before the race, I highly doubt that you would have said that those fractions are way too fast and all of the front-runners will collapse badly.

Yet in your post race analysis, you basically say that the pace was way too fast and it favored the come-from-behinders. That is a circular argument. You are basically saying that "they must have gone way too fast since the come-from-behinders won. It must have been a good thing to be 20 lengths back." Unless you would have said that before the race, then I think it's a circular argument. That is why I asked you to honestly answer whether you would have predicted the front-runners would have collapsed if you knew exactly what the fractions were going to be (:47) right before the race.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think my question is clear. I will word it differently. If you were told right before the race that the half will go in :47. First Dude will have the lead by a length. He will be followed by Quality Road, Espoir City, and Haynesfield who will be laying 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. If you were told that right before the race, I highly doubt that you would have said that those fractions are way too fast and all of the front-runners will collapse badly.

Yet in your post race analysis, you basically say that the pace was way too fast and it favored the come-from-behinders. That is a circular argument. You are basically saying that "they must have gone way too fast since the come-from-behinders won. It must have been a good thing to be 20 lengths back." Unless you would have said that before the race, then I think it's a circular argument. That is why I asked you to honestly answer whether you would have predicted the front-runners would have collapsed if you knew exactly what the fractions were going to be (:47) right before the race.

Did you read what he wrote? He bet closers, which obviously means he anticipated a strong pace that would favor late runners.

Is the crusade you're embarking on to get BTW or any other "hater" to admit that Zenyatta ran a better race than we might believe?