5/21 (PIM): Preakness (G1), DuPont, Sprint, Gallorette, Schaefer (G3's)

[Scav]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

Like I said - her Euro form has nothing to do with my opinion of her. . . But, are we to assume that when she lost by 101 1/4 lengths in her four most recent starts that she was running to the best of her ability? She came to the U.S. and hmmm all of a sudden she's better while getting Lasix.

Dude, not knocking ya, but assuming she was a bleeder is not solid reasoning. Alot of horses bleed to different degrees.

How about she likes a firm course and maybe a cut back in distance.

I like her, No Explaining and Dyna Waltz equally. I like betting Sheppard's horses 2nd off the layoff and between May and September. Shared Account sucks, and far from good enough to give 10-12lbs away those fillies

[hockey2315]

I don't need solid reasoning, because I'm not evaluating her based on that form. . . Phil's comment that she was a "pig in Europe" just seemed sort of irrelevant to me, so that's why I mentioned that she's probably a bleeder. Here's an interesting quote from her trainer when they decided to run her in the Irish Oaks: "It's raining over there, and that's good for her."

[Scav]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

I don't need solid reasoning, because I'm not evaluating her based on that form. . . Phil's comment that she was a "pig in Europe" just seemed sort of irrelevant to me, so that's why I mentioned that she's probably a bleeder. Here's an interesting quote from her trainer when they decided to run her in the Irish Oaks: "It's raining over there, and that's good for her."

And trainers know EVERYTHING, and this filly then proceeds to get drilled on good-soft ground (Grade 1 though) and soft before they realized they need firmer ground.

I understand you tossing her euro form, but adding Lasix doesn't improve horses a billion lengths. Preferred ground and horses like Differentiate help.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

I don't need solid reasoning, because I'm not evaluating her based on that form. . . Phil's comment that she was a "pig in Europe" just seemed sort of irrelevant to me, so that's why I mentioned that she's probably a bleeder. Here's an interesting quote from her trainer when they decided to run her in the Irish Oaks: "It's raining over there, and that's good for her."

Maybe she's a bleeder- I think that's a reasonable assumption, I thought the same thing. But the very relevant fact is her maiden win over there was in one of the worst meets in GB, and against "real" competition she was noncompetitive. Now that she's won a decent N1X and a mediocre N2X she's supposed to step up and beat the FMT champ in a race with no pace? And improve 4-5 lengths more in the process to do so? Seems like a tall task for a horse that will be 5-1. I just don't see the point of even betting this race. It's truly terrible.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Scav

Dude, not knocking ya, but assuming she was a bleeder is not solid reasoning. Alot of horses bleed to different degrees.

Assuming she was a bleeder isn't solid reasoning? But assuming her improvement was due to a firm surface is?

What is the difference between the two?

[Scav]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Assuming she was a bleeder isn't solid reasoning? But assuming her improvement was due to a firm surface is?

What is the difference between the two?

As Phil noted, maybe she was a bleeder, she probably was, ALOT if not most horses bleed, and even some horses bleed through lasix.

I looked at it that she ran some decent races on a very firm turf course (nothing like she had ever seen over in Europe) and ran those races on a course that was very speed favoring.

I find that reasoning much more solid then Lasix moved the horse up. (And I know this wasn't his only reason but I don't understand the focus because Lasix is not some miracle drug)

[slotdirt]

Today is five years to the day since Barbaro's Preakness breadown. Truly a day at the track I'll never forget.

[ellpol]

Save your $$$ for the 13th race on Preakness day the 1 wire to wire on a good turf. The 12 post won't help though, but Edgar can get Leather Gloves out and over for Hammy Smith. I hope, that's my big bet for the day. Good luck to all.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Scav

As Phil noted, maybe she was a bleeder, she probably was, ALOT if not most horses bleed, and even some horses bleed through lasix.

I looked at it that she ran some decent races on a very firm turf course (nothing like she had ever seen over in Europe) and ran those races on a course that was very speed favoring.

I find that reasoning much more solid then Lasix moved the horse up. (And I know this wasn't his only reason but I don't understand the focus because Lasix is not some miracle drug)

I think most people know a lot of horses bleed and I don't think anyone was acting like lasix is a miracle drug.

I don't agree the races she ran at Gulfstream were over a very speed favoring surface. People love to rush to claim a surface speed favoring. There is no evidence based on results that the courses were very speed favoring.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I think most people know a lot of horses bleed and I don't think anyone was acting like lasix is a miracle drug.

I don't agree the races she ran at Gulfstream were over a very speed favoring surface. People love to rush to claim a surface speed favoring. There is no evidence based on results that the courses were very speed favoring.

ok

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Scav

ok

Come on man, don't be that guy. Did you watch the races on the days she ran at Gulfstream?

That was a very speed favoring surface?

[Scav]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Come on man, don't be that guy. Did you watch the races on the days she ran at Gulfstream?

That was a very speed favoring surface?

I played the whole meet at GP, almost every day, and my opinion is that turf course, especially the inner is very hard to close when it is firm at the route distances.

I guess the use of 'very' was incorrect because it made it sound prominent.