![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Last edited by SCUDSBROTHER : 07-24-2011 at 12:36 AM. |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Didn't even take me 8 weeks to come up with them, either.
The is more to the past performances than just the dates the races were run on. Either way, we're both simply making excuses for a horse that probably isn't Grade 1 caliber when it is all said and done. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Why is 8 weeks the equivalent of a "full tank"? |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
If he was trained by Jeff Bonde, then, he would be getting at least 45 days between starts. We wouldn't be having this discussion. He would be treated like Bonde's Grade 1 sprinter is treated. Machowsky admitted he shouldn't of brought him back on 3 weeks rest. There are signs of him finally getting his head out of his ass, and spacing this horse's races better. Losing at 7/5, and 4/5 will wake a trainer up.
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You know, the one that is scheduled to run in the Bing Crosby next weekend, 28 days after his last start... Never mind his once-a-month schedule all of last year. Talk about bullsh!t. As for Machoswky, the "ran him back too quick" line is classic trainerspeak. The horse ran fine today given the race dynamics. At any rate, Caracortado has never even won a race off 8 weeks rest. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Absolutely agree, he ran fine. Actually had the fastest final eighth in a race where pace absolutely made the result.
|
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Why is that? Because I come up with rational reasons why a horse has been compromised in some of his recent losses?
I guess it's easier to just come up with a magic number and spew it as Scripture. I say he needs 7 weeks. 8 weeks is too much. After all, he lost the Shoemaker after 8 weeks off. |