9/18 (WO): Woodbine Mile, Northern Dancer (G1's), Canadian (G2)

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by CSC

You have to stop attacking posters that want to legitimately discuss things, a reason why no one wants to post here anymore. I assumed you would bet back a horse that you said was the best in the W mile that wasn't clear to atleast to me, I stand corrected then, and you have clarified your position you aren't.

Thanks for proving my point.

Just so I'm clear, who exactly did I attack here? If you are implying I attacked you, I really do give up.

Since you're always giving me tips on how I should post, I have one for you. Don't assume. Most people write what they mean, so there is no need to try and assume or guess what they are really saying. Just read and go from there. As I have said for a long time I think the reading part is where you fail in these discussions. Maybe a remedial class in the future?

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Thanks for proving my point.

Just so I'm clear, who exactly did I attack here? If you are implying I attacked you, I really do give up.

Since you're always giving me tips on how I should post, I have one for you. Don't assume. Most people write what they mean, so there is no need to try and assume or guess what they are really saying. Just read and go from there. As I have said for a long time I think the reading part is where you fail in these discussions. Maybe a remedial class in the future?

After watching the race, taking into account he was completely blocked for nearly the entire stretch, isn't it fair to say he was probably best on Sunday?

Let's try this again, to me it's not clear he was the best Sunday, incase you missed it, I did say he probably deserved better. But we have all seen horses with suspect trips come back to run less to what was expected where they may have looked best. I can think of Al Khali in the C Intl last year. So with allowing that DD did have trouble in the Mile, while disagreeing it is inconclusive he was probably best, why are you telling me to watch the race again? In betting horses opinions differ.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by CSC

Let's try this again, to me it's not clear he was the best Sunday, incase you missed it, I did say he probably deserved better. But we have all seen horses with suspect trips come back to run less to what was expected where they may have looked best. I can think of Al Khali in the C Intl last year. So with allowing that DD did have trouble in the Mile, while disagreeing it is inconclusive he was probably best, why are you telling me to watch the race again? In betting horses opinions differ.

I was merely talking about the race Sunday. That's it. Not before it, not after it, just Sunday.

In my opinion based on the trouble he had and where he ultimately finished Dance and Dance should have won Sunday. It doesn't mean in the long run he's the best horse in the race or coming out of it. It just means on that particular day he (in my opinion) should have been in the winners circle. As we all know the best horse doesn't win every race. Trips, pace, rides, conditions, etc dictate order of finish.

Running up the track next month or wherever he shows up next doesn't make the trouble Dance and Dance had in THIS RACE any less significant. Which is why I am suspect of him next time. I think his day was Sunday and the opportunity was blown when his rider failed to get him a clear path.

Just because a horse has a bad trip doesn't mean they are good bet backs, nor does it mean they are contenders next time. It just means they had a trip that ultimately compromised their order of finish and it's another factor that needs to be considered for future races.

Hopefully this clears up any confusion. Me telling you to watch the race again was because I truly find it hard to believe someone could compare the trips you were. I could see doing it if you just read the chart comments, because they are extremely misleading. If you actually view the race, the difference in trips isn't even close....at least not in my opinion.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I was merely talking about the race Sunday. That's it. Not before it, not after it, just Sunday.

In my opinion based on the trouble he had and where he ultimately finished Dance and Dance should have won Sunday. It doesn't mean in the long run he's the best horse in the race or coming out of it. It just means on that particular day he (in my opinion) should have been in the winners circle. As we all know the best horse doesn't win every race. Trips, pace, rides, conditions, etc dictate order of finish.

Running up the track next month or wherever he shows up next doesn't make the trouble Dance and Dance had in THIS RACE any less significant. Which is why I am suspect of him next time. I think his day was Sunday and the opportunity was blown when his rider failed to get him a clear path.

Just because a horse has a bad trip doesn't mean they are good bet backs, nor does it mean they are contenders next time. It just means they had a trip that ultimately compromised their order of finish and it's another factor that needs to be considered for future races.

Hopefully this clears up any confusion. Me telling you to watch the race again was because I truly find it hard to believe someone could compare the trips you were. I could see doing it if you just read the chart comments, because they are extremely misleading. If you actually view the race, the difference in trips isn't even close....at least not in my opinion.

That's fair and I understand where you are coming from, we just differ on the significance of being blocked behind horses, he never got a run, so for me it is a big question mark where he would have finished with the exception he would have made it more interesting.

I would lean more towards the side that he may have won, had he had atleast a graded win in europe or a past record of successes in NA, but that's the subjective part of the game. As mentioned in my first reply, he did deserve better, that I can say and believe. If he shook loose and got his run and missed, then there would no disagreement.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by CSC

I would lean more towards the side that he may have won, had he had atleast a graded win in europe or a past record of successes in NA, but that's the subjective part of the game.

I'm not really sure what one has to do with the other in this instance. It's not as though he has not shown an ability to pass horses in the past.

Graded races, especially nowadays don't necessarily indicate quality. I have seen overnight handicaps at Belmont or Saratoga in the last few months that could pass as a grade 1 or 2 nowadays.

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by CSC

I would lean more towards the side that he may have won, had he had atleast a graded win in europe or a past record of successes in NA, but that's the subjective part of the game.

The difference between what it takes to win in Europe and what it takes to win in North America is far more nuanced than you realize.

And Dahoss is right--his trip and performance need not be looked at in relation to his previous form (which is much better than you're giving him credit for). He could have looked like a completely hopeless 99-1 shot before the race, but that wouldn't change the fact that he had an impossible trip and was clearly winning with any sort of clean trip/competent ride.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

The difference between what it takes to win in Europe and what it takes to win in North America is far more nuanced than you realize.

And Dahoss is right--his trip and performance need not be looked at in relation to his previous form (which is much better than you're giving him credit for). He could have looked like a completely hopeless 99-1 shot before the race, but that wouldn't change the fact that he had an impossible trip and was clearly winning with any sort of clean trip/competent ride.

I think it is a mistake to term Spencer's ride as incompetent, was the result a bad one, obviously it was. But you will know as I am pretty sure you will, in europe, the riders there would rather race with cover, save ground to a fault rather than lose ground or race without cover. I thought Spencer achieved this well until midstretch, his mistake was he miscalculated a seam opening up in the stretch, watch Sarafina's run in the Qatar Prix Foy where Lemaire did the impossible of having her behind of wall of horses in a 4 horse field. The only difference was he forced his way through without the stewards taking him down.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by CSC

I think it is a mistake to term Spencer's ride as incompetent, was the result a bad one, obviously it was. But you will know as I am pretty sure you will, in europe, the riders there would rather race with cover, save ground to a fault rather than lose ground or race without cover. I thought Spencer achieved this well until midstretch, his mistake was he miscalculated a seam opening up in the stretch, watch Sarafina's run in the Qatar Prix Foy where Lemaire did the impossible of having her behind of wall of horses in a 4 horse field. The only difference was he forced his way through without the stewards taking him down.

I can safely say that if I have in fact deterred this type of "discussion" with my "attacking" then I'm glad.

I can't think of a rider that has gotten horses beat in big races over here more than Jaime Spencer. Races he had no business losing. The amazing thing is his sample size is so limited, yet it seems like every single year you can count on him to totally mess up a ride in a big race. I don't know who his agent is, but he deserves a raise.