not to beat a dead horse but, ...

[Buffymommy]

Are you guys this upset that Real Quiet only lost by a tiny nose... or that Silver Charm didn't get it ya know they did take the horse wide so SC wouldn't see him and fight back... Or what about War Emblem, did they make him trip on purpose...


Just saying that it is horse racing. Things happen to make a horse win or lose. Racing Luck.

[dr. fager]

Originally Posted by Buffymommy

Are you guys this upset that Real Quiet only lost by a tiny nose... or that Silver Charm didn't get it ya know they did take the horse wide so SC wouldn't see him and fight back... Or what about War Emblem, did they make him trip on purpose...


Just saying that it is horse racing. Things happen to make a horse win or lose. Racing Luck.

So the 11 won it were lucky and that's that?

Look, rabbits have been used throughtout the game. For instance, Damascus had Hedevar to wear out Dr. Fager in the '67 Woodward. The thing about it is they were both trained (I believe,not owned) by the same person and Hedevar was there only to benefit Damascus. In the case of Bailey and Solis, the perception (right or wrong) is they took on the front end for one reason only...to wear down SJ and take him out of his race. And who did it benefit? What about any bettors that had RHT or Eddington in their exotics?

Serious questions on taking horses out of their running styles and why, if there is proof out there that is what they were instructed to do by the owner/trainer...that's one thing...if not that's why the ?? are always going to be ask.

[Revolution]

Great horses find ways to win. Very good ones do not. Smarty, like Ghostzapper and Candy Ride was very good, not great.

[1st_Saturday_in_May]

Originally Posted by Revolution

Great horses find ways to win. Very good ones do not. Smarty, like Ghostzapper and Candy Ride was very good, not great.

Wait, so you're saying that Ghostzapper isnt great, but didnt he find a way to win? How many horses are undefeated? Are they the only ones the all-mighty Revolution will call great? Man O War lost, Secretariat lost, does that make them not great because they couldnt find a way to win on that day? I'm really not sure what you're trying to say...but it doesnt make much sense to me.

[Buffymommy]

Originally Posted by dr. fager

So the 11 won it were lucky and that's that?

Look, rabbits have been used throughtout the game. For instance, Damascus had Hedevar to wear out Dr. Fager in the '67 Woodward. The thing about it is they were both trained (I believe,not owned) by the same person and Hedevar was there only to benefit Damascus. In the case of Bailey and Solis, the perception (right or wrong) is they took on the front end for one reason only...to wear down SJ and take him out of his race. And who did it benefit? What about any bettors that had RHT or Eddington in their exotics?

Serious questions on taking horses out of their running styles and why, if there is proof out there that is what they were instructed to do by the owner/trainer...that's one thing...if not that's why the ?? are always going to be ask.

Why do you think it has taken this long for another horse to win it? I was just stating that everyone is mad about the Solis and Bailey rides and wants to punish them. Was everyone all up in arms about the 1988 Preakness when they did the same thing to Winning Colors? It is a part of racing. EVERYONE wants it to be their horse to win the triple crown.

Should Gary Stevens have held Victory Gallop up to let Real Quiet win? Now I am not saying I agree with what Solis and Bailey did, but just stating that why should we be talking about it still? Smarty was a very good horse. He just didn't win the triple crown.

[dr. fager]

Originally Posted by Buffymommy

Why do you think it has taken this long for another horse to win it? I was just stating that everyone is mad about the Solis and Bailey rides and wants to punish them. Was everyone all up in arms about the 1988 Preakness when they did the same thing to Winning Colors? It is a part of racing. EVERYONE wants it to be their horse to win the triple crown.

Should Gary Stevens have held Victory Gallop up to let Real Quiet win? Now I am not saying I agree with what Solis and Bailey did, but just stating that why should we be talking about it still? Smarty was a very good horse. He just didn't win the triple crown.

My points weren't if SJ was great horse or not, I have not interest in arguing that.....it's more of the problems with that race and why it's talked about the way it is. For instance, your SC explanation about them going wide...that a good ride to try and WIN....see my point?

I'm purely devastated that Affirmed, Slew, Secretariat, et. al. weren't great just lucky....LOL, The Bid had REALLY bad luck, that darn safety pin.

[Buffymommy]

Originally Posted by dr. fager

My points weren't if SJ was great horse or not, I have not interest in arguing that.....it's more of the problems with that race and why it's talked about the way it is. For instance, your SC explanation about them going wide...that a good ride to try and WIN....see my point?

I'm purely devastated that Affirmed, Slew, Secretariat, et. al. weren't great just lucky....LOL, The Bid had REALLY bad luck, that darn safety pin.

Affirmed, Slew, Secretariat, etc... were of a different era of horses. They were great ones yes. I meant the horses of today were going to need luck to prove their greatness in the triple crown.

People are devious and want their horse to win, not someone elses. That is what it boils down to Dr. Fager. Not nice, but that seems to be the way it is.

[blackthroatedwind]

This thread is better than microdot.

And one thing's for sure.....it's a flashback.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This thread is better than microdot.

And one thing's for sure.....it's a flashback.

HAHAHA! i get it now...

that would be optional, for improved gameplay. although since the "notes" you play along with are color-coded, it may inhibit your ability to become a "true guitar hero..."

[dr. fager]

Originally Posted by Buffymommy

Affirmed, Slew, Secretariat, etc... were of a different era of horses. They were great ones yes. I meant the horses of today were going to need luck to prove their greatness in the triple crown.

People are devious and want their horse to win, not someone elses. That is what it boils down to Dr. Fager. Not nice, but that seems to be the way it is.

See, but that's what I was saying was the question to me is was Bailey trying to win the race....not in my opinion.

I have no issues with Damascus having Hedevar, Dr. Fager had his Achilles heel and that was he wouldn't rate and didn't like anyone in front of him. Have fun with him up to a mile though

[declansharbor]

Originally Posted by Buffymommy

Why do you think it has taken this long for another horse to win it? I was just stating that everyone is mad about the Solis and Bailey rides and wants to punish them. Was everyone all up in arms about the 1988 Preakness when they did the same thing to Winning Colors? It is a part of racing. EVERYONE wants it to be their horse to win the triple crown.

Should Gary Stevens have held Victory Gallop up to let Real Quiet win? Now I am not saying I agree with what Solis and Bailey did, but just stating that why should we be talking about it still? Smarty was a very good horse. He just didn't win the triple crown.

My thing is, it's a jocks job to put his horse in the best position to win the race..They didn't ride to win, they rode to beat Smarty and ensure he did not win the TC..Just look at Eddington..I'm pretty sure Bailey takes him to the whip a few times BEFORE they are half way down the BACKSTRETCH.There is a thin line between a bad rde and a crooked one, and it's blatantly obvious Bailey did not want to win that race..