Final Verdict ... Fog Is A Fraud

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Ok, I'll offer my analysis on why LITF didn't win those three races. I have very good explanations on what happened to him.

BC SPRINT-No other horse in the BC sprint had traveled around the country and had a grueling campaign like LITF did last year. Just like LR did in the Derby, LITF was too weary and tired. That is why he gave around the final turn. I believe that the horse's physical problems are a direct result from this race because while the connection's intentions have always been noble, they went a step too far and pushed LITF over the edge.

CARTHAGE-LITF was coming off of a huge layoff and was not fit. He ran into a monster in Carthage in which the trainer of Carthage specifically announced that this would be the only time he could beat LITF. LITF ran a good second to a horse that was 100% fit and ready for this race.

SMILE SPRINT-LITF was never into the race. I don't know how this race can even be debatable. The horse was clearly not himself. You have to watch the races. I think the horse is having some serious physical problems combined with the fact that he didn't take to the track. Something was wrong with him. That is why he may be retired. I mean LITF was seventh at the quarter pole. In what other race in his career has he been seventh at the quarter pole and sixth at the half? NONE. This race can hardly be used to debate that the horse is not good against older quality sprinters. This particular race was clearly indicative of physical problems/not taking to the track. Not that he isn't good enough.

The proof lies within the Aristrides. If LITF was not that good of a horse, the nice Kelly's Landing would have easily beat him. I am very confident in that althought like Rupert, I could be wrong. It definitely wouldn't be the first time.

Also, LITF will never live up to the reputation that has been set for him. He was supposed to be an undefeated horse according to most. He is never supposed to get beaten. Hardly any horses throughout the history of the sport could have lived up the the expectations that have been set for LITF. I really like the horse and I hope they can find out what is wrong with him and fix it. He isn't one of the greatest ever, but he is definitely not as bad or a fraud like some of the posters are making him out to be.

Kelly's Landing is hardly "nice" and that horse got smoked on saturday as well.

You are right that LITF will never live up to the reputation that was set for him. He will never be an "all time great". But he isnt even a grade 1 animal. We have a defending Eclipse champ that cant even COMPETE in open company grade 2's. That is the definition of "fraud" in its purest form.

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Kelly's Landing is hardly "nice" and that horse got smoked on saturday as well.

You are right that LITF will never live up to the reputation that was set for him. He will never be an "all time great". But he isnt even a grade 1 animal. We have a defending Eclipse champ that cant even COMPETE in open company grade 2's. That is the definition of "fraud" in its purest form.

I argued over-and-over again throughout last year's Eclipse balloting season ...

... that the Sprint Award should have been vacated ... no champion named.

There are some years ... and some divisions ... where no horse is really desrving of the accolade of "champion" ... and last year's sprint division was one of them.

To give the award to a horse which never won an open G2 ... much less G1 sprint ... and probably was not even one of the ten best sprinters ... was a joke ... and a debasement of the word "champion."

And my position then has been completely vindicated by this year's events.

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Goo-gooism at its finest.

The fact that this horse has NEVER beaten a decent field and has lost every time he has faced one is not enough to convince the goo goos that this horse was overrated.

Sidebar:

For those of you who were never members of the "other" forum ...

... it was I ... little old me ... who coined the term "goo-goo" 2+ years ago ... to describe the naïve dreamers who ... in the Spring of 2004 ... had declared that year's 3YOS to be the greatest crop in American history.

So, yes ... I'll take both the credit ... and the blame ... for coining that term.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Now, look at kentuckyrosesinmay's "reasons" as to why LITF didnt fire and tell me that there arent some shocking similarities.

Amazing.

Goo-gooism at its finest.

The fact that this horse has NEVER beaten a decent field and has lost every time he has faced one is not enough to convince the goo goos that this horse was overrated.

He's never beaten a decent field? That's absurd. He's won six graded stakes races the past year and a half. You guys say the most ridiculous things. I could say that Afleet Alex has not beaten a decent field. Who did he beat in the Belmont? Andromeda's Hero and Nolan's Cat. Who did he beat in the Preakness? Scrappy T. Afleet Alex never beat an older horse and when he faced really tough fields like in the Ky Derby and the BC Juvenille he lost.
Who did Leroidisanimaux ever beat? He never beat any really good horses. When he finally faced a tough field in the BC Mile, he lost.
I could make the same arguments that you guys made about practically any horse. There are only a few horses over the past 10 years, that you couldn't make these argumnets about. The only horses that you couldn't make such arguments about are horses that are pretty much undefeated and have beaten really good horses. The only horse I can think of that you could say that about would be Ghostzapper. He was practically undefeated and he beat a couple of very good horses in Saint Liam and Roses in May. But there's even a big knock on Ghostzapper. He hardly ever ran. You could argue that the only reason his recrd was so good was because he ran so infrequently.
You guys think you're making these brilliant arguments but you're not. We know that LITF is not doing well. We know he's got physical problems. His trainer has been very concerned about these problems, so concerned that they may retire the horse in July. Horses don't retire in July unless they are hurt. What more do you need to know?

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Now, look at kentuckyrosesinmay's "reasons" as to why LITF didnt fire and tell me that there arent some shocking similarities.

Amazing.

Goo-gooism at its finest.

The fact that this horse has NEVER beaten a decent field and has lost every time he has faced one is not enough to convince the goo goos that this horse was overrated.

Well, then you tell me what happened to some of the other top horses at Calder on July 15th. The top horses weren't winning. I guess it was because they all just aren't good enough.

[dr. fager]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You guys think you're making these brilliant arguments but you're not. We know that LITF is not doing well. We know he's got physical problems. His trainer has been very concerned about these problems, so concerned that they may retire the horse in July. Horses don't retire in July unless they are hurt. What more do you need to know?

Ok, my only question is why run him this past Saturday then? Why not keep him in California instead of shipping him across the country?

Bing Crosby is coming up, or didn't they want him to lock up with Bordonaro?

[Rupert Pupkin]

[quote=ArlJim78]You called Carthage a monster. Well the problem for LITF in the Smile is that there were 5-6 horse with Carthage type speed. LITF has never shown the ability to handle this situation.
"I don't know why it's considered not even debatable that he ran pretty much his usual effort considering the data I posted yesterday."

Jim, To me it's not debatable because even before the race Gilchrist said that the horse has problems this year and they had considered retiring the horse last month. Trainers don't say stuff like that if their horse is doing well.
With regard to the data you posted, we don't have any faith in that data. If I told you that according to my speed figures, Dubai Escapade ran her best on Saturday but lost because she was overmatched, would you buy it? Of course you wouldn't, so why would you expect us to buy your argument?
Now you may very well be right that LITF would not have won even if he did run his best, but that's a different issue.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Just because the horse lost a few races in which he had legitimate excuses does not make the horse a fraud. The only people who think this horse is a fraud are the ones that set too high of expectations for him in the first place. It is not his fault that you all did that. I still say that he is at least Grade II company and maybe Grade I. We may never know though because they will probably retire him because he is having major physical problems. I don't get why people are so apt to jump all over this horse when he loses. He's a horse not a machine.

Answer this question...

Why did many of the top contenders in July 15th's races at Calder not win?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dr.fager

Ok, my only question is why run him this past Saturday then? Why not keep him in California instead of shipping him across the country?

Bing Crosby is coming up, or didn't they want him to lock up with Bordonaro?

These trainers run their horses all the time when they're not doing well. It would be easy to name 1000 horses that have run when they weren't doing well. Most horses don't stay in form for very long. One of the main reasons is because they are very fragile and most of the time they are battling some type of physical problem. If trainers only ran horses when they were at the top of thier game, we'd have nothing but 3 horse fields. I doubt Gilchrist knew for sure that the horse would run bad. The horse was coming off a nice win. I think he probably had some of the sme problems going into that race, yet he still won, so I'm sure that Gilchrist was hopeful that maybe the horse would win despite the fact that he wasn't at his best. The reason he chose the Calder race was because of the timing and because of the huge purse, not to mention that the horse had won at Calder before.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I have one more point to make. I've already said it, but I don't know if I really made it clear. In my opinion, you don't assess a horse's ability simply based on who they beat. It's not who they beat. It's how they did it. Case in point is Afleet Alex. He may not have beaten anyone great in the Preakness or Belmont, but you could still see that AA was a great horse based on his performance in those two races. It doesn't matter who he beat. It was how he did it.
Giacomo, on the other hand, won the KY Derby and he beat a great horse in Afleet Alex(who obviously did not run his best in the Derby ) that day. So not only did Giacomo win a huge race, he beat a great horse. Despite this, Giacomo is far from a great horse.
So we have Afleet Alex who never beat anyone and he is a great horse. Then you have Giacomo who did beat someone, yet Giacomo is not a great horse.
This type of stuff is quite typical in horseracing. There are many ordinary horses out there who have beaten great horses. And there are many great horses who have never beaten good horses. It's not who you beat. It's how you do it.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I have one more point to make. I've already said it, but I don't know if I really made it clear. In my opinion, you don't assess a horse's ability simply based on who they beat. It's not who they beat. It's how they did it. Case in point is Afleet Alex. He may not have beaten anyone great in the Preakness or Belmont, but you could still see that AA was a great horse based on his performance in those two races. It doesn't matter who he beat. It was how he did it.
Giacomo, on the other hand, won the KY Derby and he beat a great horse in Afleet Alex(who obviously did not run his best in the Derby ) that day. So not only did Giacomo win a huge race, he beat a great horse. Despite this, Giacomo is far from a great horse.
So we have Afleet Alex who never beat anyone and he is a great horse. Then you have Giacomo who did beat someone, yet Giacomo is not a great horse.
This type of stuff is quite typical in horseracing. There are many ordinary horses out there who have beaten great horses. And there are many great horses who have never beaten good horses. It's not who you beat. It's how you do it.

In my opinion it is definetely not an either or. It has to be both, who the horse beat and how. No question. The who and the how are both important.
To say that it doesn't matter who a horse beats seems somewhat absurd to me. The best situation is to find a horse that beats classy fields and looks good doing it.

I also don't agree with your comment that AA didn't run his best in the derby.
Are you saying he didn't "fire". I'm sorry but to me it was the single best performance in that derby all things considered. It was an incredible race. If you're saying he could have won it with different rating tactics I would agree, but how much more could AA have given that day?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

He's never beaten a decent field? That's absurd. He's won six graded stakes races the past year and a half. You guys say the most ridiculous things. I could say that Afleet Alex has not beaten a decent field. Who did he beat in the Belmont? Andromeda's Hero and Nolan's Cat. Who did he beat in the Preakness? Scrappy T. Afleet Alex never beat an older horse and when he faced really tough fields like in the Ky Derby and the BC Juvenille he lost.
Who did Leroidisanimaux ever beat? He never beat any really good horses. When he finally faced a tough field in the BC Mile, he lost.
I could make the same arguments that you guys made about practically any horse. There are only a few horses over the past 10 years, that you couldn't make these argumnets about. The only horses that you couldn't make such arguments about are horses that are pretty much undefeated and have beaten really good horses. The only horse I can think of that you could say that about would be Ghostzapper. He was practically undefeated and he beat a couple of very good horses in Saint Liam and Roses in May. But there's even a big knock on Ghostzapper. He hardly ever ran. You could argue that the only reason his recrd was so good was because he ran so infrequently.
You guys think you're making these brilliant arguments but you're not. We know that LITF is not doing well. We know he's got physical problems. His trainer has been very concerned about these problems, so concerned that they may retire the horse in July. Horses don't retire in July unless they are hurt. What more do you need to know?

What is absurd about that statement? Now lets not start double talking. Earlier in the thread, you said that we were too fixated on race grading and NOW you have the nerve to use it as the basis for this weak argument. Quit flip flopping.

Who did he beat? Name one quality field

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

He has won 11 of 14, come on hardly fraudulent to me.

How can a great record be fraudulent?

Two words ... Andy Kaufman.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

I will ask this question for the third time because NOONE WANTS TO GIVE IT A RESPONSE...

Why did many of the top contenders in July 15th's races at Calder not win? Were they all just not good enough or could there be some other logical explanation?

Hmmm....I wonder.

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

I will ask this question for the third time because NOONE WANTS TO GIVE IT A RESPONSE...

Why did many of the top contenders in July 15th's races at Calder not win? Were they all just not good enough or could there be some other logical explanation?

Hmmm....I wonder.

Perhaps the reason no one is reponding to the question ... is that it's totally irrelevant.

Does anyone know or care who won or lost on the undercard when Smoke Glacken defeated Wise Dusty in the DeFrancis Memorial? Or when Housebuster defeated Senor Speedy in the Forego Handicap?

What difference does it make what happened in races that Lost In The Fog didn't run in?

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Perhaps the reason no one is reponding to the question ... is that it's totally irrelevant.

Does anyone know or care who won or lost on the undercard when Smoke Glacken defeated Wise Dusty in the DeFrancis Memorial? Or when Housebuster defeated Senor Speedy in the Forego Handicap?

What difference does it make what happened in races that Lost In The Fog didn't run in?

The relevance is that some of the horses didn't take to the track which is why no one would answer my question.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Perhaps the reason no one is reponding to the question ... is that it's totally irrelevant.

Does anyone know or care who won or lost on the undercard when Smoke Glacken defeated Wise Dusty in the DeFrancis Memorial? Or when Housebuster defeated Senor Speedy in the Forego Handicap?

What difference does it make what happened in races that Lost In The Fog didn't run in?

Get it right, huh?

The Smile WAS an undercard race. The top race of the day was the G1 Princess Rooney.

Not even close here daddy.

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

The relevance is that some of the horses didn't take to the track which is why no one would answer my question.

Yes ... you're correct ... some horses didn't take to the track ... but ...

... other horses did ... and ...

... other horses weren't affected ... and ...

... all of that happens every single day wherever horse races are held.

And the relevance to Lost In The Fog's inability to win open G1/G2 sprints is ... ?

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Yes ... you're correct ... some horses didn't take to the track ... but ...

... other horses did ... and ...

... other horses weren't affected ... and ...

... all of that happens every single day wherever horse races are held.

And the relevance to Lost In The Fog's inability to win open G1/G2 sprints is ... ?

He was having physical problems and didn't take to the track.

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

He was having physical problems and didn't take to the track.

OK ... in other words ... he lost.

Am I missing something here?