Perhaps Steve can change your name to "Hi I'm God...Just Ask Me"...if he does then please discontinue begging...it is sooo beneath a deity such as yourself (do feel free to continue preaching however)

:wf :wf :wf :wf

I can't even do it anymore.

Uncle.

What's with seemingly normal posters being invaded by the ghosts of pg1985 and blockheadd lately?

Not to mention poking at some that haven't even commented on "the principle of sportsmanship or lack thereof" to this point...

I'm glad I made the top of the list for "lack of sportsmanship" when the contest in reference involves a clown who continually reincarnated himself after getting himself banned under laughable circumstances.

I understand, Dave, which is why I pointed out the flaw in a perfect analogy. I suppose one could say that Jess Jackson bought his way into the Preakness, but I don't buy that one bit.

Frankly, I wouldn't even get into the whole " sportsmanship " debate on this issue. I happen to find the entire episode amusing.

who said anything about 7k claimers? not i. i seem to recall a big jockey to-do not long ago, regarding dunkirk and pioneer of the nile. matter of fact, i don't think dunkirk has had the same jock throughout his brief career. and yes, jackson and allen both spent more money than most folks see over several years' time to buy what they thought was a good horse, and a good investment. has nothing to do with nominations.

I'm just curious. Please name five things I've said that you're disagreed with. It shouldn't be hard since the examples number in the hundreds.

And you can't use the following:

"Zanjero will win a Grade I."

"Nobiz Like Shobiz will ultimately prove to be the best of this crop."

"Bittel Road offers value in Derby Futures at 150-1."

Oh settle yourself down, it was clearly hyperbole. Point being I don't make a habit out of chastising other people's right to have opinions just because I don't agree with them.

You were just the best example I could think of off the top of my head of someone who I don't always agree with. However, I did love your POTN manifesto/post-Derby wrap up, but you know since that didn't fit the paradigm I've so carefully crafted over these years, the one where other opinions should not be shared unless I agree with them, I chose not to say anything postitive about it even though I read the entire thing.

Though if the "hundreds" portion were actually true, taking out the Zanjero thing would have been way unfair to me, since the sheer lunacy of it almost counts for hundreds on its own merits.

You ARE aware that he came within half a length of winning a Grade I, right? And I got 10-1 odds.

And Colonial Colony actually DID win one....let's not get carried away here about what that all may or may not mean.

Not to belabor this ridiculous issue, but my prediction was that Zanjero would win a Grade I someday. Not that he was a great horse. I'm not defending his merits. I'm defending the merits of my prediction that he would win a Grade I.

....but would it help if I acknowledge that you and a couple of others were unintended victims of unintentional collateral damage...:eek:

Clearly it is not readily apparent to all....but I also find the episode along with some peoples reaction to be rather amusing...:)

Unfortunately this post was made after Zanjero came close to winning a Grade I. The exact date was July 4, 2007. So, after your prediction, Zanjero never came close to winning a Grade I.

NT

So?

I got 10-1 odds that a horse who had almost won a Grade I would ultimately win Grade I someday. I'd hardly call that a bad bet. Especially since there are enough Grade I races in America these days for everyone.

So the point is you're touting how close you came to predicting he'd win a Grade I when he never, ever came close to winning one after you made the prediction. You got 10-1? Great.

If I were to say to you today that I think Chocolate Candy will win a Grade I some day and we fast forward 2 yrs and he never does, I definitely wouldn't say "well, look at me, he came within a length!"

NT

You have missed the point entirely.

I'm not touting anything. I'm defending a prediction that I made and a subsequent bet at 10-1 that Zanjero would one day win a Grade I. That bet/prediction has been called "stupid" among other things. My point is that it was hardly a stupid, bold, or unreasonable thing to predict considering his near-win in a Grade I PRIOR to the bet I made. Was it ultimately incorrect? Of course. So what?

Is this really that hard to understand? (I find myself asking this question a lot here lately.)

And the fact of the matter is that I first made the prediction on KentuckyDerby.com two days before the 2007 Blue Grass Stakes in my pre-race write-up. Hence my description of the predictions as those that I had made "this spring." And I only re-posted it on DT.com because for some reason I insist on being held accountable for all of my predictions. Big mistake.

Justin is determined to keep fighting the good fight.