BC Stunner: 2 days, 3 new races..

[Linny]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I would contend that David Junior was a legitimate 10f horse (and George Washington ran a big race), the dirt experiment just went awry...but that will continue to happen with Euro horses because some of them will handle it wonderfully (Giant's Causeway, Sahkee...), and others like David Junior won't handle it.

I don't think it means they don't belong per se.

I do think at a certain number of the Euros will still opt for the Classic. David Junior loves 10f but not dirt. Geo Washington did run well considering that he'd have been odds on in the Mile and the move to the Classic was a sporting attempt to duplicate the sensation of Giant's Causeway's game effort in defeat. There are a number of Euro's who prefer 10f to 12f and they may opt for the Classic over the turf.
Most of the weakening will be by US based owners.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Linny

Geo Washington did run well considering that he'd have been odds on in the Mile and the move to the Classic was a sporting attempt to duplicate the sensation of Giant's Causeway's game effort in defeat.

I wouldn't classify it as a " sporting attempt " at all. It was a monetary decision based on his potential increased value with a first or second place finish. Even a victory in the BC mile would have done little to increase his value.

If anything, one could argue they robbed one race of a potentially exciting performer to barely enhance another due to personal greed.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I wouldn't classify it as a " sporting attempt " at all. It was a monetary decision based on his potential increased value with a first or second place finish. Even a victory in the BC mile would have done little to increase his value.

If anything, one could argue they robbed one race of a potentially exciting performer to barely enhance another due to personal greed.

Not to mention a shot at the Sheiks.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Not to mention a shot at the Sheiks.

Agreed...though one could argue that their malevolence was in some ways also sporting in this case.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Agreed...though one could argue that their malevolence was in some ways also sporting in this case.

Well I sure wish they would battle it out more frequently on the track than at the auctions!

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Well I sure wish they would battle it out more frequently on the track than at the auctions!

That would be nice though I imagine they must in Europe. Neither one of them sent their best horses here in the past and Godolphin has only recently started to seriously focus on the US.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I wouldn't classify it as a " sporting attempt " at all. It was a monetary decision based on his potential increased value with a first or second place finish. Even a victory in the BC mile would have done little to increase his value.

If anything, one could argue they robbed one race of a potentially exciting performer to barely enhance another due to personal greed.

I guess I just don't feel that George Washington had a whole lot to prove going a mile on the grass -- the connections obviously wanted to improve his value as a stallion, but at the same time it added intrigue to the event.

Adding the world's best miler to America's richest race wasn't such a bad thing for the race itself.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I guess I just don't feel that George Washington had a whole lot to prove going a mile on the grass -- the connections obviously wanted to improve his value as a stallion, but at the same time it added intrigue to the event.

Adding the world's best miler to America's richest race wasn't such a bad thing for the race itself.

I guess if it added intrigue to the race for you then I can't argue with you...but for me he was a total toss and I never even thought about him at any point.

Sort of like Lava Man.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I guess if it added intrigue to the race for you then I can't argue with you...but for me he was a total toss and I never even thought about him at any point.

Sort of like Lava Man.

I didn't like him to win, but in single-race exotics I thought he was worth a look in the bottom spots.

In retrospect I don't think he ran a terrible race at all -- 3 lengths from hitting the board in America's richest race. Even with no dirt experience, I think he deserved to be there more than half the field did. Their experiment had a better chance of winning than Flower Alley, Lava Man, Perfect Drift, Lawyer Ron, Sun King, Suave, etc.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I didn't like him to win, but in single-race exotics I thought he was worth a look in the bottom spots.

In retrospect I don't think he ran a terrible race at all -- 3 lengths from hitting the board in America's richest race. Even with no dirt experience, I think he deserved to be there more than half the field did. Their experiment had a better chance of winning than Flower Alley, Lava Man, Perfect Drift, Lawyer Ron, Sun King, Suave, etc.

There are different discussions here, and I would not say he had no right to be in the race, but to me all that matters is relative chances of winning versus betting odds and regardless of outcome George Washington was a horse who's odds were significantly lower than his actual chances of winning.

I don't think he had a better chance in relation to odds of winning the race than a number of horses you mentioned. To me that is what really matters.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

1.)regardless of outcome George Washington was a horse who's odds were significantly lower than his actual chances of winning

2.)I don't think he had a better chance in relation to odds of winning the race than a number of horses you mentioned. To me that is what really matters.

1.) I agree completely.

2.) I disagree completely because I think that all of the horses I listed had zero chance of winning, and zero chance of making a case for them winning -- so they could have been 100-1 and they still would have been overbet as far as the win pool goes. That's just how I see it...I could not, before the race, envision any of those listed horses coming home first. There were some longshots that I had on my tickets that I believed had a miniscule outside chance, but none of the horses I listed.

I think it's mostly off-topic in the thread anyway, which is my fault -- but I guess I'm just legitimately interested in which horses on the list you felt had a better chance to win in relation to their odds, because I couldn't see any of them winning.