Can someone explain the Colonel John silliness to me?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

definetly a question mark. not sure i'd call it gigantic.

The ability to handle the surface makes all the other questions moot. If he does not handle dirt, he cant win regardless of everything else.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The ability to handle the surface makes all the other questions moot. If he does not handle dirt, he cant win regardless of everything else.

agreed. i don't know how to quantify the likelyhood he doesn't handle the surface as anything other than a question mark until he ships in.

you stated it was a gigantic question mark. i took that to mean you don't expect him to handle the surface. your opinion is probably better informed than mine but for my part i'm waiting until i see what he does at the track.

i'm in no way endorsing the horse. i just think labelling "silly" the expectation he could run competetivly was itself silly.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

agreed. i don't know how to quantify the likelyhood he doesn't handle the surface as anything other than a question mark until he ships in.

you stated it was a gigantic question mark. i took that to mean you don't expect him to handle the surface. your opinion is probably better informed than mine but for my part i'm waiting until i see what he does at the track.

i'm in no way endorsing the horse. i just think labelling "silly" the expectation he could run competetivly was itself silly.

He is not going to even work at Churchill so we wont even have that to try to use. Not that a work would tell you whether a horse can handle the track in a race anyway.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

He is not going to even work at Churchill so we wont even have that to try to use. Not that a work would tell you whether a horse can handle the track in a race anyway.

see what i mean about the better informed part?

[hi_im_god]

i know there'd be no dirt kicked back in his face but why wouldn't they want to give him a work over the track?

any insight to what the trainer is thinking?

Well I thought he had run on dirt.

All his races have been very consistent.
He looks very relaxed and seems to find
ways not to get into difficult positions. No panic,
very professional. All around solid performer so
far, and more distance is good. Plenty of speed
to set him up it looks like. I think he can handle
being in a number in the pack spots behind the
leaders.

I dont see a more consistent horse.
Except 3 races with Big Brown.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i know there'd be no dirt kicked back in his face but why wouldn't they want to give him a work over the track?

any insight to what the trainer is thinking?

Says he just wants to keep him in same surrounding as long as possible. Probablty thinks that 1 work over track wont make a difference.

[mclem10011]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

He is not going to even work at Churchill so we wont even have that to try to use. Not that a work would tell you whether a horse can handle the track in a race anyway.

Chuck does that make sense, from a trainers POV? Wouldn't you want to see how he works at least once, or eveen just a breeze to see even any signals of how he may handle it on race day?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by mclem10011

Chuck does that make sense, from a trainers POV? Wouldn't you want to see how he works at least once, or eveen just a breeze to see even any signals of how he may handle it on race day?

I see both sides of the street. Say he works so-so? Do you not run?

[mclem10011]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I see both sides of the street. Say he works so-so? Do you not run?

I see your point, but because anything can happen in the race, even if he worked so, so I'd still take a shot barring any injury or sickness.

[Thunder Gulch]

If they don't see a poor work, at least they get the thrill until he hits the second turn and see he's spinning his wheels. If he went over to CD and floundered, the connections would have all kinds of doubt instead of optimism...dumb reason not to work him there, but it's a reason regardless.

[Thunder Gulch]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The ability to handle the surface makes all the other questions moot. If he does not handle dirt, he cant win regardless of everything else.

The whole synthetic/dirt question is THE story of this Derby.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

The whole synthetic/dirt question is THE story of this Derby.

Especially since Pyro's connections just stated that if Pyro wins the Derby, he will not go to the BC Classic because it will be on synthetic(someone remind me of the site).

Colonel John is a very conservative safe pick, I believe, without alot of negatives(or positives, for that matter) who might be 6-1. It's a pick for unimaginative handicappers(lol)

[alysheba4]

santa anita could switch back to dirt..........although the CUSION seams to be more comparable to dirt than POLY.

[Hickory Hill Hoff]

I think the real silliness is making Big Brown the Derby favorite off of one race.....by the way, Colonel John is my top pick at this time. Process of elimination, all the other possible favorites got holes in them too. At least Colonel John has run consistent, albeit on a non-dirt surface.

I thought he had some dirt runs at two?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Mike

Especially since Pyro's connections just stated that if Pyro wins the Derby, he will not go to the BC Classic because it will be on synthetic(someone remind me of the site).

Colonel John is a very conservative safe pick, I believe, without alot of negatives(or positives, for that matter) who might be 6-1. It's a pick for unimaginative handicappers(lol)

If Pyro wins the Derby his connections better worry more about the Preakness than the Classic.