Discreet Treasure

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by pgardn

The man likes to be right.

The intent of his post, beyond all the nitpicking by the Texas Instrument-packing Student t-test freaks and Burkenstock wearing Corso/Sagan wannabes, was that this horse, Discreet Treasure, was probably better suited to the turf, and an opportunistic bet-against at very short-odds were he to reappear on a fast main track.

There is a very good chance that he will prove right in this respect.

He has been handicapping and betting for years,
and is obviously very good at it. So I guess it does no harm in
righting a very obvious wrong.

The italicized I assume was the intent of your post...sorry you failed.

Alas, I can't quite come up with a fitting description of your behavior on this Summer's Eve (but I bet you could find it in the feminine needs section of your local Walgreen's)...

I dont think this complete lack of understanding in what we
know about heredity now, has created a problem thus far.

What "we" know? You harvesting fetal stem cells in your spare time? Or do you just, as your screenname suggests, have a massive pea garden?

The irony of this posturing as a latter day Gregor Mendel is that the monk himself died of a kidney infection, making your douche bag-like performance all the more appropriate...

A real renaissance man.

You're just bitter no one here is calling you a Homo Universalis...

I'll grant you the first half of that phrase...not that there's anything wrong with that...

Its hard to learn "new" ideas when one gets older, I have experienced
this. Or maybe one of my favorite quotes might apply here:
Do not attempt to reason a man out of something he did not reason himself into.

Appropriate quote for sure. The same guy suggested people dine on babies, which in a way was the crude origin of stem cell research...

An interesting side note is there are 3 big reasons why male offspring
should be more like their mothers(dams) genetically than the fathers (sires).
No links required. Just science as we know it now, not caveman stuff.

Yeah, its just too bad that (a) handicapping and horse racing itself can never be distilled to an exact science and (b) we aren't strictly talking about genotype here, more so phenotype. Anyone want to revisit the 2004 North American 3yo turf crop to see who the prevailing dominant sire was at the time?

Never mind that concepts such as gene interaction, gene-linkage, and sex-linkage were completely ignored by all the righteous "correctors", which is what essentially was being arrived at (however "incorrect" a path it may have been) with the suggestion that coat color was linked to turf prowess (or stallion performance traits in general).

Oh, and since we are back to the concept of the feminine hy-"gene", how often should we practice this, you know, to avoid that pesky nephritis...