Random post-Derby thoughts

[ateamstupid]

Nick and Andy both nailed it, and you've got it backwards. POTN was relatively slow before the Derby. People who hammered him to 6-1 were the ones making the assumption - that he'd improve on dirt. He had to in order to contend for the win. People who tossed him were simply saying that if he doesn't improve on dirt, which he didn't, he won't win. I don't call that "pure speculation."

And he's still relatively slow. He ran OK in the Derby and anyone who thinks he ran better has some explaining to do, not us. He was stomped by the winner, drifted out badly and should've been DQ'ed from 2nd.

The argument wasn't "he's going to suck on dirt" or "he won't be a dirt horse," it was "he'll have to be faster on dirt than he was on synthetic to win big dirt races." He still isn't. He's still an average three-year-old. Maybe that'll change in Pimlico, but he's still average, and how you think otherwise is puzzling.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Nick and Andy both nailed it, and you've got it backwards. POTN was relatively slow before the Derby. People who hammered him to 6-1 were the ones making the assumption - that he'd improve on dirt. He had to in order to contend for the win. People who tossed him were simply saying that if he doesn't improve on dirt, which he didn't, he won't win. I don't call that "pure speculation."

And he's still relatively slow. He ran OK in the Derby and anyone who thinks he ran better has some explaining to do, not us. He was stomped by the winner, drifted out badly and should've been DQ'ed from 2nd.

The argument wasn't "he's going to suck on dirt" or "he won't be a dirt horse," it was "he'll have to be faster on dirt than he was on synthetic to win big dirt races." He still isn't. He's still an average three-year-old. Maybe that'll change in Pimlico, but he's still average, and how you think otherwise is puzzling.

Ok. And if speed figures are the measure, and if they are accurate, then you are correct.

Although, I have to point out that a number of people (maybe not you) said he was a turf horse because he started his career on turf and Mott felt dirt was his 3rd-best surface.

[gales0678]

Justin - i would love to see POTN run against Quality Road

Maybe after the TC BB can keep him here in NY and run in the Jim Dandy and then the Travers stakes

If he can win those types of races my guess is that people's opinion of him will chage

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Nick and Andy both nailed it, and you've got it backwards. POTN was relatively slow before the Derby. People who hammered him to 6-1 were the ones making the assumption - that he'd improve on dirt. He had to in order to contend for the win. People who tossed him were simply saying that if he doesn't improve on dirt, which he didn't, he won't win. I don't call that "pure speculation."

And he's still relatively slow. He ran OK in the Derby and anyone who thinks he ran better has some explaining to do, not us. He was stomped by the winner, drifted out badly and should've been DQ'ed from 2nd.

The argument wasn't "he's going to suck on dirt" or "he won't be a dirt horse," it was "he'll have to be faster on dirt than he was on synthetic to win big dirt races." He still isn't. He's still an average three-year-old. Maybe that'll change in Pimlico, but he's still average, and how you think otherwise is puzzling.

Let me jump in here because this BS has gone on long enough.

The position by both Serling and Beyer was that POTN was a BET AGAINST in the DERBY. They both explicitly stated that the way to make money, this year's strategy, was to NOT USE this horse. Whatever that might mean, it certainly WASN'T validated when the horse HIT THE BOARD.

Any ****in way you spin this, and the primary one is that the horse is SLOW, still doesn't account for the fact that the horse RAN 2nd. Doesn't matter who was in the race because these claims were made when IWR was still in the race---which means that POTN, AT WORST, runs 3rd.

For those whose handicapping is not driven by BEYERS and who basically have a clue when it comes to evaluating horses, they missed the mark. The horse is nothing special but he's not the rat they make him out to be.

And, P.S. those who don't bet POLY on a regular basis really shouldn't be commenting about it under the guise of experts.

Gimme a ****in break already.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Let me jump in here because this BS has gone on long enough.

The position by both Serling and Beyer was that POTN was a BET AGAINST in the DERBY. They both explicitly stated that the way to make money, this year's strategy, was to NOT USE this horse. Whatever that might mean, it certainly WASN'T validated when the horse HIT THE BOARD.

Any ****in way you spin this, and the primary one is that the horse is SLOW, still doesn't account for the fact that the horse RAN 2nd. Doesn't matter who was in the race because these claims were made when IWR was still in the race---which means that POTN, AT WORST, runs 3rd.

For those whose handicapping is not driven by BEYERS and who basically have a clue when it comes to evaluating horses, they missed the mark. The horse is nothing special but he's not the rat they make him out to be.

And, P.S. those who don't bet POLY on a regular basis really shouldn't be commenting about it under the guise of experts.

Gimme a ****in break already.

fat man if the stewards had done their job, POTN would have been placed fourth - as much as some on here talk about cheating by trainers , there needs to be more attention to what the stewards are doing and why they are doing it , regardless if coa or papa's jock claimed foul the stewards should have taken the horse down no ands or if's about it

the public was given virtually no reason why this didn't happen , i don't even remember nbc mentioning it once, just a travesty to anyone who had MM for place of had him in the 2nd spot for the exacta's

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by gales0678

fat man if the stewards had done their job, POTN would have been placed fourth - as much as some on here talk about cheating by trainers , there needs to be more attention to what the stewards are doing and why they are doing it , regardless if coa or papa's jock claimed foul the stewards should have taken the horse down no ands or if's about it

the public was given virtually no reason why this didn't happen , i don't even remember nbc mentioning it once, just a travesty to anyone who had MM for place of had him in the 2nd spot for the exacta's

what does that have to do with any of this, Gales? the horse would've still come across the wire in 2nd place.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

what does that have to do with any of this, Gales? the horse would've still come across the wire in 2nd place.

it has to do with the integrity of the game and who is making these decisions
for the millions of $ that were in the pool

we as players deserve better from the stewards, bad stewards , no explanation from CD on this is laughable

as for the horse being fast or slow / good or bad , let him take his shot again on sat - hopefully it will be a fast dirt track and not a slopfest, after sat there answer about this horse maybe eaiser to figure out

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I said they're were 19 bet againsts in the Derby ... of which none would get within six lengths of a pair of subsequent scratchers.

Musket Man and POTN were the most honest grinding horses in the race .. but both are slowpokes .. they became my 3rd and 4th choices after scratches because they seemed logical to plug up for a piece and fire. While others might be hit or miss.

It was a bad Derby without IRW, QR, The Pamp, and OF.

The winner remains impossible.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I said they're were 19 bet againsts in the Derby ... of which none would get within six lengths of a pair of subsequent scratchers.

Musket Man and POTN were the most honest grinding horses in the race .. but both are slowpokes .. they became my 3rd and 4th choices after scratches because they seemed logical to plug up for a piece and fire. While others might be hit or miss.

It was a bad Derby without IRW, QR, The Pamp, and OF.

The winner remains impossible.

Okay, DrugS.

I have a problem in using SLOW when the SLOW horse beats the FAST horse both times they met. Now, this probably isn't a problem for BEYERITES but I'm not buying it. So, no matter how FAST IWR is, he still hasn't beating POTN yet. And probably never will given his injury.

Anything else is just rhetoric.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I said they're were 19 bet againsts in the Derby ... of which none would get within six lengths of a pair of subsequent scratchers.

Musket Man and POTN were the most honest grinding horses in the race .. but both are slowpokes .. they became my 3rd and 4th choices after scratches because they seemed logical to plug up for a piece and fire. While others might be hit or miss.

It was a bad Derby without IRW, QR, The Pamp, and OF.

The winner remains impossible.

Mine ended up being Papa Clem and Musket Man after the scratches, under similar consequence.

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Let me jump in here because this BS has gone on long enough.

The position by both Serling and Beyer was that POTN was a BET AGAINST in the DERBY. They both explicitly stated that the way to make money, this year's strategy, was to NOT USE this horse. Whatever that might mean, it certainly WASN'T validated when the horse HIT THE BOARD.

Any ****in way you spin this, and the primary one is that the horse is SLOW, still doesn't account for the fact that the horse RAN 2nd. Doesn't matter who was in the race because these claims were made when IWR was still in the race---which means that POTN, AT WORST, runs 3rd.

For those whose handicapping is not driven by BEYERS and who basically have a clue when it comes to evaluating horses, they missed the mark. The horse is nothing special but he's not the rat they make him out to be.

And, P.S. those who don't bet POLY on a regular basis really shouldn't be commenting about it under the guise of experts.

Gimme a ****in break already.

Had nothing to do with Beyers for me to stand against him, it had everything to do with the poor performance of other synthetic horses in the Derby. For example, Colonel John was 10X more talented than POTN and he was an ineffective 6th against a worse field. I said I'll continue to toss them all until one of them beats me. Well, he did... sort of. As for this year, I still wouldn't have had the winner, so no additional blood, but it means back to the drawing board for next year.

As for POTN in a vacuum, if Mott started him on turf because he thought he belonged there, that was enough for me before he actually ran on dirt. He knows the horse a lot better than I do. His Derby performance was OK, better than I had expected, especially given the outside part of the racetrack. However, keep in mind the completely useless Join in the Dance which he sat just off of was only 6 lengths behind him... that to me says a lot.

[chucklestheclown]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

And, P.S. those who don't bet POLY on a regular basis really shouldn't be commenting about it under the guise of experts.Gimme a ****in break already.