not to beat a dead horse but, ...

[declansharbor]

just got done watching that crime otherwise known as the Belmont Stakes 2004. The jockeys on RHTen and EDDIngton (eddington esp.) shouldve been stripped of their liscense to ride in NY..Smarty's preakness ranks in the top three races i have ever witnessed, as his dominance was well displayed..Stewie shouldve known that the "top tier" jockeys werent gonna let a drunken 5k claimer jock win the TC, a feat that neither of them have achieved..Smarty was a once in a lifetime horse and its a damn shame that it had to end like that..Absolutely pitiful..Who should take the brunt of the blame here??

[1st_Saturday_in_May]

Ive blamed Bailey since the moment the race ended.

A brief look at Eddington's PPs tells a lot to me. Bailey, Eddington's rider in 6 of 8 career starts including the Preakness, Belmont, Wood, and Gotham was not aboard again in his career after this debacle. Perhaps he had other engagements and that pissed Hennig off, but I dont think thats the case. I dont know for sure, perhaps someone more knowledable can tell me I'm wrong, but it seems VERY strange to me that Bailey wouldnt be back aboard.

I'll always view this as like you said...a crime.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by declansharbor

just got done watching that crime otherwise known as the Belmont Stakes 2004. The jockeys on RHTen and EDDIngton (eddington esp.) shouldve been stripped of their liscense to ride in NY..Smarty's preakness ranks in the top three races i have ever witnessed, as his dominance was well displayed..Stewie shouldve known that the "top tier" jockeys werent gonna let a drunken 5k claimer jock win the TC, a feat that neither of them have achieved..Smarty was a once in a lifetime horse and its a damn shame that it had to end like that..Absolutely pitiful..Who should take the brunt of the blame here??

Smarty should. He couldn't even beat Birdstone.

[declansharbor]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Smarty should. He couldn't even beat Birdstone.

U just summed up ur knowledge in a brisk 7 words..WOW, how stupid could u be Beltway sniper?? Secrateriat lost a few times, does that make the horses that beat him better?? U know nothing nimwit, u should turn ur brain in for scientific research..I bet u look like the geico cavemen...U made me sick with ur numbskull statements.. U r the weakest link, good bye

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by declansharbor

U just summed up ur knowledge in a brisk 7 words..WOW, how stupid could u be Beltway sniper?? Secrateriat lost a few times, does that make the horses that beat him better?? U know nothing nimwit, u should turn ur brain in for scientific research..I bet u look like the geico cavemen...U made me sick with ur numbskull statements.. U r the weakest link, good bye

And you just summed up your knowledge in a few lines of gibberish. Well done. Smarty was a great miler that was so talented he could stretch his ability out to ten furlongs. He really had no business winning the Belmont Stakes but showed great heart in his loss. Stop trying to blame everyone else for that loss. He just wasn't meant to go a mile and a half.

[declansharbor]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

And you just summed up your knowledge in a few lines of gibberish. Well done. Smarty was a great miler that was so talented he could stretch his ability out to ten furlongs. He really had no business winning the Belmont Stakes but showed great heart in his loss. Stop trying to blame everyone else for that loss. He just wasn't meant to go a mile and a half.

YOKAY!! Get ur peepers checked pal.. A great miler???lay the pipe down as well

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by declansharbor

YOKAY!! Get ur peepers checked pal.. A great miler???lay the pipe down as well

Is tomorrow a school holiday? Otherwise you should probably get to bed. Your handle betrays your ignorance (as if your posts don't do that well enough on their own).

[declansharbor]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I don't know man. His belmont was an amzing performance, and it still kind of surprises me that people don't see it. Look at the two horses he dueled into defeat. Each multiple grade 1 winners, and where did they finish? He had every right to chuck it in like they did, and he fought tooth and nail. Why do you say he wasn't meant to go a mile and a half, because he ran second? If Bailey and Solis don't go kamikaze, he probably sets a much slower pace, and wins for fun. Look at it, Rock Hard ten ran awful in that race, was he meant to get a mile and a half? I guess it's good for horses that they don't know how far they are "meant" to go.

Snipers just pissed off at the world..Either that or he was dumb enough to lay money on SJ BElmont day.. So Solis was that criminal on RHT..I try to tell my friends about this all the time, and they just think i'm crying "conspiracy theory". Bailey and Solis didn't want Stewie to win the TC, and that became obvious down the backstretch of a mile and a half race..They knew their horses stood no chance to cross the wire first..Isnt that criminal, to ride a race, giving ur horse zero shot of winning??

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I don't know man. His belmont was an amzing performance, and it still kind of surprises me that people don't see it. Look at the two horses he dueled into defeat. Each multiple grade 1 winners, and where did they finish? He had every right to chuck it in like they did, and he fought tooth and nail. Why do you say he wasn't meant to go a mile and a half, because he ran second? If Bailey and Solis don't go kamikaze, he probably sets a much slower pace, and wins for fun. Look at it, Rock Hard ten ran awful in that race, was he meant to get a mile and a half? I guess it's good for horses that they don't know how far they are "meant" to go.

Neither of those horses were G1 winners at that point nor was Eddington a mulitple G1 winner at any point. Don't make the mistake of comparing Derby horses with their abilities a year later. Rock Hard Ten had no business going 12 furlongs as well. He was best at 9 but talented enough to win at 10.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Why exactly did RHT have no business going 12 furlongs?

Mainly based on the fact that his figures at 9 furlongs were always better than at 10. He just never struck me as a 12 furlong horse in the least. I know Saint Liam ran out west against him and lost but ignoring that aspect (which I think it is fair since he didn't run well) I have a tough time getting too excited when the only 10 furlong race you win is over Congrats and Borrego.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by declansharbor

just got done watching that crime otherwise known as the Belmont Stakes 2004. The jockeys on RHTen and EDDIngton (eddington esp.) shouldve been stripped of their liscense to ride in NY..Smarty's preakness ranks in the top three races i have ever witnessed, as his dominance was well displayed..Stewie shouldve known that the "top tier" jockeys werent gonna let a drunken 5k claimer jock win the TC, a feat that neither of them have achieved..Smarty was a once in a lifetime horse and its a damn shame that it had to end like that..Absolutely pitiful..Who should take the brunt of the blame here??

I think that the other jocks would be criticized no matter what they did. I think that if they would have taken their horses back, people would have criticized them for giving Smarty an easy lead.

I'm very sursprised that anyone would be angry at Solis or Bailey. I think that there are a number of things that got Smarty beat in the Belmont. The fast pace was a factor. The distance was a factor. The fact that the race was his 5th race in 11 weeks was a huge factor. The fact that Elliot asked the horse for everything and won the Preakness by 11 lengths, instead of winning by 5 lengths under a strangle-hold was a huge factor. Elliot made a huge mistake winning the Preakness by 11 lengths. I think he pretty much squeezed the lemon dry.

I think that Smarty was a great horse. I think that if even one of those factors that I mentioned would have been different, I think that Smarty could have won the race.

[alysheba4]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think that the other jocks would be criticized no matter what they did. I think that if they would have taken their horses back, people would have criticized them for giving Smarty an easy lead.

I'm very sursprised that anyone would be angry at Solis or Bailey. I think that there are a number of things that got Smarty beat in the Belmont. The fast pace was a factor. The distance was a factor. The fact that the race was his 5th race in 11 weeks was a huge factor. The fact that Elliot asked the horse for everything and won the Preakness by 11 lengths, instead of winning by 5 lengths under a strangle-hold was a huge factor. Elliot made a huge mistake winning the Preakness by 11 lengths. I think he pretty much squeezed the lemon dry.

I think that Smarty was a great horse. I think that if even one of those factors that I mentioned would have been different, I think that Smarty could have won the race.

.......exactly, thats why so few horses have won the triple crown......... smarty was simply not good enough and the jock
choked big time.

[kgar311]

I cant believe all the crying ealier in these posts about, well if he had it his own way and nobody challenged him he would of won. Thats a bunch of horse s*it. If he was an alltime great he would of fought off all challenges. You dont let a horse waltz to a triple crown. Praise be to Bailey for challenging him down the backside. And ah Elliot didnt have to pull a Secretariat move down the back side either. SJ was no tremendous machine.

[Buffymommy]

Are you guys this upset that Real Quiet only lost by a tiny nose... or that Silver Charm didn't get it ya know they did take the horse wide so SC wouldn't see him and fight back... Or what about War Emblem, did they make him trip on purpose...


Just saying that it is horse racing. Things happen to make a horse win or lose. Racing Luck.

[dr. fager]

Originally Posted by Buffymommy

Are you guys this upset that Real Quiet only lost by a tiny nose... or that Silver Charm didn't get it ya know they did take the horse wide so SC wouldn't see him and fight back... Or what about War Emblem, did they make him trip on purpose...


Just saying that it is horse racing. Things happen to make a horse win or lose. Racing Luck.

So the 11 won it were lucky and that's that?

Look, rabbits have been used throughtout the game. For instance, Damascus had Hedevar to wear out Dr. Fager in the '67 Woodward. The thing about it is they were both trained (I believe,not owned) by the same person and Hedevar was there only to benefit Damascus. In the case of Bailey and Solis, the perception (right or wrong) is they took on the front end for one reason only...to wear down SJ and take him out of his race. And who did it benefit? What about any bettors that had RHT or Eddington in their exotics?

Serious questions on taking horses out of their running styles and why, if there is proof out there that is what they were instructed to do by the owner/trainer...that's one thing...if not that's why the ?? are always going to be ask.

[Revolution]

Great horses find ways to win. Very good ones do not. Smarty, like Ghostzapper and Candy Ride was very good, not great.

[1st_Saturday_in_May]

Originally Posted by Revolution

Great horses find ways to win. Very good ones do not. Smarty, like Ghostzapper and Candy Ride was very good, not great.

Wait, so you're saying that Ghostzapper isnt great, but didnt he find a way to win? How many horses are undefeated? Are they the only ones the all-mighty Revolution will call great? Man O War lost, Secretariat lost, does that make them not great because they couldnt find a way to win on that day? I'm really not sure what you're trying to say...but it doesnt make much sense to me.

[Buffymommy]

Originally Posted by dr. fager

So the 11 won it were lucky and that's that?

Look, rabbits have been used throughtout the game. For instance, Damascus had Hedevar to wear out Dr. Fager in the '67 Woodward. The thing about it is they were both trained (I believe,not owned) by the same person and Hedevar was there only to benefit Damascus. In the case of Bailey and Solis, the perception (right or wrong) is they took on the front end for one reason only...to wear down SJ and take him out of his race. And who did it benefit? What about any bettors that had RHT or Eddington in their exotics?

Serious questions on taking horses out of their running styles and why, if there is proof out there that is what they were instructed to do by the owner/trainer...that's one thing...if not that's why the ?? are always going to be ask.

Why do you think it has taken this long for another horse to win it? I was just stating that everyone is mad about the Solis and Bailey rides and wants to punish them. Was everyone all up in arms about the 1988 Preakness when they did the same thing to Winning Colors? It is a part of racing. EVERYONE wants it to be their horse to win the triple crown.

Should Gary Stevens have held Victory Gallop up to let Real Quiet win? Now I am not saying I agree with what Solis and Bailey did, but just stating that why should we be talking about it still? Smarty was a very good horse. He just didn't win the triple crown.

[dr. fager]

Originally Posted by Buffymommy

Why do you think it has taken this long for another horse to win it? I was just stating that everyone is mad about the Solis and Bailey rides and wants to punish them. Was everyone all up in arms about the 1988 Preakness when they did the same thing to Winning Colors? It is a part of racing. EVERYONE wants it to be their horse to win the triple crown.

Should Gary Stevens have held Victory Gallop up to let Real Quiet win? Now I am not saying I agree with what Solis and Bailey did, but just stating that why should we be talking about it still? Smarty was a very good horse. He just didn't win the triple crown.

My points weren't if SJ was great horse or not, I have not interest in arguing that.....it's more of the problems with that race and why it's talked about the way it is. For instance, your SC explanation about them going wide...that a good ride to try and WIN....see my point?

I'm purely devastated that Affirmed, Slew, Secretariat, et. al. weren't great just lucky....LOL, The Bid had REALLY bad luck, that darn safety pin.

[Buffymommy]

Originally Posted by dr. fager

My points weren't if SJ was great horse or not, I have not interest in arguing that.....it's more of the problems with that race and why it's talked about the way it is. For instance, your SC explanation about them going wide...that a good ride to try and WIN....see my point?

I'm purely devastated that Affirmed, Slew, Secretariat, et. al. weren't great just lucky....LOL, The Bid had REALLY bad luck, that darn safety pin.

Affirmed, Slew, Secretariat, etc... were of a different era of horses. They were great ones yes. I meant the horses of today were going to need luck to prove their greatness in the triple crown.

People are devious and want their horse to win, not someone elses. That is what it boils down to Dr. Fager. Not nice, but that seems to be the way it is.