Zenyatta Has Earned Horse of the Year - Page 5

10 pnt move up · #81 11-15-2010, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Zenyatta was so popular with the general public that the clamor to see her resulted in how many of her races being picked up nationally?

Hell even Curlin got ESPN news break-in's when he ran as a 4 yo.

The problem is that the newer generation has so little exposure to truly great horses or even solid campaigns by very good horses. The ESPN philosophy of acting as though every event is historic or something that you've never seen before or an all-time great seems to have taken ahold in racing as well as other sports.

This is racings fault...blame is squarely on their shoulders. You can't blame fans for living in the "now".

When was the last time you saw a 19-0 horse going for back to back Classic wins? and a female to boot. It was historic.

slotdirt · #82 11-15-2010, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

seriously?

Yes, seriously. The 2008 Derby was watched by something like four times as many people as the 2010 Breeders Cup Classic, and that was without the 60 Minutes special.

Duvalier · #83 11-15-2010, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Yes, seriously. The 2008 Derby was watched by something like four times as many people as the 2010 Breeders Cup Classic, and that was without the 60 Minutes special.

All casual fans are drawn to the Derby.

Cannon Shell · #84 11-15-2010, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvalier

The use of steroids in racehorses was also exposed to a much wider audience. Big Brown brought out alot of negative attention to the sport between his connections, drug suspensions, steroids etc. Do you think things like equipoise or winstrol should still be allowed universally in racing?

What is the point?

Should equipoise and winstrol still be allowed?
Of course they should. They are horse medications with valid uses. The fact that there was no regulation of them was really the issue. Overreacting and banning them has not seemingly helped horseracing in the least. Of course we can now brag that we banned steroids knowing full well that the people who dont believe the sport is on the up and up still dont believe it. And when your horse is in need of a treatment program, you can now waste money trying substitutes that dont work nearly as effectively, if at all.

10 pnt move up · #85 11-15-2010, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Yes, seriously. The 2008 Derby was watched by something like four times as many people as the 2010 Breeders Cup Classic, and that was without the 60 Minutes special.

You comparing apples and oranges, please compare BC to BC, and triple crown events.........no one I talked to could care less about BB, he was like the 5th horse in 8 years to go for a TC attempt.

slotdirt · #86 11-15-2010, 03:18 PM

Well, nobody I know watched the Breeders Cup because of Zenyatta, so I guess we're even then.

Duvalier · #87 11-15-2010, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What is the point?

Should equipoise and winstrol still be allowed?
Of course they should. They are horse medications with valid uses. The fact that there was no regulation of them was really the issue. Overreacting and banning them has not seemingly helped horseracing in the least. Of course we can now brag that we banned steroids knowing full well that the people who dont believe the sport is on the up and up still dont believe it. And when your horse is in need of a treatment program, you can now waste money trying substitutes that dont work nearly as effectively, if at all.

Well maybe next time they can expose medications that have no valid uses...the use of perftoran and the like in race horses.

Riot · #88 11-15-2010, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvalier

The use of steroids in racehorses was also exposed to a much wider audience. Big Brown brought out alot of negative attention to the sport between his connections, drug suspensions, steroids etc. Do you think things like equipoise or winstrol should still be allowed universally in racing?

Of course they should. They are medications with clear and necessary clinical indications in the horse. Use doesn't automatically equate to abuse. Of course abuse of any drug shouldn't be allowed.

Alot of the negative attention to horse racing regarding "OMG steroids!" was ignorance-based and simply wrong.

Cannon Shell · #89 11-15-2010, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

This is racings fault...blame is squarely on their shoulders. You can't blame fans for living in the "now".

When was the last time you saw a 19-0 horse going for back to back Classic wins? and a female to boot. It was historic.

I shouldn't blame people for ignoring the the history of the sport or its greats? Did racing declare that everything that happened pre-Smarty Jones is not relevant? The sport does not do a great job with keeping its history alive, this is true. But it isnt as though there isnt a lot of information available.

Her going for a second BC Classic and being undefeated was historic but not worthy of her placement in the annals of history by her ardent supporters. There was no greater moment in baseball history than Kirk Gibson's walkoff HR to win game 1 of the 1988 series. Doesnt mean Gibson ranks with Willie Mays and Babe Ruth.

Cannon Shell · #90 11-15-2010, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

You comparing apples and oranges, please compare BC to BC, and triple crown events.........no one I talked to could care less about BB, he was like the 5th horse in 8 years to go for a TC attempt.

Doesnt the "good of racing" or "exposure for racing" encompass all races?

Cannon Shell · #91 11-15-2010, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvalier

Well maybe next time they can expose medications that have no valid uses...the use of perftoran and the like in race horses.

The difference being that was was legal and one is illegal

10 pnt move up · #92 11-15-2010, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I shouldn't blame people for ignoring the the history of the sport or its greats? Did racing declare that everything that happened pre-Smarty Jones is not relevant? The sport does not do a great job with keeping its history alive, this is true. But it isnt as though there isnt a lot of information available.

Her going for a second BC Classic and being undefeated was historic but not worthy of her placement in the annals of history by her ardent supporters. There was no greater moment in baseball history than Kirk Gibson's walkoff HR to win game 1 of the 1988 series. Doesnt mean Gibson ranks with Willie Mays and Babe Ruth.

We are talking about people tuning into the moment, history....and from that standpoint Gibsons HR was every bit as historic as Willie Mays over the head catch or Ruth's called shot.

How far do they need to go back? I say 1989. Are you more of a 1980 person?

Duvalier · #93 11-15-2010, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The difference being that was was legal and one is illegal

The problem is whether legal or not some people use whatever they can get their hands on to improve performance...and think that as long as it doesn't test, they are doing nothing wrong. You're a trainer and a smart one...I'm sure you know others who use stuff on their horses and have absolutely no clue as to what it does. Kind of like going back to Dutrow when asked why he gives his horses steroids...he didn't have an answer for the interviewer.

10 pnt move up · #94 11-15-2010, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Doesnt the "good of racing" or "exposure for racing" encompass all races?

Comparing the Kentucky Derby to the BC is just silly, I am sorry you can't see the difference. Thats what apples and oranges meant, you knew that though.

Indian Charlie · #95 11-15-2010, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

Using any sort of reasoning, no matter how logical, that does not glorify Zenyatta, will not be allowed into any discussion in which I'm involved with. Thats what apples and oranges meant, you knew that though.

FTFY

parsixfarms · #96 11-15-2010, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardus

Zenyatta fans want to talk about how "historic" her quest was (which I understand), but goodness forbid if others want to talk about Zenyatta and "racing history."

Since you are so into history, can you please name for me those performances, since Lady's Secret, by an older female on dirt against males that were superior to Zenyatta's Breeders' Cup Classic?

Cannon Shell · #97 11-15-2010, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

We are talking about people tuning into the moment, history....and from that standpoint Gibsons HR was every bit as historic as Willie Mays over the head catch or Ruth's called shot.

How far do they need to go back? I say 1989. Are you more of a 1980 person?

No one is denying her moment or that the story wasn't a made for tv story. It doesnt mean she should be horse of the year or is one of the top 50 horses in history.

Riot · #98 11-15-2010, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvalier

The problem is whether legal or not some people use whatever they can get their hands on to improve performance...and think that as long as it doesn't test, they are doing nothing wrong. You're a trainer and a smart one...I'm sure you know others who use stuff on their horses and have absolutely no clue as to what it does. Kind of like going back to Dutrow when asked why he gives his horses steroids...he didn't have an answer for the interviewer.

I'm sure Dutrow knows exactly why his horses got monthly steroid shots.

The problem is rather that horse racing is generally run by a bunch of guys in charge of their individual fifdoms, that only react when forced into a corner, and then often react inadequately or oddly inappropriately (Life at Ten and the KHRC a good example of what they view to be the "problems" in the sport)

Horse racing in America is a group of cliques, where professionalism varies widely.

Cannon Shell · #99 11-15-2010, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvalier

The problem is whether legal or not some people use whatever they can get their hands on to improve performance...and think that as long as it doesn't test, they are doing nothing wrong. You're a trainer and a smart one...I'm sure you know others who use stuff on their horses and have absolutely no clue as to what it does. Kind of like going back to Dutrow when asked why he gives his horses steroids...he didn't have an answer for the interviewer.

Human nature makes people cheat, not lax rules. While it is entirely far too easy to cheat the system now, there will always be those who will do whatever they can to make money regardless of how that is accomplished. People make the mistake and say they will do whatever they can to win. That isnt entirely true. If they could make more money losing, they would do that too. Which is one of the reasons that I skoff at the RMTC's assertion that it is making all this headway.

Dutrow is smarter than he looks or talks in interviews.

Cannon Shell · #**100** 11-15-2010, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

Comparing the Kentucky Derby to the BC is just silly, I am sorry you can't see the difference. Thats what apples and oranges meant, you knew that though.

Where is the big difference? If we are going to discuss a neblous topic like "good for racing" and tv ratings are used as evidence then why can't the opposing point of view use the same evidence?