Beyer Checks In on Godolphin

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by repent

Ashkal Way is the most notable current gelding they have running. I dont know when he was gelded.t

Ahhh.. ok thanks repent, that's a good one I didn't remember. But still, they say they have too many viable horses in the race so they don't run Ashkal Way but I'd have figured he was going. I'd be willing to bet at least part of the reason is what would a Breeders' Cup victory/placing do for them if it's a gelding? They can't breed him with the accolade in the trophy room, they can just stare at said trophy---heck the horse would be its own trophy for all intents and purposes so when it comes right down to it they probably try to mess with geldings at little as possible ergo I don't see them buying Lava Man anytime soon. I'm sure there's exceptions for various reasons, I just mean they probably don't look at a gelding winning big races and go 'ooh jackpot, where do I sign?' without something else to it.

[Slewbopper]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

I don't see them buying Lava Man anytime soon. I'm sure there's exceptions for various reasons, I just mean they probably don't look at a gelding winning big races and go 'ooh jackpot, where do I sign?' without something else to it.

The absolute maximum Lava Man could return is another $8 mil and that is if he wins 2 BCCs and the same races next year that he did this year,. They would rather spend $11.7 on a Snap Cat yearling that could possibly win a Derby or sire one down the road.

One has to wonder when their competition at the Keeneland sales is going to finally throw in the "towel" and say the hell with it. It will be at that point when horse racing will no longer be a sport but just another form of betting like blackjack or poker.

[Dunbar]

I think Beyer's main point is right on. But, "Certainly, Bernardini has generated little attention, despite his brilliance as a racehorse." is simply a reflection of how little exposure and interest there is in racing these days.

The number of people who recognize the name of Ghostzapper or St. Liam, our last 2 HOY's, is not any greater than the number of people that have heard of Bernardini. That has nothing to do with the sheiks.

Sadly, they could let Bernardini run another year and it probably wouldn't change much as far as the non-fan public is concerned. Even Cigar barely created a blip on the sports pages during his long win streak.

--Dunbar

[philcski]

For those blocked to drf at work: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...103000924.html

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Dixie Porter

I should have added Bodorano. I think they're just trying to "tie up the game". We agree that they're using Monopoly Money. These additons (dirt cheap by their standards) would give them two live players on the West Coast.

I honestly believe they want to control "our game" in the next 10 years. These creeps have no interest in competitive competition and they hold the Two Aces (time and unlimited funds).

I believe the same thing. Maybe I'm wrong here but I know that over the years, I've warned people about criticizing the way the Sheikhs have been trying to win the Derby. It's been my feeling for years, since watching them dominate the European racing scene, that if they so wanted to dominate American racing the same way, they could. It's been my belief that all of the criticism would lead them to taking an "oh, u don't think we can dominate your game?" kind of attitude and lead them to buying any and everything just to show that they can.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I think Beyer's main point is right on. But, "Certainly, Bernardini has generated little attention, despite his brilliance as a racehorse." is simply a reflection of how little exposure and interest there is in racing these days.

The number of people who recognize the name of Ghostzapper or St. Liam, our last 2 HOY's, is not any greater than the number of people that have heard of Bernardini. That has nothing to do with the sheiks.

Sadly, they could let Bernardini run another year and it probably wouldn't change much as far as the non-fan public is concerned. Even Cigar barely created a blip on the sports pages during his long win streak.

--Dunbar

This is correct in my opinion. We can have a superhorse running but if nobody knows it, it's sort of like the falling tree in the woods thing.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by philcski

For those blocked to drf at work: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...103000924.html

Thanks, now I can figure out what the hell everyone is talking about.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by philcski

For those blocked to drf at work: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...103000924.html

Thanks...

[2MinsToPost]

I will sound crude and different here, but is their money not the same as others? It's green right? Is it money that belongs to shareholders or savings and loan customers? Is it drug money? Hey, welcome to the sport, after all, money talks and bullshiat walks right? I don't know, I don't follow what goes on over their in their country, so I can't speak politics on this. All I know is that if they were not involved in horse racing period, then maybe the landscape would be diferent? Question that begs to be asked, would it be better or worse, the state of racing?

All one has to do is go to their local track on Kentucky Derby day and look at all those unfamilar faces. Those faces that you will not see their during the Summit of Speed or the day after Thanksgiving (easily one of my favorite days to be at the track). Everyone knows, outside of us Horseplayers, that Derby is a social party. For us, it is a great day to watch and wager on those horses we have followed for months. So BillyBean wins the Derby. You go to the track for the Preakness. Look at the faces, ah, some are back. BillyBean finishes 4th. You are at the track for The Belmont, you look around. Same crowd as any Saturday in January or October, the players. For those outside of Horseplayers, it's all about latching on to that special event, time pulling for that cute animal to win all 3. Breeder's Cup, whats that?

Originally Posted by 2MinsToPost

I will sound crude and different here, but is their money not the same as others? It's green right? Is it money that belongs to shareholders or savings and loan customers? Is it drug money? Hey, welcome to the sport, after all, money talks and bullshiat walks right? I don't know, I don't follow what goes on over their in their country, so I can't speak politics on this. All I know is that if they were not involved in horse racing period, then maybe the landscape would be diferent? Question that begs to be asked, would it be better or worse, the state of racing?

All one has to do is go to their local track on Kentucky Derby day and look at all those unfamilar faces. Those faces that you will not see their during the Summit of Speed or the day after Thanksgiving (easily one of my favorite days to be at the track). Everyone knows, outside of us Horseplayers, that Derby is a social party. For us, it is a great day to watch and wager on those horses we have followed for months. So BillyBean wins the Derby. You go to the track for the Preakness. Look at the faces, ah, some are back. BillyBean finishes 4th. You are at the track for The Belmont, you look around. Same crowd as any Saturday in January or October, the players. For those outside of Horseplayers, it's all about latching on to that special event, time pulling for that cute animal to win all 3. Breeder's Cup, whats that?

I'm dizzy.

[sham]

Take it to the extreme. What if one day all 20 entrants in the KY Derby are owned by the Sheiks? That's the day I will just turn off the TV.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

I'm dizzy.

And witty. LMAO

In a comparison on a much lower level of the game, do we all miss Michael Gill from racing ? He still has a few horses with gammy, but he tried to monopolize the claiming game and most race fans disliked him . Tracks also disliked him for his aggressive claiming tactics among other things. Delaware Park would not give him stalls and he bought his own training center nearby.He would dominate some tracks claiming divisions by buying up so many that there was little competition. Owners/trainers kept their horses in the barn until the gill show moved on to another track. Was what he was doing legal, sure, was it good for the game, I don't think so. The same could be said for what the sheiks are doing. I'm glad that Beyer penned this column.
BTW, this past sunday the NY Times had a new sports magazine included. The name of the magazine is PLAY . ( Bill Parcells is pictured on the cover.) On page 16 is an article, GALLOPING TO GREATNESS . It is the story of Bernardini. Its a sparse article listing what's so good about Bernie with a large photo of him taking up half the page. Just suprised to see it in the NYT.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by point given

BTW, this past sunday the NY Times had a new sports magazine included. The name of the magazine is PLAY . ( Bill Parcells is pictured on the cover.) On page 16 is an article, GALLOPING TO GREATNESS . It is the story of Bernardini. Its a sparse article listing what's so good about Bernie with a large photo of him taking up half the page. Just suprised to see it in the NYT.

Yesterday they ran a big article on the sheiks' rise to prominance in American racing. This article opened on page A1 before continuing in the sports section.

--Dunbar

[SentToStud]

So Beyer makes a not so thinly veiled reference to the Maktoums as foolish and vulgar. Foolish? OK, maybe. But how/why is he compelled to refer to them as vulgar?

They can do what they want with their horses.

Sangster/Mangier/OBrien did the same thing in the 70's when they bought everything remotely tied to Northern Dancer. They'd race their horses until they won a classic or other important Group I then retire them to breed.

Sound familiar?

If Gates or Buffett suddenly decided to put a billion dollars into the American breeding industry, they'd be called a lot of things.... Sporting, Foolish, Yep. Stupid. Sure, though quietly I'd guess. Vulgar? Nah, save that, as does Beyer and countless others, for the Arabs.

Shame on Beyer. He should be an effective enough journalist by now to get his point across without referring to the Maktums as vulgar.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

So Beyer makes a not so thinly veiled reference to the Maktoums as foolish and vulgar. Foolish? OK, maybe. But how/why is he compelled to refer to them as vulgar?

They can do what they want with their horses.

Sangster/Mangier/OBrien did the same thing in the 70's when they bought everything remotely tied to Northern Dancer. They'd race their horses until they won a classic or other important Group I then retire them to breed.

Sound familiar?

If Gates or Buffett suddenly decided to put a billion dollars into the American breeding industry, they'd be called a lot of things.... Sporting, Foolish, Yep. Stupid. Sure, though quietly I'd guess. Vulgar? Nah, save that, as does Beyer and countless others, for the Arabs.

Shame on Beyer. He should be an effective enough journalist by now to get his point across without referring to the Maktums as vulgar.

May I suggest looking up " vulgar " in the dictionary. One use of the word suggests pretentious or, more aptly, ostentatious. Because you have a limited understanding of the meaning of the word does not give you the right to make your usual accusations.

Believe it or not, everything isn't couched with racism.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

May I suggest looking up " vulgar " in the dictionary. One use of the word suggests pretentious or, more aptly, ostentatious. Because you have a limited understanding of the meaning of the word does not give you the right to make your usual accusations.

Believe it or not, everything isn't couched with racism.

Again, you must be right, as usual. Should know that by now, you make a point of telling us often enough and everyone else is just (fill in your favorite adjective/pronoun).... Really, not everyone other than yourself is as naive, limited, or (again, fill in as you wish, but of course some mental capacity reference is always fun!!) as you'd like to think.

You profess so much and yet resort to this same trash anytime anyone takes a view any different than any you care to see.

So, perhaps we won't be having any holiday dinners together. I'll get over it.

And, PLEEEEZE, don't bother trotting out your Racing/Pick6/Zito/Beyer/NYRA/Respected Handicapper/Dictionary Expert (new!!) Cirriculum Vitae!! it's not necessary. We all surely know it very well now.

Take it in the spirit offered.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Again, you must be right, as usual. Should know that by now, you make a point of telling us often enough and everyone else is just (fill in your favorite adjective/pronoun).... Really, not everyone other than yourself is as naive, limited, or (again, fill in as you wish, but of course some mental capacity reference is always fun!!) as you'd like to think.

You profess so much and yet resort to this same trash anytime anyone takes a view any different than any you care to see.

So, perhaps we won't be having any holiday dinners together. I'll get over it.

And, PLEEEEZE, don't bother trotting out your Racing/Pick6/Zito/Beyer/NYRA/Respected Handicapper/Dictionary Expert (new!!) Cirriculum Vitae!! it's not necessary. We all surely know it very well now.

Take it in the spirit offered.

So, your defense of accusing someone of racism because, in this case, you don't know the true meaning of a word is to....what....trash me?

That makes sense and dramatically increases your credibility.

Nice try.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

So, your defense of accusing someone of racism because, in this case, you don't know the true meaning of a word is to....what....trash me?

That makes sense and dramatically increases your credibility.

Nice try.

Please, I'm not trying anything. Really, now. But, nice try.

The vulgar reference is lousy writing, no matter who's friendly with the guy . By the way, just which of the listed definitions of the word would you think he was going for (of course, that assume you can read his mind as well as mine which, of course, we have no reason to doubt)?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Please, I'm not trying anything. Really, now. But, nice try.

The vulgar reference is lousy writing, no matter who's friendly with the guy . By the way, just which of the listed definitions of the word would you think he was going for (of course, that assume you can read his mind as well as mine which, of course, we have no reason to doubt)?

You are trying something. Instead of seeing at least the possibility that you misunderstood his use of the word " vulgar " you just trashed me.

You most certainly are trying something. Don't think you can post what you did and then play the injured party.

You don't like the article, or his writing, fine...but the constant unfounded accusations of racism are tiresome....at best.