dear bernardini fans....

[Buffymommy]

Can't we all just admit that the reason we don't like Bernardini is because of the Preakness? I have admitted it. I admit that Bern is a good horse and probably the top three year old (Only due to Barbaro not being able to show what he is capable of.)

I think Barbaro's injury put a cloud over Bernardini that many of us can't look past.

Originally Posted by Buffymommy

Can't we all just admit that the reason we don't like Bernardini is because of the Preakness? I have admitted it. I admit that Bern is a good horse and probably the top three year old (Only due to Barbaro not being able to show what he is capable of.)

I think Barbaro's injury put a cloud over Bernardini that many of us can't look past.

I agree with Buffy that the Preak is half the equation. But I still don't think anyone hates the horse, hes just an innocent animal. I think the other half was since I have been following the sport I have seen some damn good horse get questioned right up to the end of their careers. I questioned Zapper's ability to go a mile and a quarter, and when he did do I was the first to say he was one of the best ,if not the best, that I ever saw.
Last year many of the same folks who were Bernadians(great line Jim, sounds almost Biblical, I suppose those who love Corinthian earlier this year were Corinthians) this year questioned and lampooned Saint Liam up to the end.
But the arrogance shown by the Bernadians was the most outrageously over the top display I have ever seen in my entire time following horses.
The way that they talked down to folks "who dared question" him was wild.
I think the animosity that developed was not over the horse himself, but against his supporters who acted that way.
Its over now, and really guys and gals, its long past time to move off the topic.

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I don't hate any horses. I just want to request that in the future we use the term Bernardinians instead of Bernardini fans. I think it sounds cool.

Actually, I was talking about someone else!

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Bold Reasoning

Actually, I was talking about someone else!

I know. That is why I didn't quote you. It was just a leadin to my second comment where i was trying to be humorous.

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

You can actually smell and taste this dude's hatred. It's unbelievable.

ateamstupid,
this todko's insanity is so unbelievable that it has brought the two of us together on a thread about bernardini!! i wouldn't have thought it was possible.
then he says we must be people that lost money on bern. ha!!! i was calling invasor to win it for days before the race. i even had it as my freakin' signature. i don't remember him calling anything, but then he comes on here and starts talking about jazil.....a horse that couldn't beat steppenwolfer going 10f. what a joke.
i am a big part of the anti-bern camp on this board. i ask all of you not to judge us by the uneducated rantings of this "todko" person.
by the way....i have always liked the term "bernmafia" for the crazy fans of this horse.

[todko]

I don't hate any horse -- and I donate money to thoroughbred charities routinely. Not as much money as I'd like but maybe life will get better and I can do more in the future. And if Bernardini doesn't work out as a stallion and some of my donations go to save his life I'll be a very happy man. Seriously. I'd cry if he went to the slaughterhouse. It would depress me to the end.

The Preakness wasn't really an issue with me. I think it was more the racing press and how they tried to pivot off the public's interest in Barbaro and place that interest in Bernardini. It didn't work and it was a crappy sleazy move to begin with.

And really the hype was to the detriment of Bernardini. The racing press asked Bernardini to be Ghostzapper and Bernardini wasn't. It's a shame.

People on this forum were asking him to run a record at Churchill -- asking him to run 1:58. That was asking too much of Bernardini. And too much of any other horse.

The hype didn't help -- it didn't help Bernardini, it didn't help the handicappers who fell for it, it didn't help the novice bettors who fell for it, it didn't help racing, and most of all it didn't help the horse racing press. The horse racing press is still the same old fraud. Read at your own peril. And bettor beware.

Bernie was being compared routinely to an IMMORTAL, Seattle Slew, Bernie's grandfather. Even his sire A.P. Indy was not spoken of that way; yet he was a HOY and an instant Hall of Fame inductee. Bernie always had too much to live up to; it was riciculous and it started with the media, not the fans. I believe that Bernardini would have proven his greatness at four-years-old; he loses his chance because of short-sighted thinking. It hurts the sport because it alienates fans who truly love individual horses, fans like me. In Bernie I saw Slew traits, but I am not naive enough to think I saw Slew. That kind of greatness is rare indeed.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

IMO, Bernardini was as talented as the Slew, and I always compared the two because they reminded me of each other.

I mean, the horse runs second in the biggest race of his life on his B game. The horse totally got knocked out of his A game when he got sandwiched going into the first turn. Every time a horse gets hit like that, it takes them out of their game. Most don't even recover enough to get back into the race, but Bernardini did. In all of Bernardini's other races, he pulled Javier up to the lead. Well, I knew he was in trouble out of the first turn because he wasn't on the bridle and pulling at Javier. When Javier started asking him at the half mile, I said "Uh-oh". So, a three year old gets beat by a four year old. The distance...a length. Even Affirmed, Secretariat, and Spectacular Bid (three greats) lost to older.

The only horse that has come along in this millenium that had more talent than this horse was the great Ghostzapper (and Dubai Millenium...RIP) (I would put possibly put Point Given, Tiznow, and Barbaro near Bernardini) and even he didn't have Bernardini's conformation and movement which is going to play a major role in the quality of his offspring. I think that Bernardini goes on to be one of the greatest sires that ever lived. If you had a quality mare, his stud fee of a hundred thousand is a steal right now.

This horse was a monster. Even if you all don't think that he is, Bernardini knew that he was great. He carried himself so much higher and prouder than any other horse on the track. He knew that he was special, and he had that air about him that all the great racehorses do. He was spectacular to look at.

Also, if he would have remained on this track in his four year old year, there is no doubt in my mind he would have earned being called great.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

IMO, Bernardini was as talented as the Slew, and I always compared the two because they reminded me of each other.

I mean, the horse runs second in the biggest race of his life on his B game. The horse totally got knocked out of his A game when he got sandwiched going into the first turn. Every time a horse gets hit like that, it takes them out of their game. Most don't even recover enough to get back into the race, but Bernardini did. In all of Bernardini's other races, he pulled Javier up to the lead. Well, I knew he was in trouble out of the first turn because he wasn't on the bridle and pulling at Javier. When Javier started asking him at the half mile, I said "Uh-oh". So, a three year old gets beat by a four year old. The distance...a length. Even Affirmed, Secretariat, and Spectacular Bid (three greats) lost to older.

The only horse that has come along in this millenium that had more talent than this horse was the great Ghostzapper, and even he didn't have Bernardini's conformation and movement which is going to play a major role in the quality of his offspring. I think that Bernardini goes on to be one of the greatest sires that ever lived. If you had a quality mare, his stud fee of a hundred thousand is a steal right now.

This horse was a monster. Even if you all don't think that he is, Bernardini knew that he was great. He carried himself so much higher and prouder than any other horse on the track. He knew that he was special, and he had that air about him that all the great racehorses do. He was spectacular to look at.

Also, if he would have remained on this track in his four year old year, there is no doubt in my mind he would have earned being called great.

Personally I think it's an injustice to the Slew to compare Bernardini to him.
Frankly I don't see the similarity.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Personally I think it's an injustice to the Slew to compare Bernardini to him.
Frankly I don't see the similarity.

Well then that's your opinion, but I have always said that he reminded me of the Slew and he most certainly does. I believe that he was as talented as him, but of course, you couldn't actually put him in the same realm because Bernardini didn't race as a four year old and Slew accomplished much more on the track. Bernardini is going to become an outstanding sire though. As a stallion, he has it all.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Buffymommy

Can't we all just admit that the reason we don't like Bernardini is because of the Preakness? I have admitted it. I admit that Bern is a good horse and probably the top three year old (Only due to Barbaro not being able to show what he is capable of.)

I think Barbaro's injury put a cloud over Bernardini that many of us can't look past.

Not true at all, in my case. I thought Bernardini's Preakness was outstanding. Much like Smarty's and Alex's before him. I did come to root against the horse because of the extravagance of his supporters. The comparisons should have been to Smarty and Alex, rather than annointing him horse-of-the-decade. My antipathy to him solidified when the retirement plans became clear.

The Breeder's Cup was hardly a difficult trip. Lesser horses than Bernardini have overcome much worse trips. Bernardini was exposed for what he is. A very good 3-yr-old. Probably the best 3-yr-old this year. But not a horse-for-the-ages.

--Dunbar

[Buffymommy]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Not true at all, in my case. I thought Bernardini's Preakness was outstanding. Much like Smarty's and Alex's before him. I did come to root against the horse because of the extravagance of his supporters. The comparisons should have been to Smarty and Alex, rather than annointing him horse-of-the-decade. My antipathy to him solidified when the retirement plans became clear.

The Breeder's Cup was hardly a difficult trip. Lesser horses than Bernardini have overcome much worse trips. Bernardini was exposed for what he is. A very good 3-yr-old. Probably the best 3-yr-old this year. But not a horse-for-the-ages.

--Dunbar

Don't get me wrong, I never thought he was all that and a bag of chips. Top three year old this year? Yes. THE BEST EVER? Nah. Skippy would have kicked his azz!

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Not true at all, in my case. I thought Bernardini's Preakness was outstanding. Much like Smarty's and Alex's before him. I did come to root against the horse because of the extravagance of his supporters. The comparisons should have been to Smarty and Alex, rather than annointing him horse-of-the-decade. My antipathy to him solidified when the retirement plans became clear.

The Breeder's Cup was hardly a difficult trip. Lesser horses than Bernardini have overcome much worse trips. Bernardini was exposed for what he is. A very good 3-yr-old. Probably the best 3-yr-old this year. But not a horse-for-the-ages.

--Dunbar

If you have watched the horse's races critically, you would have realized by the half mile in the BCC that the horse was not on his A game.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

If you have watched the horse's races critically, you would have realized by the half mile in the BCC that the horse was not on his A game.

He was on his A game, he finally met some competition and lost to a very good horse. Do we really have to continue this ridiculousness because a few people saw greatness where it didn't actually exist and are too stubborn to admit they were wrong?

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Personally I think it's an injustice to the Slew to compare Bernardini to him.
Frankly I don't see the similarity.

of course it is an injustice!!
comparing an all-time great like slew to bernardini is absolutely laughable. i couldn't believe people were making those kind of comparisons before the bcc, and i certainly cannot believe that they are still doing it now. apparently it doesn't matter what we think though jim because "Bernardini knew that he was great." why analyze horses at all? just let the horses tell you who was great!! hell even if had finished last in the bcc.....he is still great because he thought he was!!! what wonderful logic!
oh by the way.....
the best horse seattle slew ever beat was.......Affirmed
the best horse bernardini ever beat was...........nobody worth remembering.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

He was on his A game, he finally met some competition and lost to a very good horse. Do we really have to continue this ridiculousness because a few people saw greatness where it didn't actually exist and are too stubborn to admit they were wrong?

Do we have to continue this ridiculousness because too many people are letting one race determine how good a horse was?

How the hell would you know if he was on his A game or not?

I don't think he was. He had to be urged all the way around the track, something that has never happened before, then he made a big sweeping move and flattened out. "Not handling the track" is a perfectly valid excuse for every other horse except Bernardini these days.

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

He was on his A game, he finally met some competition and lost to a very good horse. Do we really have to continue this ridiculousness because a few people saw greatness where it didn't actually exist and are too stubborn to admit they were wrong?

yes sniper i think we do. we had to listen to the bernmafia for 5 solid months.
now its payback time. some people might say "be the bigger person." not me. they annoyed the hell out of me......now it is payback time.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Well then that's your opinion, but I have always said that he reminded me of the Slew and he most certainly does. I believe that he was as talented as him, but of course, you couldn't actually put him in the same realm because Bernardini didn't race as a four year old and Slew accomplished much more on the track. Bernardini is going to become an outstanding sire though. As a stallion, he has it all.

Of course its all opinion. I'm just wondering what yours is based on, that's all.
Slew won 14 races, won the triple crown, was a champion at 2,3, and 4.
What is it about Bernardini that is similar to that?
How about the Marlboro Cup when Slew was four? He beat the current triple crown winner Affirmed even though he had several excuses not to.

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Do we have to continue this ridiculousness because too many people are letting one race determine how good a horse was?

How the hell would you know if he was on his A game or not?

I don't think he was. He had to be urged all the way around the track, something that has never happened before, then he made a big sweeping move and flattened out. "Not handling the track" is a perfectly valid excuse for every other horse except Bernardini these days.

hey ateam did you see where i agreed with you on page 6 of this thread?
now we have seen it all!

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

He was on his A game, he finally met some competition and lost to a very good horse. Do we really have to continue this ridiculousness because a few people saw greatness where it didn't actually exist and are too stubborn to admit they were wrong?

Look, he was not on his A game. It is not worth debating with me because you won't convince because I KNOW that he wasn't on his A game. I'm not too stubborn to admit when I am wrong.

I was wrong in thinking that he could win the BCC off of his B game. He was almost good enough to do it, but almost good enough doesn't count.

In my mind, he was talented enough to be a great horse if he would have kept racing. Everyone's definitions of greatness are different. He was on the verge of it.

I consider Ghostzapper to be a great horse. I consider Dubai Millenium and Tiznow to be great horses. I consider Deep Impact to be a great horse. Bernardini was certainly almost there as was Barbaro and Point Given. If Alex wouldn't have broken his leg, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have become a great horse. If circumstances would have been different for him, he would have won the TC, but lady luck was not with Tim Ritchey and Cash is King on that first Saturday in May. Charismatic was yet another one who may have become a great horse as was Smarty Jones. But almost doesn't count.