Remember This Statement By Crist

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

yankee bravo voted for bush..

Shhhh....that was my ace in the hole.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

No,but you better go one slot wider than you think you need to.If you think he can run top 2 or 3 in the derby ,then you better use him 4th.This has not been a good derby rider,and the horse is at a handicap with him up.That's why I am not taking 40 or 50-1 on the horse right now.It's not because I don't think the horse is good enough to contend for the win.Now if I am writing where people can get me fired? Of course, I have to say the jock doesn't matter much.

You want to go one slot wider, and all that, that's fine. However, if you are saying Solis has not been a good Derby rider -- thhn who has? Is that club limited to those who have won? Where does this arguement go? This is an arguement that cannot be won. It's one race, unlike any other, run once per year, under circumstances that many young, not fully mature, horses are facing for the first time, and so on and so on. You want to talk money rider, graded stakes rider, etc. -- that's a discussion that people can talk about. You can look at a much more global picture.

Sure there are jocks who you can easily say were great Derby riders. But to take a jock who has won 4 or 5 thousand races, has an excellent long standing, accomplished resume, etc. and say that he's not a great Derby rider -- I want to know why? For every reason -- opinion -- someone gives, there will be an opposing reason and opinion that counters it. There is no right and wrong here.

Eric

[ArlJim78]

positive horse opinion vs. negative horse opinion? that's a new one.
with the positive horse opinion theory I guess no horses are ruled out yet.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

positive horse opinion vs. negative horse opinion? that's a new one.
with the positive horse opinion theory I guess no horses are ruled out yet.

Negative opinion is not new. At least to me.

Almost every bet I make is based on having a negative opinion about a short priced horse.

Frankly I don't think it is possible to win any other way. At some point you have to be right and if all you are right about is short priced horses,how do you win?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You are hilarious. I am going to assume that you have some perverse new racing related comedy routine that you are testing for laughs on this site. I gotta say....two thumbs up....way up.

First you pulled the " censorship " card. Because you came on here ranting in the way middle of the night, and your posts were trimmed ( if you were truly censorsed this thread would have been removed....or worse ) does not mean you were censored. Get over it.

You call the most respected racing journalist in the country " sloppy " because you don't agree with him. But, we're wrong and you're right. I get it....I'm laughing. It's good stuff.

Then, I don't like the horse because I am biased against horses that have raced on synthetic surfaces. Why don't you throw in that I think women should be barefoot and pregnant while you're at it ( or any other racial slurs you feel compelled to use ). Hey, maybe some gay bashing would liven up your routine as well.

If this isn't your idea of some kind of joke then, frankly, I am worried about you.

The way I see it,you get to say pretty much any fool thing you want on here.You're close friends with the owner of the site,and he can do as he pleases.Different rules for different folks around here.I told him to give me a list of the untouchable VIP like Crist,but he never gave it to me.Same was true when Cannon came on here telling me Street Sense wasn't aided by bias at the Churchill B.C. Well,did he ever look that way again? He won the derby,but not by 10 lengths.It wasn't like he hopped on a 10 speed n' everybody else was riding tricycles(that's about the way that Juvenile win looked..that was a biased track,but look at the war put up to deny it.) Even VIP are wrong sometimes.......or sloppy.

[blackthroatedwind]

I will assume that was more of the routine.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I will assume that was more of the routine.

Well,if anybody wants to see a routine, they can routinely see you banter about(like the RIDDLER WITH A QUESTION-MARK CANE.)

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Cardus

This is faulty logic, something that you might call "sloppy."

His efforts on a synthetic surface and on turf have no bearing on his Derby bona fides. This is self-evident.

It's also self-evident that his best race was his first start on dirt, he may well have been giving away a conditioning edge to the winner and, oh, yeah, he's likely to be a big number if he makes the race.

If that is faulty, sloppy logic, put me down.

Then again, looking for the right viable long priced horse to crash the ticket never works. I suppose the Super in last year's Derby paid $30k because Street Sense won and the two behind him were on the "short list." And I guess the Super paid $90k the year before because Barbaro won.

There is more than just one way to play the game. But believing that is probably an egregious hole in my game, as the wisest of wise men would say.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

The way I see it,you get to say pretty much any fool thing you want on here.You're close friends with the owner of the site,and he can do as he pleases.Different rules for different folks around here.I told him to give me a list of the untouchable VIP like Crist,but he never gave it to me.Same was true when Cannon came on here telling me Street Sense wasn't aided by bias at the Churchill B.C. Well,did he ever look that way again? He won the derby,but not by 10 lengths.It wasn't like he hopped on a 10 speed n' everybody else was riding tricycles(that's about the way that Juvenile win looked..that was a biased track,but look at the war put up to deny it.) Even VIP are wrong sometimes.......or sloppy.

This BC rail-bias argument is the greatest fallacy going. You're right, Street Sense didn't win the Derby by ten lengths, due to the presence of Hard Spun and Curlin. He did, however, trounce the same bunch of modest horses that he beat in the BC Juvenile (Circular Quay, Great Hunter, etc.) by the same margin in the Derby as he did in the BC Juvenile. So your point is ... ?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Street Sense didn't win the Derby by ten lengths, due to the presence of Hard Spun and Curlin. He did, however, trounce the same bunch of modest horses that he beat in the BC Juvenile (Circular Quay, Great Hunter, etc.) by the same margin in the Derby as he did in the BC Juvenile. So your point is ... ?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but....

The Churchill Downs rail that Street Sense came up in the Derby was actually liver than the one he came up in the Breeders Cup Juvenile....

However, the only reason that the rail got all the hype for being so live on Breeders Cup day is because post position #1 accounted for four of the five wins in BC dirt races (they being Dreaming of Anna, Street Sense, Thor's Echo, and Round Pond) - the lone loser who broke from post #1 was Brother Derek, who ran 4th in the Classic.

The rail was probably the prefered place to be on BC day in '06, but as mentioned by Davidowitz and Beyer in post race writeups, the rail at CD was pretty live throughout the Derby card last year.

In fact, of the top 5 finishers in last years Derby - only 3rd place finisher Curlin did not race on the rail for a very significant portion of the race.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Cardus

My post could not have been any clearer.

I made no mention of anything else that you addressed above.

Thanks for clearing that up. I wouldn't want to categorize your post as sloppy and now I won't.

[ELA]

Of course the "rail bias" has been debated and debated over and over again. Personally, my question is -- what's the difference? Rail bias, he wins like whoever you want to call it, by 10. So, especially now, since the horse came back and did what he did -- what difference does it make?

If he came up the rail and then moved outside coming around/out of the turn -- does anyone think he still doesn't win that race? So, he doesn't win by 10. He still wins.

As far as Yankee Bravo -- I think he needs to move forward much more in order to get into the league of what we've seen so far between Pyro and War Pass (concerns about distance limitations of course must be part of the equation. Right now, he's not anywhere near those colts. That's not to say he might not turn the corner and and be ready to take some massive step forward and progress. It's possible, but most would say not probable.

What Solis says about the horse must be taken into consideration, but also must be taken with a grain of salt. Solis is a sharp jock. He's been around a very long time and sat on enough good horses to know what he's sitting on, when a colt has ability, is immature, could be turning the corner, getting better, etc. At the same time, he of course wants to keep the mount, especially if it's his best/only shot to be in the game.

Eric

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by ELA

Of course the "rail bias" has been debated and debated over and over again. Personally, my question is -- what's the difference? Rail bias, he wins like whoever you want to call it, by 10. So, especially now, since the horse came back and did what he did -- what difference does it make?

The difference is that the live rail makes horses look (both on paper and on film) better than they actually run.

Curlin was hung up 3-to-4 wide on both turns in the Derby - while winner Street Sense rode it every step, 2nd place Hard Spund rode it every step, 4th place Imawildandcrazyguy rode it for the first 6.5 furlongs of the race, and 5th place finisher Sedgefield rode it every step.

I'm not saying that being denied a live rail was the only reason that Curlin was drowned by Street Sense and Hard Spun - but still had enough to narrowly hold off Imawildandcrazyguy and Sedgefield ...

However, I believe it was a factor in the result.

And I know you're going to say "well that total bum Circular Quay was 6th with a wide trip!" ... BUT, keep in mind Circular Quay raced 18th early on and had a great fast pace to setup his close. Much like Street Sense and Imawildandcrazyguy did from the 19th and 20th spots.

Any Given Saturday was denied the rail and finished 7th or 8th after a wide far turn move - however, unlike Circular Quay, he didn't get a pace setup making his race better. I would argue he clearly ran the better race of the two.

Even if you want to hammer away about how much of a bum Circular Quay is - he still is probably a better deep closer than Imawildandcrazyguy is.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Do you believe that his synthetic and turf races matter when it comes to assessing his chances in the Derby?

Yes. And only because he ran well in his first dirt race. So his good dirt race validates, at least to some extent, his synth and turf form. Absolutely.

It's a fallacy that all synth horses are junk on dirt. Most are and will be but there are going to be some that run well on the junk in spite of it not being the horse's best surface. Is he one of these? Who knows but at this point he is one to watch in his next race.

Which is really all I've said. Again, to each his own on how to bet but I will never make a win bet on any of the top 5 or 6 "hyped" horses in the Derby. Sometimes the best or one of the best horses wins, but not often enough for my tastes.

I prefer to find a playably longshot and splash the horse around in the Tri and Super.

I'm not overly intelligent but I'm smart enough to understand the way I play the Derby is, in the end, no less of a gamble than playing a short-priced horse to win.

There's merit in betting what you think the best horse is to win. Most people do. But I'd never play the race that way.

So Yankee Bravo is on my list of possible horses to use.

[ELA]

I was talking about the rail bias in the BC, which I think was overblown to an extent, vis a vis the results. Regardless, I think everyone agrees that visually, and on paper, the rail bias distorts the situation. I also -- without question -- agree on Curlin, who I was high on from before day one.

I hear you, and to a degree, I agree. Different story between the BC and Derby, and different ends of the extreme.

Eric

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

The difference is that the live rail makes horses look (both on paper and on film) better than they actually run.

Curlin was hung up 3-to-4 wide on both turns in the Derby - while winner Street Sense rode it every step, 2nd place Hard Spund rode it every step, 4th place Imawildandcrazyguy rode it for the first 6.5 furlongs of the race, and 5th place finisher Sedgefield rode it every step.

I'm not saying that being denied a live rail was the only reason that Curlin was drowned by Street Sense and Hard Spun - but still had enough to narrowly hold off Imawildandcrazyguy and Sedgefield ...

However, I believe it was a factor in the result.

And I know you're going to say "well that total bum Circular Quay was 6th with a wide trip!" ... BUT, keep in mind Circular Quay raced 18th early on and had a great fast pace to setup his close. Much like Street Sense and Imawildandcrazyguy did from the 19th and 20th spots.

Any Given Saturday was denied the rail and finished 7th or 8th after a wide far turn move - however, unlike Circular Quay, he didn't get a pace setup making his race better.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

I would never have brought up the rail bias on BC DAY '06 if I thought it was still controversial.Had no idea there were people that still thought there wasn't a huge inside bias that day.What a stubborn bunch of unteachables.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by ELA

I was talking about the rail bias in the BC, which I think was overblown to an extent, vis a vis the results.

Oh, It was a bit coincidental that everything breaking from post #1 was running out of their skin...but a horse like Thro's Echo left the rail and made a decisive wide move.

I still labeled that track as "inside path seemed preferred" ... which is my way of saying that maybe the rail was better, but let subsuquent results be your guide and make a final judgement after enough horses have run back.

I had no problem with anyone thinking that was a fair track - and no problem with anyone thinking it was a live rail - I took a middling position on that one at the time.... but obviously it was made to be such a big thing because of how every horse breaking from post 1 seemed to signficantly outrun their odds ... 4 of the 5 in winning races.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

What a stubborn bunch of unteachables.

I laughed.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

I would never have brought up the rail bias on BC DAY '06 if I thought it was still controversial.Had no idea there were people that still thought there wasn't a huge inside bias that day.What a stubborn bunch of unteachables.

Only the rookies and learning disabled think that 1. Steve Garvey belongs in the baseball Hall of Fame and 2. the 06 BC rail bias was a real factor in the final results..

[SCUDSBROTHER]

CANNON(plays Mr. Clean on T.V.)=a particularly stubborn unteachable.

Who has run like they did when they won that day? Don't say Street Sense,because he never even thought of stopping that day,and he was chugging late in the derby.