Final Verdict ... Fog Is A Fraud

[Damascus '67]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

The relevance is that some of the horses didn't take to the track which is why no one would answer my question.

Did Calder's racing strip change so much in one year that he went from liking it to disliking it? I really don't see the relevance.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

The relevance is that some of the horses didn't take to the track which is why no one would answer my question.

Why is it that he "didnt take to the track" in races on tracks that he had already raced and won at?

I heard the track excuses when he lost in his combacker. How do you not like your home track???????

His career best beyer was at calder. Lost there now.

Second best beyer was at belmont. Lost there now.

So, if he goes to Saratoga and loses again there, will he not like the track?

Why hasnt he run a single race in So Cal? We are going on his third season in training and races at 8 or so different tracks but still not a race in So cal. Why is that? Could it be because the early pace scenarios in So Cal sprints are generally greater than anything you will see in the east? Wouldnt that support what Arljim is saying?


Why cant you look at facts...facts provided here in this thread? Why are you looking for these intangibles?

Are you that desperate for a hero?

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

I will ask this question for the third time because NOONE WANTS TO GIVE IT A RESPONSE...

Why did many of the top contenders in July 15th's races at Calder not win? Were they all just not good enough or could there be some other logical explanation?

Hmmm....I wonder.

Well I have seen this question and here are my thoughts;
1) It's a complicated and challenging question. Of course it very well may be different answers in each case. If you can narrow it down and give one or two I might give it a crack. I don't think anyone is ignoring the question, it's just that it is so open ended that it would require a lot of work in order to make a dilligent response. Who has the time to review the entire card that day?

2) By asking this question over and over, are you implying that there is some overriding obvious explanation that we should be aware of without even studying each horse and race on a case by case basis.

3) Whatever the reasons are for other top contenders not winning at Calder on Saturday, how is that relevant to the very narrow discussion we are having about LITF? Let's say that another top contender on the card did not win due to the very same reasons being ascribed to LITF, didn't fire, wasn't right, etc. That wouldn't imply that this was the same reason for LITF's performance. I believe this is a logical phallacy, one doesn't imply the other.

Maybe I'm misundetstanding the reason for your question.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Well I have seen this question and here are my thoughts;
1) It's a complicated and challenging question. Of course it very well may be different answers in each case. If you can narrow it down and give one or two I might give it a crack. I don't think anyone is ignoring the question, it's just that it is so open ended that it would require a lot of work in order to make a dilligent response. Who has the time to review the entire card that day?

2) By asking this question over and over, are you implying that there is some overriding obvious explanation that we should be aware of without even studying each horse and race on a case by case basis.

3) Whatever the reasons are for other top contenders not winning at Calder on Saturday, how is that relevant to the very narrow discussion we are having about LITF? Let's say that another top contender on the card did not win due to the very same reasons being ascribed to LITF, didn't fire, wasn't right, etc. That wouldn't imply that this was the same reason for LITF's performance. I believe this is a logical phallacy, one doesn't imply the other.

Maybe I'm misundetstanding the reason for your question.

nevermind I see it's already been answered. I'm too slow and wordy!

[dr. fager]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Perhaps the reason no one is reponding to the question ... is that it's totally irrelevant.

Does anyone know or care who won or lost on the undercard when Smoke Glacken defeated Wise Dusty in the DeFrancis Memorial? Or when Housebuster defeated Senor Speedy in the Forego Handicap?

What difference does it make what happened in races that Lost In The Fog didn't run in?

LOL...right on.

But since she can't look for herself 4 of 13 favorites won about 30%...sounds on par to me

and 2 finished second, and 1 third.

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Why is it that he "didnt take to the track" in races on tracks that he had already raced and won at?

I heard the track excuses when he lost in his combacker. How do you not like your home track???????

His career best beyer was at calder. Lost there now.

Second best beyer was at belmont. Lost there now.

So, if he goes to Saratoga and loses again there, will he not like the track?

Why hasnt he run a single race in So Cal? We are going on his third season in training and races at 8 or so different tracks but still not a race in So cal. Why is that? Could it be because the early pace scenarios in So Cal sprints are generally greater than anything you will see in the east? Wouldnt that support what Arljim is saying?


Why cant you look at facts...facts provided here in this thread? Why are you looking for these intangibles?

Are you that desperate for a hero?

OK ... Dalakhani ... I think I've finally figured out what they're saying. It's very complex ... so try to follow it closely. Here it is ...

Horses win races when they "take to the track" and "fire" ... and horses lose races when they "don't take to the track" and "don't fire."

It took me quite a while to understand that ... because it's so deep and so profound. Were you able to follow it ... or should I try to explain it further?

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Yes ... you're correct ... some horses didn't take to the track ... but ...

... other horses did ... and ...

... other horses weren't affected ... and ...

... all of that happens every single day wherever horse races are held.

And the relevance to Lost In The Fog's inability to win open G1/G2 sprints is ... ?

And every other horse was not giving 8-13 lbs. Twist it how you want, the horse wasn't 100%, the track was likely a factor and, hey, guess what, none of them win all the time. You comment that they should have not voted any horse Sprinter of the Year is assinine. Until, at least, you are given an Eclipse Award vote.

And when was the last time ANY sprinter gave 8 lbs+ in a race?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

OK ... Dalakhani ... I think I've finally figured out what they're saying. It's very complex ... so try to follow it closely. Here it is ...

Horses win races when they "take to the track" and "fire" ... and horses lose races when they "don't take to the track" and "don't fire."

It took me quite a while to understand that ... because it's so deep and so profound. Were you able to follow it ... or should I try to explain it further?

Okay, i need a little bit more explanation. I have often heard "he just wasnt himself". Can you help me understand what that means? Every time he loses, "he just wasnt himself" and when he wins "that was the real fog".

So what happened here? Can we possibly assign some Freudian logic to the case of this emotionally troubled horse.

Do you think that maybe he suffers from feelings of inadequeacy as the result of feelings of abandonment caused by being taken from his mother too early?

Do you think that maybe he doesnt feel loved and that in turn makes him feel like he is not good enough to be "the real fog" all of the time?

Do you think that maybe he is being resentful towards his trainer because he wanted an extra mint before the race and decides to throw in the towel to show him who is the real boss?



What do you think?

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Why is it that he "didnt take to the track" in races on tracks that he had already raced and won at?

I heard the track excuses when he lost in his combacker. How do you not like your home track???????

His career best beyer was at calder. Lost there now.

Second best beyer was at belmont. Lost there now.

So, if he goes to Saratoga and loses again there, will he not like the track?

Why hasnt he run a single race in So Cal? We are going on his third season in training and races at 8 or so different tracks but still not a race in So cal. Why is that? Could it be because the early pace scenarios in So Cal sprints are generally greater than anything you will see in the east? Wouldnt that support what Arljim is saying?


Why cant you look at facts...facts provided here in this thread? Why are you looking for these intangibles?

Are you that desperate for a hero?

Dalakhani, you and I know why he avoids SoCal, he would be buried. They run the exact type of race shape that works against him, loaded up front speed. They have got some real burners down there that would eat his lunch if he tried to run with them. Give the connections some credit as they have placed him for the most part where he can win, but there are few places he can hide now if he is going to be considered a true champion sprinter.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

And every other horse was not giving 8-13 lbs. Twist it how you want, the horse wasn't 100%, the track was likely a factor and, hey, guess what, none of them win all the time. You comment that they should have not voted any horse Sprinter of the Year is assinine. Until, at least, you are given an Eclipse Award vote.

And when was the last time ANY sprinter gave 8 lbs+ in a race?

Are you kidding me? Xtra heat use to do it all the time. Thats off the top of my head. How much did GZ give in his sprints? Kona Gold? Do you want me to keep going?

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Okay, i need a little bit more explanation. I have often heard "he just wasnt himself". Can you help me understand what that means? Every time he loses, "he just wasnt himself" and when he wins "that was the real fog".

So what happened here? Can we possibly assign some Freudian logic to the case of this emotionally troubled horse.

Do you think that maybe he suffers from feelings of inadequeacy as the result of feelings of abandonment caused by being taken from his mother too early?

Do you think that maybe he doesnt feel loved and that in turn makes him feel like he is not good enough to be "the real fog" all of the time?

Do you think that maybe he is being resentful towards his trainer because he wanted an extra mint before the race and decides to throw in the towel to show him who is the real boss?



What do you think?

you guys are cracking me up!

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Okay, i need a little bit more explanation. I have often heard "he just wasnt himself". Can you help me understand what that means? Every time he loses, "he just wasnt himself" and when he wins "that was the real fog".

So what happened here? Can we possibly assign some Freudian logic to the case of this emotionally troubled horse.

Do you think that maybe he suffers from feelings of inadequeacy as the result of feelings of abandonment caused by being taken from his mother too early?

Do you think that maybe he doesnt feel loved and that in turn makes him feel like he is not good enough to be "the real fog" all of the time?

Do you think that maybe he is being resentful towards his trainer because he wanted an extra mint before the race and decides to throw in the towel to show him who is the real boss?



What do you think?

Hmmm ... a ferrrrrry interrr-restink zeory youff got zere.

Allow me to zink about zot zome more ... vile I conzult mit mein colleaks.

What's this "the horse wasn't 100%"? They shipped a cripple from coast to coast to run when he was hurt? No sense can be made of that statement.

I can't follow half of the arguments being put forward on behalf of this Fog horse.

Ez

Originally Posted by ezrabrooks

What's this "the horse wasn't 100%"? They shipped a cripple from coast to coast to run when he was hurt? No sense can be made of that statement.

I can't follow half of the arguments being put forward on behalf of this Fog horse.

Ez

Then you're a genius, Ez ...

.. because I can't follow any of it.

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Bold, I'm not making excuses for LITF, but what does Andy Kaufman have to do with anything? Andy Kaufman's matches were fixed,

Wrong ... wrong ... wrong ...

... all of Andy's matches against women were legit ... only his final match against a man was a con job.

Lost In The Fog's opposition wasn't quite as suspect as Kaufman's ... but the analogy makes the point ...

... don't be overly impressed by winning streaks against restricted opposition ... wait until everyone is allowed to play.

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I'm sure most people out there would love to train or own a horse who has won 11 of 14, whether it's a $5,000 claimer or a stakes horse.

And I'd have loved to have been Andy Kaufman's agent.

Lost In The Fog's connections are to be commended ... they won a lot of races and a lot of money with a modestly talented sprinter. Hats off to them!

[Gander]

and I'm sure most people out there would love to train or own a horse who has won 11 of 14, whether it's a $5,000 claimer or a stakes horse.

I think anyone on here would be happy owning a 5K claimer who is 0 for 14, LOL!

[Gander]

Hes better than "modestly talented". Not as great as Kona Gold, Orientate, or Artax, but still very good.

Originally Posted by Gander

Hes better than "modestly talented". Not as great as Kona Gold, Orientate, or Artax, but still very good.

OK ... how about "modestly great"?

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Your analogy is ridiculous. So if a two year old wins 8 straight that's not impressive because he/she ran against only 2 year olds. If a claimer wins 10 straight it's not impressive because it was against claimers. Again last year Gilchrist told EVERYONE where he was going. I just have a hard time comparing a grade I winner of more than a million dollars, to a deceased comedian.

This thread wasn't prompted by people saying that Lost In The Fog was "impressive" ... it was prompted by people saying that he was "great."

I haven't seen anyone say that Lost In The Fog's winning streak wasn't impressive ... just some folks ... myself included ... saying that such a winning streak against mediocre opponents doesn't equate to greatness.

I stand by my brilliant analogy.