Del Mar Online Racing Community
Chat about horses, racing, and the industry.
Here is the answer:until these fake surfaces are abolished(which could be next spring),We should have a dirt horse of the year,and a synthetic horse of the year.if you are going to have two DRASTICALLY different racing surfaces,you need 2 awards.
Also-those who think Zenyattas dirt race was her best are misinformed.In that race at Oaklawn,Clinton Potts,riding a 50-1 ish long shot dueled with Ginger Punch thru VERY fast fractions for that day,on a track that was playing HUGELY to closers.It was a good race.........
also #2- Zenyattas people could hacve ended this argument by running in the Whitney(a race in hindsight she probably would have won),but they didnt.She shouldnt be horse of the year for the same reason Lava man shouldnt have been....
Hmmmmmm .... I don't remember Lava Man being undefeated or winning the Breeder's Cup Classic either ...
Yet I'd be willing to wager that you were as myopically focused on Lava Man as you are Zenyatta.
SafeBlog™ - This post has been reviewed, certified, and approved by a team of independent law professionals and subpoena deliverers. To file a complaint please click here.
Is there merit for being myopically focused on Zenyatta Stan? Just curious. Is the argument for her as Horse of the Year salient?
And of course I loved Lava Man ... Did you?
But I don't remember touting him for Horse of the Year.
Oh ... By the way ... You've lost your wager then.
What did you wager? I hope it was something good! Should I PM you my mailing address now?
Last edited by Political Web on Sat Nov 14, 2009 10:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Synthetic tracks are better for the sake of international competition..I expect next year's Breeders Cup to have minimal European participation, especially after George Washington's breakdown at Monmouth..you realize that there was an uproar in Europe after that happened? Synthetic tracks may have saved European participation in the Breeders Cup..
I think it is time for America to get with the rest of the world..even the Sheiks, whose top goal has been to win the Kentucky Derby and have done so by making Nad Al Sheba like Churchill Downs, have realized that a synthetic track is the best track to have competitive racing that is fair to all horses regardless of surface..
I don't think synthetic tracks are any more unfair than a sloppy dirt track and the synthetic track is a helluva lot safer than the slick, sealed pavement that is a dirt track..
Take my advise and do what you please
Baloney! The announcer at Oaklawn who calls every race and knows a fast pace from a slow pace said these words exactly... "And they go by the half in a very comfortable forty-seven and one."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X9171jx ... PL&index=3
What are we, a bunch of idiots? The sixth race, a sprint (nw2 for 3yr olds)two races before Zenyatta's was run in 1:10 by a horse pressing the pace all the way.. The 7th race, the race immediately before the Appl* Blossom for NW2 lifetime (clearly an inferior group) at a flat mile, was run in the exact same half mile time as the Appl* Blossom at 47.1, and was won in dominant fashion by the speed horse, Lemon Spice, who went wire-to wire and drew off winning by 5. Did you get that.. a relative bum, when compared to the fillies and mares that followed, drew off and won with speed to spare on the front end in the race right before the Appl* Blossom? So your closers bias story is strictly a fantasy that you concocted to make your point.
Maybe it is not your intention to lie and post your fantasies, but you are clearly the one that is misinformed on this particular issue - not others.
Just so you know, in the past, before synthetics, there were figuratively hundreds of instances where the Easterners derisively referred to the Western tracks as freeways. The reason being, is that when they shipped West, for the most part, their best horses couldn't handle the glib surfaces as well as they did their own deeper, sandy loam surfaces... It was always us in the West that had to go East to prove our classic status.. Not vice versa. And when we failed, we were bums, non-worthy Westerners and Cal-Breds. But when the Easterners came and got their clocks cleaned, it was that our tracks were biased to speed..
You can't win.. Our tracks used to be too fast. Now they are too slow, too deep, too much sand, too much polymer, too little this, too much that... IMO, It's all Easterners that can't lose like gentleman and mature adults.
It's what they do ... As biased as I'm accused of being ... I just throw out facts and defend my point of view based on them. Of course there is going to be a certain amount of specualtion as Zenyatta and Rachel have not raced.
But I've thrown out the form of all of the horses coming into the Classic based on the Daily Racing forms numbers. 7 of the 11 were coming out of their best race of the year. 2 of them were darn near it and 2 were off form. Rachel has shown a propensity to peter out at 1 1/8 miles against lesser competition, so why would one think that she wouldn't against greater competition at an extra 1/8. Zenyatta is just getting wound up at a mile. She's bigger, she's stronger, she's more mature. She ran 1 race on dirt and blew the field!
These are ALL facts ... yet I'm accused of being biased when I support my assertions based on absolute fact?
Sure I love Zenyatta. Always have. You know ... EVERY Horse of the Year had a fan who loved them. Did it mean they weren't worthy because they had a fan?
In this case ... I just happen to be a big fan f a horse WORTHY of Horse of the Year. NO ONE can dispute her merits.
So because I like her ... I'm not supposed to laud her for her ACTUAL merits?
That makes no darn sense.
OK then ... I could care less about "Pulsion" ... Should I laud him for Horse of the Year now??? Would I get less criticism then??? Since I could care less about him. Hmmmmmmm
Because we love a horse ... It means it has NO merit eh???
No ... Every once in a while we just happen to love a horse who is darn good ... This is one of those cases in Zenyatta ...
Hell ... I love California Flag, Dr. Pleasure, Rail Trip too ... I've loved Plan For Fun, Mimithemidget, Edwardian, Sea of Faces and Wild Beginnings too ... 3 or those horses were complete ZEROES in MOST of your eyes ... Low level claimers ... and the ohter 2 ... Edwardian and Sea of Faces were very promising horses who died at age 2 ...
But I loved all of those horses too and never lauded them ... So this has NOTHING to do with being a front runner ... I have loveable losers too.
In this case ... I just happen to love a horse who merits Horse of the Year consideration ... and I'm enjoying the opportunity to state my case and have a diatribe on it ...
I appreciate the banter ... With the ones who are civil and constructive with it ... I find it stimulating ... and a good part of why this sport enamors me.
I want to make a few comments.
Gotnosed, your idea of having a dirt Horse of the Year and a synthetics Horse of the Year, would only make sense if there was also a turf Horse of the Year. How often have we even seen a strictly turf specialist named Horse of the Year? Not that they were undeserving, but in this country we have generally not recognized their achievements, because the American racing mentally is still geared to dirt racing, IMO. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just the facts as I perceive them. The synthetics were created, I presume, with the safety issue predominately in mind. It's contentious because of what we've seen regards to performances and how dirt horses have not been able to adapt to these new surfaces the way turf horses have. The fact that the Europeans have been having a field day on them adds fuel to the fire, but haven't Europeans been at least training on these surfaces for many years?
Triple Threat, with regards to your comments about dirt vs. synthetics, I read this blog (see link) on the bloodhorse site a few days ago. It was written by Mark Popham in favor of the synthetics and he explains his feelings. Some of the respondents didn't exactly like what he had to say. It's my opinion that the writer ruffled some feathers, but that just shows me that people aren't willing to at least keep an open mind.
http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/finaltur ... opham.aspx
One more thing, and this isn't directed to any poster in particular but it again has to do with Zenyatta as Horse of the Year. I love this mare and I have no problem with HOY going to her, because I think she is worthy of it; however, I honestly feel the award should be shared with Rachel. Both these horses went in different directions and each had an enormous impact on the sport. I've heard the case made against Rachel, but remember, the Horse of the Year means the best horse in America. Yes, Zenyatta is equally worthy of the award, but which racehorse traveled more, to more states, and more racing jurisdictions? Which horse, by what she did, has actually typified America's horse by the fact that she didn't race in only one state? This isn't a knock against Zenyatta, but only to show that both are equally worthy by doing what they did in their own ways and going along different paths.
You state that the HOY is for the "best horse in America" but then you seem to state that a horse that travels should be given extra points. Southern California has terrific races for older fillies and mares, why travel? If you could run in a $250,000 race at home would you ship to NY for a race with the same purse? There are far fewer big races for 3yos where a horse could stay in one circuit and earn as much as a traveling horse.
Sarcasm:the ability to insult idiots without them realizing it
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests