bluechip21 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> for racing? great, sure.
>
> for the horse? I do not think she hits the super.
> Not fast enough, and she flattened out the last
> time she tried this at Oaklawn. Not much of an
> excuse there. ... this isn't Rachel.
>
> Oaks / Acorn / Alabama if memory serves correctly.


If one believes this, then what's the problem? A plodding Derby winner who capitalized on a pace and an outclassed horse that will get overbet solely because of its genitalia?

Sounds like the betting opportunity of the century.