Re: Briefly (478 Views)
Date: May 09, 2005 11:39PM
Silver Charm,
There is no mumbo jumbo in any of my posts if you read them carefully. It's actually quite simple.
1. I originally said that Summerly benefitted from a loose and easy lead in the Fair Ground Oaks and she wouldn't have run as fast had she been tested by a quality speed horse.
2. I said she got tested in the Ashland and lost.
3. In a conversarion with Len (on the other board), I conceded that she ran way worse than I expected and that pace alone probably didn't account for her terrible performance that day.
4. In her race on Friday "I estimate" that she ran no faster than she was running in her FG races (probably slower). Given that she won the FG Oaks race all wrapped up, you would think that when she's right (like Friday) she would be capable of running a faster race than she ran on FG Oaks day - especially now after two months of further maturation. Given that she didn't, then maybe I was correct all along in my opinion that in her Fair Grounds race she benefitted from the slow pace and easy lead.
5. IMO, Friday she earned a figure very in line with her current real ability.
I am not disputing the contention that she hated the track on the day of the Ashland, was sick, or any other excuse her connections made for her. I am saying that there's nothing that happened on Friday to disprove my opinion of her Fair Ground Oaks race where she got loose in an easy pace. Had she run a Beyer of 102 or something like that Friday, I would readily admit I was in error just like I did today when it came to Closing Argument (who I hated in the Derby and who I think ran the best race) and Bandini (who I liked and is still running).
I have no problem with being wrong. I do it all the time. Thankfully, not often enough to cause red ink. :-)
Post Edited (05-09-05 23:45)