Re: Always negative (799 Views)
Posted by:
covelj70 (IP Logged)
Date: May 07, 2009 04:02PM
Mike,
you seem to be getting upset and I don't want that, this is suppossed to be fun.
My posts about big negative numbers knocking out horses were always intended to be about young 3 year olds. Sorry if that wasn't clear in this thread. I made it more clear in other threads.
I know some of the same guys that you know and, you're right, they don't think anything was wrong with BB before the Belmont or after the Belmont. Just a coincidence that he ran like crap in the Belmont and then only ran 1 more lifetime race.
It's really not a big deal, it's ok for you and I to be on different sides of an argument. I believe that it's the big efforts that knock the young 3 year olds out and you believe its a series of random coincidences. It could be that its been random in each of the cases we are talking about, you could be right. I do not claim absolute knowledge but I would say that I think logic suggests that the big number is a common theme here and the horses that have stuck around never ran a huge number so young.
Street Sense took alot of time off after the first 2 negative and he came back to top it. When he came back quicker after the 2 negative in the Derby, he was never the same horse. Coincidence?
Curlin never ran a 2 negative as a young 3 year old and he stuck around, coincidence?
Zenayatta has never put up one of those huge numbers and she's stuck around, coincidence?
I hope to hell it doesn't happen but it RA comes up with a chip, tendon, quarter crack, breathing problem, or a toothache that knocks her out, you will tell me I am drinking cool aid for saying it was the big effort and you will chalk it up to yet another random coincidence.