The missing ingredient from the Zenyatta critiques

[carlonr]

From what I've read, those who insist that Zenyatta needs to do "this, that, or the other" to achieve true greatness don' have the comments of thoroughbred trainers to back them up. The people who know racehorses the best are the people who spend every day with them. How many trainers support the notion that Zenyatta is not a cut above the rest? On the contrary, there are many trainers that have seen here run and openly state that she is a freak!

[thaskalos]

From what I've read, those who insist that Zenyatta needs to do "this, that, or the other" to achieve true greatness don' have the comments of thoroughbred trainers to back them up. The people who know racehorses the best are the people who spend every day with them. How many trainers support the notion that Zenyatta is not a cut above the rest? On the contrary, there are many trainers that have seen here run and openly state that she is a freak! You are right...of course.

But PA is going to be quick to point out to you that the horsemen's handicapping ability is questionable at best...

[CincyHorseplayer]

The kitchen sink?

Your momma??

Everything else and a can of beer???You tell me!!!


I think a little humor is in order;


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrllCZw8jiM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhwbxEfy7fg


This is been going on since last June.Lighten up Francis.:cool:

[Spalding No!]

From what I've read, those who insist that Zenyatta needs to do "this, that, or the other" to achieve true greatness don' have the comments of thoroughbred trainers to back them up. The people who know racehorses the best are the people who spend every day with them. How many trainers support the notion that Zenyatta is not a cut above the rest? On the contrary, there are many trainers that have seen here run and openly state that she is a freak!

If this is what you brought us, I'd hate to have seen what would have happened to you if you were a 17th century Spanish missionary in the New World.

[PaceAdvantage]

How many trainers support the notion that Zenyatta is not a cut above the rest?Nobody that I am aware of, including myself, would dare deny she is "not a cut above the rest." Whatever that means exactly.

Do we need anymore NEW Zenyatta and/or Rachel threads? Couldn't you have found an existing thread to write this?

I'm going to start cutting down and/or closing new Zenyatta/Rachel threads that I deem are simply rehashing of existing thoughts in existing threads.

The SEARCH (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/search.php?) function is your friend.

[Hedevar]

From what I've read, those who insist that Zenyatta needs to do "this, that, or the other" to achieve true greatness don' have the comments of thoroughbred trainers to back them up. The people who know racehorses the best are the people who spend every day with them. How many trainers support the notion that Zenyatta is not a cut above the rest? On the contrary, there are many trainers that have seen here run and openly state that she is a freak!

They are living by one of the unwritten rules of horseracing. That is, never speak ill about another man's horse.

[chickenhead]

the entire debate is missing embroidered jackets and a solid dance/fight number...

[joanied]

Now I'm gonna be singing the music from the rumble scene in West Side Story in my head all night :bang: :D

[joanied]

Nobody that I am aware of, including myself, would dare deny she is "not a cut above the rest." Whatever that means exactly.

Do we need anymore NEW Zenyatta and/or Rachel threads? Couldn't you have found an existing thread to write this?

I'm going to start cutting down and/or closing new Zenyatta/Rachel threads that I deem are simply rehashing of existing thoughts in existing threads.

The SEARCH (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/search.php?) function is your friend.

That'd be fine :ThmbUp: by me, PA...I wanted to toss my thoughts in about Z & RA's races this past weekend...but to tell you true, I didn't know which thread to use...so I gave it up :faint:
Variety may be the spice of life...but this is ridiculous!

[carlonr]

If this thread is deleted...I understand. All I did was call for people who seem to be very opinionated, to find some quotes from respected trainers in the industry who are aligned with their position. I understand that their inability to do this will now be shoved under the rug. How sad.

[cj]

If this thread is deleted...I understand. All I did was call for people who seem to be very opinionated, to find some quotes from respected trainers in the industry who are aligned with their position. I understand that their inability to do this will now be shoved under the rug. How sad.

Horses don't know much about other people's horses. To think they do is pretty silly. Hell, they hardly know how their own horses will run.

[Hedevar]

What you are looking for does not exist.

[Stillriledup]

From what I've read, those who insist that Zenyatta needs to do "this, that, or the other" to achieve true greatness don' have the comments of thoroughbred trainers to back them up. The people who know racehorses the best are the people who spend every day with them. How many trainers support the notion that Zenyatta is not a cut above the rest? On the contrary, there are many trainers that have seen here run and openly state that she is a freak!

Professional horseplayers know more than trainers.

Trainers only know their own horses, Pro bettors know EVERYONES horses.

[BluegrassProf]

From what I've read, those who insist that Zenyatta needs to do "this, that, or the other" to achieve true greatness don' have the comments of thoroughbred trainers to back them up. The people who know racehorses the best are the people who spend every day with them. How many trainers support the notion that Zenyatta is not a cut above the rest? On the contrary, there are many trainers that have seen here run and openly state that she is a freak!Honestly, man: whatcha expect them to say? "She a half-@ss nag." "Get that b*tch on a real surface." "Zenyatta Schmenyatta!"

Luv it! Sadly, this isn't ultimate fighting.

Nossir, they'll say she's extraordinary, because she is, and because that's how this professional sport works. Certainly, you'll hear collegial accolades for ANY hot horse - welcome to the game of horseracing! - at least in this case it's accurate. But make no mistake: an absence of trainers publicly throwing around critique is about as far from telling as the size of their shoes.

[BluegrassProf]

What you are looking for does not exist.Actually, just about sums it up.

Brevity. :ThmbUp:

[Greyfox]

Horses don't know much about other people's horses. To think they do is pretty silly. Hell, they hardly know how their own horses will run.

Did you mean "trainers don't know much about other people's horses?"

[PaceAdvantage]

If this thread is deleted...I understand. All I did was call for people who seem to be very opinionated, to find some quotes from respected trainers in the industry who are aligned with their position. I understand that their inability to do this will now be shoved under the rug. How sad.I never said THIS thread would be deleted...thus everything you typed past your first sentence above is null & void. Thanks for giving it the ol' college try nonetheless.

[carlonr]

i saw where you started a NEW Zenyatta thread, so I thought it was ok!

[PaceAdvantage]

i saw where you started a NEW Zenyatta thread, so I thought it was ok!It is ok. How many ways should I say it?

[carlonr]

On the contrary, There are many trainers who have seen Zenyatta run who will and HAVE openly discussed their opinions regarding her. These stated opinions have been regarding Zenyatta in the singular and also in the context of "Zenyatta vs. others".

[Grits]

On the contrary, There are many trainers who have seen Zenyatta run who will and HAVE openly discussed their opinions regarding her. These stated opinions have been regarding Zenyatta in the singular and also in the context of "Zenyatta vs. others".

Yep, the most recent comment came in the form of a text message sent to her trainer this morning from Mike Mitchell . . . . . .

Did ya miss that one maybe?

[Dahoss9698]

Just so I understand the point of this thread. Anyone who critiques Zenyatta is probably wrong because trainers haven't come out in the media with similar critiques? Seriously?

Trainers never criticize other horses or trainers. At least not publically. So why would this be any different?

Think about trainers who most consider to be taking an advantage. I won't name names, but we all have our ideas of who might be. Do you ever hear rival trainers question them or their methods?

[Dahoss9698]

Yep, the most recent comment came in the form of a text message sent to her trainer this morning from Mike Mitchell . . . . . .

Did ya miss that one maybe?

You have a point, but with the way it was written, it could have meant a few different things. I read it as him jokingly wanting her to leave California so the Hirsch is easier, but I could be wrong.

[thaskalos]

Just so I understand the point of this thread. Anyone who critiques Zenyatta is probably wrong because trainers haven't come out in the media with similar critiques? Seriously?

Trainers never criticize other horses or trainers. At least not publically. So why would this be any different?

Think about trainers who most consider to be taking an advantage. I won't name names, but we all have our ideas of who might be. Do you ever hear rival trainers question them or their methods? Yes, you are right. Trainers don't criticize other horses...but they are not compelled to lavish them with praise either...

[Dahoss9698]

Yes, you are right. Trainers don't criticize other horses...but they are not compelled to lavish them with praise either...

I don't think trainers have an issue acknowledging the really good ones. Zenyatta is a really good one.

[PaceAdvantage]

Zenyatta is a really good one.Oh, you're not allowed to say THAT.

They won't believe you.

How crazy does that sound?

[thaskalos]

Oh, you're not allowed to say THAT.

They won't believe you.

How crazy does that sound? I believe him!

[PaceAdvantage]

I believe him!Can peace in the Middle East be far behind?

[thaskalos]

Can peace in the Middle East be far behind? Funny...:ThmbUp:

[cj]

Did you mean "trainers don't know much about other people's horses?"

Yes, sorry.

[carlonr]

Just so I understand the point of this thread. Anyone who critiques Zenyatta is probably wrong because trainers haven't come out in the media with similar critiques? Seriously?

Trainers never criticize other horses or trainers. At least not publically. So why would this be any different?

Think about trainers who most consider to be taking an advantage. I won't name names, but we all have our ideas of who might be. Do you ever hear rival trainers question them or their methods?

For clarity: The point is there are MANY trainers who have seen Zenyatta run and HAVE publicly stated their opinions. It is an attempt to shed light on some opinions on this board that have an air or superiority. Example: Zenyatta on dirt. Most any trainer who knows John Sheriffs would tell you that if John says Zenyatta is better on dirt, you had better believe him. That's why even with the defection of Rachael @ Oaklawn Park, you still had such a small field. If this notion that Zenyatta is a "poly" horse had even a touch of truth to it, trainers would have been lining up, eager to beat her in the AB, both for the money and the prestige of defeating Zenyatta. The point is that trainers either have seen her run or they talk to other trainers that have seen her run. This has nothing to do with training methods. It has to do with people who make a living training horses and their publicly stated opinions regarding Zenyatta. The point is: why are there not trainers making statements like "Her "action" on the dirt at Oaklawn suggest that the surface is more difficult" That would not be a "knock", simply an observation. On the contrary, a few trainers did comment on how she moved more fluid on dirt. I am not saying that other opinions are wrong, I am just pointing out that what's missing from some positions is the the lack of trainers that share a similar view.

[andymays]

I'm pretty sure Ron Ellis thinks he can beat her with Rail Trip. In fact I think he's said something to that effect in the past.

The Zenyatta camp must think Rail Trip could probably beat her as well otherwise they would have given him a try.

[carlonr]

Actually, Ron Ellis said he would fear Quality Road the most at 1 1/8 miles on dirt, and Zenyatta the most at 1 1/4 miles. That is a far cry from suggesting that Zenyatta can't run on dirt. This actually validates my point, that respected trainers hold the opinion that Zenyatta is to reckoned with on any surface against any company.

[andymays]

Actually, Ron Ellis said he would fear Quality Road the most at 1 1/8 miles on dirt, and Zenyatta the most at 1 1/4 miles. That is a far cry from suggesting that Zenyatta can't run on dirt. This actually validates my point, that respected trainers hold the opinion that Zenyatta is to reckoned with on any surface against any company.

Yes, I know what Ellis said on Sunday but in the past he has implied that he can beat her.

[DeanT]

I'm pretty sure Ron Ellis thinks he can beat her with Rail Trip. In fact I think he's said something to that effect in the past.

The Zenyatta camp must think Rail Trip could probably beat her as well otherwise they would have given him a try.

Ellis I think is quite smart. One of the few trainers that I think would have a flat ROI if a bettor (jmo).

[carlonr]

Yes, I know what Ellis said on Sunday but in the past he has implied that he can beat her.

What he did say was that he thought it would have been difficult for Zenyatta to catch Rail Trip "that day" and he reiterated "that day" There is link to the actual video below.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vdmA9t6-Ww

[andymays]

What he did say was that he thought it would have been difficult for Zenyatta to catch Rail Trip "that day" and he reiterated "that day" There is link to the actual video below.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vdmA9t6-Ww

I believe you. I also believe Ron Ellis believes he can beat Zenyatta with Rail Trip and the Mosses aren't so sure otherwise they would have taken him on already.

[carlonr]

I believe you. I also believe Ron Ellis believes he can beat Zenyatta with Rail Trip and the Mosses aren't so sure otherwise they would have taken him on already.

Hopefully, we'll find out in the 2010 BC Classic. For the record, the horse that I am the biggest fan of is Gio Pointi. Ships anywhere, runs hard every time.

[Dahoss9698]

For clarity: The point is there are MANY trainers who have seen Zenyatta run and HAVE publicly stated their opinions. It is an attempt to shed light on some opinions on this board that have an air or superiority. Example: Zenyatta on dirt. Most any trainer who knows John Sheriffs would tell you that if John says Zenyatta is better on dirt, you had better believe him. That's why even with the defection of Rachael @ Oaklawn Park, you still had such a small field. If this notion that Zenyatta is a "poly" horse had even a touch of truth to it, trainers would have been lining up, eager to beat her in the AB, both for the money and the prestige of defeating Zenyatta. The point is that trainers either have seen her run or they talk to other trainers that have seen her run. This has nothing to do with training methods. It has to do with people who make a living training horses and their publicly stated opinions regarding Zenyatta. The point is: why are there not trainers making statements like "Her "action" on the dirt at Oaklawn suggest that the surface is more difficult" That would not be a "knock", simply an observation. On the contrary, a few trainers did comment on how she moved more fluid on dirt. I am not saying that other opinions are wrong, I am just pointing out that what's missing from some positions is the the lack of trainers that share a similar view.

So you are looking for comments from trainers talking about her action on dirt? Good luck with that. IMO trainerspeak is one of the worst things any bettor can listen to.

It's our job to figure out who we think can and can't handle a distance, surface, etc. The kind of talk you are looking for just doesn't happen in the sport. Feel free to offer up an example if you disagree.

As far as Shirreffs thinking she is better on dirt, it does seem odd that 15 of her 17 starts would not be on the surface she is supposedly better on, isn't it? Sometimes I think if Shirreffs said Santa Claus was real, there would be a half dozen threads here of people wanting to argue that he is probably right.

[Fastracehorse]

From what I've read, those who insist that Zenyatta needs to do "this, that, or the other" to achieve true greatness don' have the comments of thoroughbred trainers to back them up. The people who know racehorses the best are the people who spend every day with them. How many trainers support the notion that Zenyatta is not a cut above the rest? On the contrary, there are many trainers that have seen here run and openly state that she is a freak!


.............have the final say?

fffastt

[carlonr]

.............have the final say?

fffastt

Not much more to say. People are free to have whatever opinions they want. I am only pointing out that of all of the comments by trainers regarding Zenyatta, there are few if any that subscribe to the theory that she is not a superhorse.

[Hedevar]

Not much more to say. People are free to have whatever opinions they want. I am only pointing out that of all of the comments by trainers regarding Zenyatta, there are few if any that subscribe to the theory that she is not a superhorse.

As I said earlier in this thread you are looking for something that does not exist and never will. Trainers just don't make comments that you are hoping to find.

[carlonr]

As I said earlier in this thread you are looking for something that does not exist and never will. Trainers just don't make comments that you are hoping to find.

Sorry, you keep overlooking this statement: MANY trainers who have seen Zenyatta run and HAVE publicly stated their opinions.

[Hedevar]

Not negative opinions and they most certainly are not going to tell the world that they have the horse that can beat her and how they are going to get it done.

[bisket]

actually carl has made a valid point and has shown proof that the thread has a good basis in FACT. unfortunatly it doesn't jive with your take on things. trainers have been avoiding zen for a couple years now. why? because she's a pretty fast racehorse, and they don't think they can win a purse when she is in the race.

[Hedevar]

actually carl has made a valid point and has shown proof that the thread has a good basis in FACT. unfortunatly it doesn't jive with your take on things. trainers have been avoiding zen for a couple years now. why? because she's a pretty fast racehorse, and they don't think they can win a purse when she is in the race.

They haven't been avoiding her, they haven't been elgible to run in the races she was entered in or did not want to run on the synthetic surface in California.

If her connections were more like Goldikova's she would have plenty of competition.

[carlonr]

Not negative opinions and they most certainly are not going to tell the world that they have the horse that can beat her and how they are going to get it done.

The negative opinions don't exist, except in your theory.

Case in point
:“Zenyatta is a great mare, maybe the greatest mare I’ve ever seen,” said Mitchell. “I’m not running against her because I don’t respect her.” - Mike Mitchell, before the Vanity Handicap.

[carlonr]

They haven't been avoiding her, they haven't been elgible to run in the races she was entered in or did not want to run on the synthetic surface in California.

If her connections were more like Goldikova's she would have plenty of competition.


Or if THE CHALLENGER'S connections were more like Goldikova's. Goldikova's connections came to California to run in two Breeder's Cup's. No excuses, they came , showed up and won. Once without Lasix and then with Lasix

[Hedevar]

The negative opinions don't exist, except in your theory.

Case in point
:“Zenyatta is a great mare, maybe the greatest mare I’ve ever seen,” said Mitchell. “I’m not running against her because I don’t respect her.” - Mike Mitchell, before the Vanity Handicap.

Do you think this is negative opinion? Because it is not.

[Hedevar]

Or if THE CHALLENGER'S connections were more like Goldikova's. Goldikova's connections came to California to run in two Breeder's Cup's. No excuses, they came , showed up and won. Once without Lasix and then with Lasix

What is your point in this post.

[carlonr]

Do you think this is negative opinion? Because it is not.

No, I'm referring to the negative opinions you believe some trainers have, but are just not saying. My contention is those negative opinions do not exist. Its not that they are just not talking about them.

[OntheRail]

actually carl has made a valid point and has shown proof that the thread has a good basis in FACT. unfortunatly it doesn't jive with your take on things. trainers have been avoiding zen for a couple years now. why? because she's a pretty fast racehorse, and they don't think they can win a purse when she is in the race.

And her connections have avoided placing her in better spots. Last year they did not travel... the reason. Well the BC is in our back yard... no need to travel. This year it at CH and still they are not interested in shipping east. Arkansas in April is not East ;). Even though according to them SHE'S BETTER ON DIRT. Look we know what she has done... but most can see how it was done... But we all want to see what she can do and hopefully not in a singular race 5 month down the road.

[carlonr]

What is your point in this post.

That particular statement was in response to:If her (Zenyatta's) connections were more like Goldikova's she would have plenty of competition.

I took that to mean that Zenyatta's connections should ship more. I think it should be the opposite. More connections should be like Goldikova's and come to California. No excuses, Show up and race and see what happens.

[cj]

That particular statement was in response to:If her (Zenyatta's) connections were more like Goldikova's she would have plenty of competition.

I took that to mean that Zenyatta's connections should ship more. I think it should be the opposite. More connections should be like Goldikova's and come to California. No excuses, Show up and race and see what happens.

Well, for one, as I mentioned in another thread, why are males going to ship to California when she is racing against the tomato can females? If she tries the Hollywood Gold Cup or Pacific Classic (she won't) maybe the would come.

[OntheRail]

The negative opinions don't exist, except in your theory.

Case in point
:“Zenyatta is a great mare, maybe the greatest mare I’ve ever seen,” said Mitchell. “I’m not running against her because I don’t respect her.” - Mike Mitchell, before the Vanity Handicap.

I kind of like the post race comment,

Sent John Shirreffs a text message.

Mitchell's St Trinians had given Zenyatta a scare, and Mitchell wanted to offer congratulations, with a friendly piece of advice at the end.

"I think it's time Zenyatta left California," he wrote.

:lol:

[carlonr]

And her connections have avoided placing her in better spots. Last year they did not travel... the reason. Well the BC is in our back yard... no need to travel. This year it at CH and still they are not interested in shipping east. Arkansas in April is not East ;). Even though according to them SHE'S BETTER ON DIRT. Look we know what she has done... but most can see how it was done... But we all want to see what she can do and hopefully not in a singular race 5 month down the road.

If showing up to run in the Breeders Cup Classic for the second year in a row is not enough for you, then I'm not sure what is. Funny how the Breeder's Cup Classic can be reduced to a mere "singular race 5 month down the road" when Zenyatta is concerned.

[cj]

I predict here, today, she will not make it to Churchill for the BC. Feel free to ridicule me in November.

[carlonr]

I kind of like the post race comment,



:lol:


So he can win next time if she's not here! The ultimate compliment!

[Hedevar]

No, I'm referring to the negative opinions you believe some trainers have, but are just not saying. My contention is those negative opinions do not exist. Its not that they are just not talking about them.

Believe what you like. Others and I have attempted to explain how horseracing works and you have chosen to disregard what we have said. Vaya con Dios.

[carlonr]

Well, for one, as I mentioned in another thread, why are males going to ship to California when she is racing against the tomato can females? If she tries the Hollywood Gold Cup or Pacific Classic (she won't) maybe the would come.

Last time I checked, The Breeder's Cup Classic was open to males. They came. They lost.

[OntheRail]

That particular statement was in response to:If her (Zenyatta's) connections were more like Goldikova's she would have plenty of competition.

I took that to mean that Zenyatta's connections should ship more. I think it should be the opposite. More connections should be like Goldikova's and come to California. No excuses, Show up and race and see what happens.
Goldikova shipped in for the Breeder's Cup which happened to be being held at SA. If it was in Yonker's she'd of shipped there. But She came to run on Turf. Had she been required to run on a foreign surface she would most likely not of shipped at all.

[carlonr]

Believe what you like. Others and I have attempted to explain how horseracing works and you have chosen to disregard what we have said. Vaya con Dios.

I have stated facts. I have stated quotes. And I have plenty more factual quotes. What you have done is explain how you believe horse racing works. If your beliefs were fact, I would not be able to pull up quote after quote from trainers. Good day as well.

[OntheRail]

I predict here, today, she will not make it to Churchill for the BC. Feel free to ridicule me in November.
I have also said the same else where on here.

[PaceAdvantage]

I have stated facts. I have stated quotes. And I have plenty more factual quotes. What you have done is explain how you believe horse racing works. If your beliefs were fact, I would not be able to pull up quote after quote from trainers. Good day as well.Can you pull up a quote where a trainer says she is a superhorse?

And that she will beat any male in training today on the dirt?

Any quotes like that around?

In fact, any quotes from any trainers stating Zenyatta would beat Rachel Alexandra? There must be plenty of those...that would be a no-brainer, right?

[carlonr]

Can you pull up a quote where a trainer says she is a superhorse?

And that she will beat any male in training today on the dirt?

Any quotes like that around?

In fact, any quotes from any trainers stating Zenyatta would beat Rachel Alexandra? There must be plenty of those...that would be a no-brainer, right?


I posted Ron Ellis and Mike Mitchell earlier. I will go through my archives and post more. It might take me a while, but no problem.

[carlonr]

Can you pull up a quote where a trainer says she is a superhorse?

And that she will beat any male in training today on the dirt?

Any quotes like that around?

In fact, any quotes from any trainers stating Zenyatta would beat Rachel Alexandra? There must be plenty of those...that would be a no-brainer, right?


Here's a few for starters:
RONALD McANALLY (trainer of champion fillies Bayakoa and Paseana)
"I'm absolutely amazed that Zenyatta's done everything you would have asked of her. She's such a big, long-striding mare, and to win like she does, especially in the Santa Margarita when she was last turning for home and won going away, is remarkable. She's just a great mare. I'm amazed every time she runs. It's unbelievable.

"I think (John) Shirreffs has done a marvelous job with her, spacing her races and doing the right thing with her. I liked Zenyatta against Rachel Alexandra before the (Horse of the Year) voting and I liked her after the voting. I thought the Eastern voters made a big mistake making Rachel the Horse of the Year. The people back East have more votes than they have out here and I think they realize now that they made a huge mistake.

"I know Rachel wasn't fit enough to win her first out in New Orleans this year. I could see the handwriting on the wall right from the beginning. But even had she been fit and they ran together tomorrow in the Apple Blossom, to me there's no question that Zenyatta would have beaten her."

PAUL AGUIRRE
"I really thought that Rachel Alexandra deserved Horse of the Year, but at the same time, I never had any doubt in my mind, and I don't even need to see them run against each other, to know that she's not as good as Zenyatta.

"I've been around racing 30 years. There are things a lot of us trainers don't know, but we all know a freak when we see a freak, and Zenyatta stands head and shoulders above all the horses I've ever seen."

VLADIMIR CERIN
"I always thought Zenyatta would beat Rachel Alexandra on any surface, as long as it wasn't in a match race, where Rachel would get an easy lead. Zenyatta should have been Horse of the Year in 2009, because what she accomplished last year was enough to make her one of the all-time great race mares. Rachel Alexandra accomplished a lot, but we don't know if she's one of the all-time greats. So if you're one of the all-time greats, and the other one is or isn't, you should be Horse of the Year, no question about it.

"I'd like to see Rachel Alexandra do well and I'd love to see them compete against each other, but obviously, they're afraid of Zenyatta and they're not going to run against her."

[Dahoss9698]

I have stated facts. I have stated quotes. And I have plenty more factual quotes. What you have done is explain how you believe horse racing works. If your beliefs were fact, I would not be able to pull up quote after quote from trainers. Good day as well.

So you are of the opinion that every single trainer in the world thinks she's the greatest and that is why there are no comments? Really? You don't think there are any trainers around that have the same questions that some of us have? Come on.

I asked before for an example of a trainer making comments like you are looking for about another horse. They don't exist. Trainers don't make negative comments about other trainers horses.

[BluegrassProf]

carlonr: You should also find - and post - all those quotes from trainers coming down hard on other horses. And I don't mean one or two from, say, a Dutrow; I mean all of those you'd clearly expect to see given how many not-so-spectacular horses are running at any given time. I anticipate a lengthy list.I have stated facts. I have stated quotes. And I have plenty more factual quotes. What you have done is explain how you believe horse racing works. If your beliefs were fact, I would not be able to pull up quote after quote from trainers. Good day as well.My man, all these happy "go big Z!" quotes have nothing - nothing at all - to do with what you're asking. Similarly, the ones in the post immediately above this were prompted (ex: How do you feel about Rachel vs. Zen?); they weren't simply tossed out there, and there are certainly plenty of others that take the oppposing viewpoint, particularly in the leadup to and wake of the HOY announcement. Besides, they're all from the same source - originating at CalRacing - and you forgot to include Ms. Walsh (I assume because it mentions - gasp! - Zen not travelling east).

And again, praise - earned or otherwise - is absolutely, positively normal.

The thing is this: what you've shown is that trainer praise exists in spades, NOT trainer ridicule. We see praise because A.) lots of horses are legitimately talented (to be sure, a horse like Z included), and B.) because that's how professional sport works. Do you think that, in all of the racing scene, the only people critical of Zenyatta's campaign are the negative nancys on PA? C'mon, man. That's silli.

We're openly critical here because we can be: we have no obligation to good sportsmanship, and more importantly, we've got no chips in the game we want protected.

Professional trainers simply don't go around spouting critique: it looks tasteless, and is tactically turrible. Hedevar is right: the sort of ridicule you're expecting just doesn't happen.

[carlonr]

So you are of the opinion that every single trainer in the world thinks she's the greatest and that is why there are no comments? Really? You don't think there are any trainers around that have the same questions that some of us have? Come on.

I asked before for an example of a trainer making comments like you are looking for about another horse. They don't exist. Trainers don't make negative comments about other trainers horses.

They would not be "negative comments", just opinions. Mary Forney conducted a video poll ( here are some of the links )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6csODCDn2o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ncp2bJHzbA4&NR=1

on Rachael versus Zenyatta in a match race. As you can see some trainers said Rachael would win if it were in a "match race" you see these are not "negative comments" just opinions. My point is trainers make these statements frequently contrary to some on this board that have the belief that they don't. Just today I posted 7 different trainers that had opinions and I haven't even gone into my archives yet. So this notion that trainers remain hush - hush is just that. a notion

[carlonr]

carlonr: You should also find - and post - all those quotes from trainers coming down hard on other horses. And I don't mean one or two from, say, a Dutrow; I mean all of those you'd clearly expect to see given how many not-so-spectacular horses are running at any given time. I anticipate a lengthy list.My man, all these happy "go big Z!" quotes have nothing - nothing at all - to do with what you're asking. Similarly, the ones in the post immediately above this were prompted (ex: How do you feel about Rachel vs. Zen?); they weren't simply tossed out there, and there are certainly plenty of others that take the oppposing viewpoint, particularly in the leadup to and wake of the HOY announcement. Besides, they're all from the same source - originating at CalRacing - and you forgot to include Ms. Walsh (I assume because it mentions - gasp! - Zen not travelling east).

And again, praise - earned or otherwise - is absolutely, positively normal.



The thing is this: what you've shown is that trainer praise exists in spades, NOT trainer ridicule. We see praise because A.) lots of horses are legitimately talented (to be sure, a horse like Z included), and B.) because that's how professional sport works. Do you think that, in all of the racing scene, the only people critical of Zenyatta's campaign are the negative nancys on PA? C'mon, man. That's silli.

We're openly critical here because we can be: we have no obligation to good sportsmanship, and more importantly, we've got no chips in the game we want protected.

Professional trainers simply don't go around spouting critique: it looks tasteless, and is tactically turrible. Hedevar is right: the sort of ridicule you're expecting just doesn't happen.

I just posted some quotes that were in Rachael's favor in a match race.

[Dahoss9698]

They would not be "negative comments", just opinions. Mary Forney conducted a video poll ( here are some of the links )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6csODCDn2o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ncp2bJHzbA4&NR=1

on Rachael versus Zenyatta in a match race. As you can see some trainers said Rachael would win if it were in a "match race" you see these are not "negative comments" just opinions. My point is trainers make these statements frequently contrary to some on this board that have the belief that they don't. Just today I posted 7 different trainers that had opinions and I haven't even gone into my archives yet. So this notion that trainers remain hush - hush is just that. a notion

WHo doesn't think Zenyatta is very good though? Even the people here that question her all time status recognize that she is very good. It is possible to think she is very good and not the best all time.

It's like you only read what you want to read. Do all rabid Zenyatta fans have some secret playbook or something? You want negative opinions, or opinions that say she isn't an all timer. Numerous people have said trainers don't make comments like that in the media. You insist they do, but provide no examples.

I've asked three times now for an example of what you are looking for in regards to another horse. You keep ignoring it. But you are providing examples if trainers doing the complete opposite of what you are looking for.

[OntheRail]

They would not be "negative comments", just opinions. Mary Forney conducted a video poll ( here are some of the links )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6csODCDn2o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ncp2bJHzbA4&NR=1

on Rachael versus Zenyatta in a match race. As you can see some trainers said Rachael would win if it were in a "match race" you see these are not "negative comments" just opinions. My point is trainers make these statements frequently contrary to some on this board that have the belief that they don't. Just today I posted 7 different trainers that had opinions and I haven't even gone into my archives yet. So this notion that trainers remain hush - hush is just that. a notion
Mary Forney's Blog
What's the Buzz in California Thoroughbred Racing

That looks like an unbiased source when it comes to Zenyatta... about on Par with HRTV before HOTY. :lol:

[PurplePower]

I'm pretty sure Ron Ellis thinks he can beat her with Rail Trip. In fact I think he's said something to that effect in the past.

The Zenyatta camp must think Rail Trip could probably beat her as well otherwise they would have given him a try.
Andy, Andy -- you're not helping CJ out with his "trainers don't know 'anything' (ok he said 'about other horses' but I projected)" point of view.
Facts:
Vanity was a GRADE I with purse of $250,000 against females
Californian was a GRADE II with purse of $150,000 against open company

Extension: You have a choice of entering in the following handicapping contests

Vanity - winner gets $150,000 and you toughest competitor is me
Californian - winner gets $90,000 and your toughest competitor is CJ.

You are going to enter the Californian because you want to prove that you are the BEST handicapper on this board this week?

OR - you enter the Vanity because you are confident you will win and know that you will have a chance to beat CJ later in the BC handicapping contest?

Trainers may not be great handicappers (although most successful trainers can tell when a horse is "one of the best ever"), but they know that 10 percent of $150.000 makes their wives happier than 10 percent of $90,000. (Not to mention, owners, grooms, etc.)

[Dahoss9698]

Andy, Andy -- you're not helping CJ out with his "trainers don't know 'anything' (ok he said 'about other horses' but I projected)" point of view.
Facts:
Vanity was a GRADE I with purse of $250,000 against females
Californian was a GRADE II with purse of $150,000 against open company

Extension: You have a choice of entering in the following handicapping contests

Vanity - winner gets $150,000 and you toughest competitor is me
Californian - winner gets $90,000 and your toughest competitor is CJ.

You are going to enter the Californian because you want to prove that you are the BEST handicapper on this board this week?

OR - you enter the Vanity because you are confident you will win and know that you will have a chance to beat CJ later in the BC handicapping contest?

Trainers may not be great handicappers (although most successful trainers can tell when a horse is "one of the best ever"), but they know that 10 percent of $150.000 makes their wives happier than 10 percent of $90,000. (Not to mention, owners, grooms, etc.)

So what is the excuse for skipping the Hollywood Gold Cup? Are you forgetting Shirreffs "mountain top" comments in reference to Rail Trip?

[andymays]

Andy, Andy -- you're not helping CJ out with his "trainers don't know 'anything' (ok he said 'about other horses' but I projected)" point of view.
Facts:
Vanity was a GRADE I with purse of $250,000 against females
Californian was a GRADE II with purse of $150,000 against open company

Extension: You have a choice of entering in the following handicapping contests

Vanity - winner gets $150,000 and you toughest competitor is me
Californian - winner gets $90,000 and your toughest competitor is CJ.

You are going to enter the Californian because you want to prove that you are the BEST handicapper on this board this week?

OR - you enter the Vanity because you are confident you will win and know that you will have a chance to beat CJ later in the BC handicapping contest?

Trainers may not be great handicappers (although most successful trainers can tell when a horse is "one of the best ever"), but they know that 10 percent of $150.000 makes their wives happier than 10 percent of $90,000. (Not to mention, owners, grooms, etc.)


That's all fine and good except the Mosses don't really care about the money. The said they brought her back to do something special. Something special isn't the Vanity or the Clement Hirsh. They should at least take on Rail Trip out here. Maybe they will go for it (head east) in the coming months and that's what they should do.

[born2ride]

For clarity: The point is there are MANY trainers who have seen Zenyatta run and HAVE publicly stated their opinions. It is an attempt to shed light on some opinions on this board that have an air or superiority. Example: Zenyatta on dirt. Most any trainer who knows John Sheriffs would tell you that if John says Zenyatta is better on dirt, you had better believe him. That's why even with the defection of Rachael @ Oaklawn Park, you still had such a small field. If this notion that Zenyatta is a "poly" horse had even a touch of truth to it, trainers would have been lining up, eager to beat her in the AB, both for the money and the prestige of defeating Zenyatta. The point is that trainers either have seen her run or they talk to other trainers that have seen her run. This has nothing to do with training methods. It has to do with people who make a living training horses and their publicly stated opinions regarding Zenyatta. The point is: why are there not trainers making statements like "Her "action" on the dirt at Oaklawn suggest that the surface is more difficult" That would not be a "knock", simply an observation. On the contrary, a few trainers did comment on how she moved more fluid on dirt. I am not saying that other opinions are wrong, I am just pointing out that what's missing from some positions is the the lack of trainers that share a similar view.

The large field that the AB drew at Oaklawn was solely because every horse would be guaranteed winnings, even the last place finisher, if both RA and Zen ran. RA's team pulled her from the race and many other horses were withdrawn because their horse would have to work for paycheck. How else can you explain that allowance horses were nominated to the race when its purse was $5m but they mysteriously disappeared when the purse was cut? It can't be Zen's presence that scared them away as they were willing to run against her when the purse was high.

[Show Me the Wire]

That's all fine and good except the Mosses don't really care about the money. The said they brought her back to do something special. Something special isn't the Vanity or the Clement Hirsh. They should at least take on Rail Trip out here. Maybe they will go for it (head east) in the coming months and that's what they should do.

Winning 17 in a row is something special.

[andymays]

Winning 17 in a row is something special.


Yes it is but doing it against weaker and ducking horses like Rail Trip cheapens the accomplishment just a little. Most people would have more respect for her if she tried the best and lost. Being undefeated is great and all but it's not everything.

[cpitt84]

Zenyatta's size and stride keeps her undefeated. She has to face a bigger horse near the finish line to lose. Her stride overcomes her opponents.

[born2ride]

actually carl has made a valid point and has shown proof that the thread has a good basis in FACT. unfortunatly it doesn't jive with your take on things. trainers have been avoiding zen for a couple years now. why? because she's a pretty fast racehorse, and they don't think they can win a purse when she is in the race.

I think it's more fair to say that trainers are avoiding the synthetic tracks on which Zen has run 15 times, rather than avoiding the mare herself. That does jives with the facts more. ;)

[Show Me the Wire]

Yes it is but doing it against weaker and ducking horses like Rail Trip cheapens the accomplishment just a little. Most people would have more respect for her if she tried the best and lost. Being undefeated is great and all but it's not everything.

Let's look at it this way, I don't feel the same as you.

Purple Power's posting about the economics of racing put everything into context.

What is even better is Del Mar started a face book page, after seeing Hollywood's Zenyatta's race day handle, pleading for Zenyatta to race at Del Mar. Priceless.

[JustRalph]

Here's a few for starters:
RONALD McANALLY (trainer of champion fillies Bayakoa and Paseana)
"I'm absolutely amazed that Zenyatta's done everything you would have asked of her. She's such a big, long-striding mare, and to win like she does, especially in the Santa Margarita when she was last turning for home and won going away, is remarkable. She's just a great mare. I'm amazed every time she runs. It's unbelievable.

"I think (John) Shirreffs has done a marvelous job with her, spacing her races and doing the right thing with her. I liked Zenyatta against Rachel Alexandra before the (Horse of the Year) voting and I liked her after the voting. I thought the Eastern voters made a big mistake making Rachel the Horse of the Year. The people back East have more votes than they have out here and I think they realize now that they made a huge mistake.

"I know Rachel wasn't fit enough to win her first out in New Orleans this year. I could see the handwriting on the wall right from the beginning. But even had she been fit and they ran together tomorrow in the Apple Blossom, to me there's no question that Zenyatta would have beaten her."

PAUL AGUIRRE
"I really thought that Rachel Alexandra deserved Horse of the Year, but at the same time, I never had any doubt in my mind, and I don't even need to see them run against each other, to know that she's not as good as Zenyatta.

"I've been around racing 30 years. There are things a lot of us trainers don't know, but we all know a freak when we see a freak, and Zenyatta stands head and shoulders above all the horses I've ever seen."

VLADIMIR CERIN
"I always thought Zenyatta would beat Rachel Alexandra on any surface, as long as it wasn't in a match race, where Rachel would get an easy lead. Zenyatta should have been Horse of the Year in 2009, because what she accomplished last year was enough to make her one of the all-time great race mares. Rachel Alexandra accomplished a lot, but we don't know if she's one of the all-time greats. So if you're one of the all-time greats, and the other one is or isn't, you should be Horse of the Year, no question about it.

"I'd like to see Rachel Alexandra do well and I'd love to see them compete against each other, but obviously, they're afraid of Zenyatta and they're not going to run against her."

Got any quotes from guys who don't eat Breakfast with John Shirreff's every morning at Clockers Corner ?

[PaceAdvantage]

That's all fine and good except the Mosses don't really care about the money. The said they brought her back to do something special. Something special isn't the Vanity or the Clement Hirsh. They should at least take on Rail Trip out here. Maybe they will go for it (head east) in the coming months and that's what they should do.Playing devil's advocate for a moment...perhaps the Mosses and Shirreffs have discovered that Zenyatta isn't a good shipper after all. They pretty much indicated as much after the Apple Blossom and in quotes since.

Thus, in order to do best by the horse, their plans have changed.

Not being a good shipper might also put her in greater jeopardy of losing at Churchill come Breeders' Cup time, but at least it will give her most ardent supporters a ready excuse should she lose.

[andymays]

Let's look at it this way, I don't feel the same as you.

Purple Power's posting about the economics of racing put everything into context.

What is even better is Del Mar started a face book page, after seeing Hollywood's Zenyatta's race day handle, pleading for Zenyatta to race at Del Mar. Priceless.

Someone posted this one too. Modern day marketing.

Zenyatta, don't run at Del Mar. Please!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Zenyatta-dont-run-at-Del-Mar-Please/130532536970599

[carlonr]

WHo doesn't think Zenyatta is very good though? Even the people here that question her all time status recognize that she is very good. It is possible to think she is very good and not the best all time.

It's like you only read what you want to read. Do all rabid Zenyatta fans have some secret playbook or something? You want negative opinions, or opinions that say she isn't an all timer. Numerous people have said trainers don't make comments like that in the media. You insist they do, but provide no examples.

I've asked three times now for an example of what you are looking for in regards to another horse. You keep ignoring it. But you are providing examples if trainers doing the complete opposite of what you are looking for.

The problem here is that YOU are the one defining what I am looking for. I have provided some examples. They just don't say what you want them to say. Your belief is they don't because of some unwritten trainer "code" that they are all abiding by. I disagree. I say that there are a significant number of trainers that do not think Zenyatta is as suspect as some on this board believe and have publicly stated so. Especially those who have seen here run and close the deal with her ears still signaling she has plenty more to give. I even provided some examples of trainers who said she would get beat under certain conditions. (again violating your treasured "code") My point now is that there is no code anyone is abiding by. Not many trainers are afraid to say something like "I don 't know if she could beat Quality Road @ 1 1/8 miles." On the contrary most trainers gladly give their opinions when asked.

[BetCrazyGirl]

I don't think you can put alot of emphasis into what trainers say. They'll say whatever is good for PR.

[andymays]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment...perhaps the Mosses and Shirreffs have discovered that Zenyatta isn't a good shipper after all. They pretty much indicated as much after the Apple Blossom and in quotes since.

Thus, in order to do best by the horse, their plans have changed.

Not being a good shipper might also put her in greater jeopardy of losing at Churchill come Breeders' Cup time, but at least it will give her most ardent supporters a ready excuse should she lose.

Just my opinion but it's probably true that she doesn't ship all that well although she's run well both times that she did. If their plans have changed then they should come out and say "that in order to do best by the horse our plans have changed".

I don't know but I think everyone expected her to take on all comers this year and people like myself are dissapointed that she isn't. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the connections implied that they would be more aggressive this year. Isn't that kind of why they brought her back in the first place?

After winning the Breeders' Cup Classic and beating one of the best fields ever according to some :rolleyes: you would think that she would do something similar to Goldikova and put on a show for everyone this year.

[DeanT]

If she ships east for her next one and then to the BC that would be three trips east. Would that be enough for you Andy, or would you want more?

[andymays]

If she ships east for her next one and then to the BC that would be three trips east. Would that be enough for you Andy, or would you want more?


I'll take that if you're asking.

Are you ready to reveal that you're really John Shirreffs? ;)

[DeanT]

Are you ready to reveal that you're really John Shirreffs? ;)
No, I am Bruce Dern :)

I think she will be going east, but just a guess. I cant see them racing at Del Mar. Not to mention, they started a Facebook page for cripes sake :)

[andymays]

No, I am Bruce Dern :)

I think she will be going east, but just a guess. I cant see them racing at Del Mar.


Del Mar will be pulling out all the stops to keep her down there. My gut feeling is that if the surface gets good reviews this meet they will stay there. Getting good reviews of that surface isn't easy. Most Trainers couldn't wait to leave last year.

[PurplePower]

So what is the excuse for skipping the Hollywood Gold Cup? Are you forgetting Shirreffs "mountain top" comments in reference to Rail Trip?
I was only addressing the Vanity-Californian decision. Which of the following would make the BC classic the most meaningful?

Avoids Rail Trip, wins 3 races against females to go 20-0 then faces Rail Trip, Quality Road and Rachel Alexandra in BC Classic?

Or - faces Rail Trip in Gold Cup and loses by a half-a-side, wins two preps against females and faces Rail Trip (et al) in BC classic at 19-1?

If I were her trainer or owner, that close to the record, I'd do what I could to achieve it. As a fan this year I want her to be 19-0 or 20-0 and face the demons in the BC Classic on the hallowed CD DIRT in November. I'd like her to come East and race on dirt for her prep for the BC, but if they choose to stay in California and race in Grade I's out there, I'll wait until the Classic and hope she wins.

[Dahoss9698]

The problem here is that YOU are the one defining what I am looking for. I have provided some examples. They just don't say what you want them to say. Your belief is they don't because of some unwritten trainer "code" that they are all abiding by. I disagree. I say that there are a significant number of trainers that do not think Zenyatta is as suspect as some on this board believe and have publicly stated so. Especially those who have seen here run and close the deal with her ears still signaling she has plenty more to give. I even provided some examples of trainers who said she would get beat under certain conditions. (again violating your treasured "code") My point now is that there is no code anyone is abiding by. Not many trainers are afraid to say something like "I don 't know if she could beat Quality Road @ 1 1/8 miles." On the contrary most trainers gladly give their opinions when asked.

The pro Zenyatta playbook also says you must ignore anything you have no rebuttal for. I'm just looking for ONE example of what you are talking about in regards to another horse in training. Heck, I'd even take a retired horse if it makes it easier. Should be easy if it is as common as you are making it.

I'm also waiting for an answer to the Goldikova synthetic question, but I'll give you a pass on that one.

I missed the ears stuff the first time also. That was a nice touch. What's next, you are going to tell me about her gallop outs?

[DeanT]

Reid,

I am sure one person who hopes you are right is Avioli :)

Could you imagine the ratings if she walks in there 19-0? Might be the best ever.

[PurplePower]

That's all fine and good except the Mosses don't really care about the money. The said they brought her back to do something special. Something special isn't the Vanity or the Clement Hirsh. They should at least take on Rail Trip out here. Maybe they will go for it (head east) in the coming months and that's what they should do.True about the money. And, she probably doesn't need anymore Grade I's to enhance her breeding stature, but in the rarefied air of Graded stakes races Grade I's mean more than Grade II's even if the Grade II is against males.

[carlonr]

The pro Zenyatta playbook also says you must ignore anything you have no rebuttal for. I'm just looking for ONE example of what you are talking about in regards to another horse in training. Heck, I'd even take a retired horse if it makes it easier. Should be easy if it is as common as you are making it.

I'm also waiting for an answer to the Goldikova synthetic question, but I'll give you a pass on that one.

I missed the ears stuff the first time also. That was a nice touch. What's next, you are going to tell me about her gallop outs?

I'm sorry,I consider Rachael Alexander and Rail Trip to be in training. I wasn't saying that Goldikova ran on synthetics. I was simply saying she came to California and ran. But since you mention it Gio Ponti (and if you followed this entire post , you know I am a huge fan of Gio Ponti) came to California to run in the Breeders Cup and there was no excuse about synthetics from their camp. They simply said they got beat by a better horse!

[Dahoss9698]

I'm sorry,I consider Rachael Alexander and Rail Trip to be in training. I wasn't saying that Goldikova ran on synthetics. I was simply saying she came to California and ran. But since you mention it Gio Ponti (and if you followed this entire post , you know I am a huge fan of Gio Ponti) came to California to run in the Breeders Cup and there was no excuse about synthetics from their camp. They simply said they got beat by a better horse!

At this point I'm pretty sure no one even knows what you are asking for. But whatever it is, you seem unable to provide an example. The entire premise of the thread is ridiculous.

Back to Goldikova for a second. I made a remark about her travelling and commended her connections. This was your response.

She's also proof that some horses can run great on synthetics AND even better on other surfaces!

How is this not saying Goldikova ran on synthetics? You made no comment about California at all.

[cpitt84]

Someone posted this one too. Modern day marketing.

Zenyatta, don't run at Del Mar. Please!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Zenyatta-dont-run-at-Del-Mar-Please/130532536970599

i saw that! i put in my advocation.

[PurplePower]

Reid,

I am sure one person who hopes you are right is Avioli :)

Could you imagine the ratings if she walks in there 19-0? Might be the best ever.
I'm sure he is. I'm not kidding when I say that if those 4 win out (can't face each other to do that, or course) and go in the Classic - plus a couple of Europeans, maybe Super Saver, Looking at Lucky and Drosslemeyer, Blame and a late bloomer or two -- Just that race alone would make 200,000 in attendance a real possibility. Not to mention the TV ratings. Might be the only time racing actually was some competition for College Football Saturday.

[carlonr]

At this point I'm pretty sure no one even knows what you are asking for. But whatever it is, you seem unable to provide an example. The entire premise of the thread is ridiculous.

Back to Goldikova for a second. I made a remark about her travelling and commended her connections. This was your response.



How is this not saying Goldikova ran on synthetics? You made no comment about California at all.

You're the only one who doesn't know. Regarding, Goldikova:here's my quote "Or if THE CHALLENGER'S connections were more like Goldikova's. Goldikova's connections came to California to run in two Breeder's Cup's. No excuses, they came , showed up and won. Once without Lasix and then with Lasix"

[carlonr]

At this point I'm pretty sure no one even knows what you are asking for. But whatever it is, you seem unable to provide an example. The entire premise of the thread is ridiculous.

Back to Goldikova for a second. I made a remark about her travelling and commended her connections. This was your response.



How is this not saying Goldikova ran on synthetics? You made no comment about California at all.


Your should just go back and read the entire thread from start to finish

[Dahoss9698]

You're the only one who doesn't know. Regarding, Goldikova:here's my quote "Or if THE CHALLENGER'S connections were more like Goldikova's. Goldikova's connections came to California to run in two Breeder's Cup's. No excuses, they came , showed up and won. Once without Lasix and then with Lasix"

So are you implying I made up the comment you made about Goldikova running on synth? It's right in the thread.

I went back and read that thread as well as this one. I have no idea what you are talking about in either.

First you start off by saying this

From what I've read, those who insist that Zenyatta needs to do "this, that, or the other" to achieve true greatness don' have the comments of thoroughbred trainers to back them up. The people who know racehorses the best are the people who spend every day with them. How many trainers support the notion that Zenyatta is not a cut above the rest? On the contrary, there are many trainers that have seen here run and openly state that she is a freak!

Your entire premise started out faulty. No one who thinks she should be given a chance to run against better horses doesn't think she isn't a cut above the rest. That is why we think she should be doing it, because she is a cut above the rest. She isn't the average mare. She's really, really good.

You are looking for a trainer to say she isn't. Who thinks she isn't? You are looking for a trainer to question her races or her place in history (something which can be viewed as a negative). When you are told trainers don't do that about others horses out loud in the press, you changed the terms. You said this

On the contrary, There are many trainers who have seen Zenyatta run who will and HAVE openly discussed their opinions regarding her. These stated opinions have been regarding Zenyatta in the singular and also in the context of "Zenyatta vs. others".

No one said trainers don't have opinions on other horses. Just not negative ones out loud. You seem to think no trainers in the world have any question marks about Zenyatta. Think about that for a second. It's insane. This is drooling fan syndrome at it's worst.

It's like you are having a conversation with yourself and the rest of us are trying to discuss the topic you started.

[PaceAdvantage]

No one who thinks she should be given a chance to run against better horses doesn't think she isn't a cut above the rest. That is why we think she should be doing it, because she is a cut above the rest. She isn't the average mare. She's really, really good.Not only is it amazing that many folks on here don't get this point, they actually accuse you of being disingenuous when you make it!!!

How messed up is that?

[cj]

Andy, Andy -- you're not helping CJ out with his "trainers don't know 'anything' (ok he said 'about other horses' but I projected)" point of view.


I think you are misreading what I'm saying, probably my fault. Most trainers take very good care of their horses, and I respect that. That does not mean they are all knowing about other horses on the backside. They are not handicappers. I've seen many trainers that bet, and I would bet very, very, very few show any type of profit even betting on their own horses.

I know a lot about betting, but couldn't put on a tongue tie. Being competent in one area doesn't automatically make someone competent in another area, but that is what the original poster is implying.

[carlonr]

So are you implying I made up the comment you made about Goldikova running on synth? It's right in the thread.

I went back and read that thread as well as this one. I have no idea what you are talking about in either.

First you start off by saying this



Your entire premise started out faulty. No one who thinks she should be given a chance to run against better horses doesn't think she isn't a cut above the rest. That is why we think she should be doing it, because she is a cut above the rest. She isn't the average mare. She's really, really good.

You are looking for a trainer to say she isn't. Who thinks she isn't? You are looking for a trainer to question her races or her place in history (something which can be viewed as a negative). When you are told trainers don't do that about others horses out loud in the press, you changed the terms. You said this



No one said trainers don't have opinions on other horses. Just not negative ones out loud. You seem to think no trainers in the world have any question marks about Zenyatta. Think about that for a second. It's insane. This is drooling fan syndrome at it's worst.

It's like you are having a conversation with yourself and the rest of us are trying to discuss the topic you started.

I will end this by saying: For the last time , you just don't get it. I specifically said to "ACHEIVE GREATNESS" This does not apply to those who think she is great but would like to see a different campaign. It does apply to those who insit she is not great. READ THE WORDS: ACHEIVE GREATNESS!!!

In addition: I have never met a trainer who when asked would not gladly rank horses! These would not be negative comments just ranking. Again those in the camp that say Zenyatta has not achieved greatness should be able to find a trainer that say something like "Shes good but I would not rank her in the top 10 of all time" Again, the key words are ACHEIVE GREATNESS

[carlonr]

IMO you or anyone else who thinks Zenyatta should run against better horses should be just as adamant that these "better horses" ship to run against her!

[cj]

IMO you or anyone else who thinks Zenyatta should run against better horses should be just as adamant that these "better horses" ship to run against her!

Again, for the 100th time, they can't. She is racing in races for females only. I won't even get into the surface.

[carlonr]

Again, for the 100th time, they can't. She is racing in races for females only. I won't even get into the surface.

The last time I checked Rachel Alexandra was female. The last time I checked Rachael Alexandra has raced and won on a synthetic surface at Keenland. Zenyatta did her part by shipping to Oaklawn. Why aren't you and others clamoring for Rachael to ship this time?

[DeanT]

The last time I checked Rachel Alexandra was female. The last time I checked Rachael Alexandra has raced and won on a synthetic surface at Keenland.
As Chick posted, that is why the surface has trumped all and everything for some, especially where Rachel meeting Z is concerned. Their meeting last year was there for them - the BC. Rachel did not go. For some who hate the surface this was splendid - it made them happy she did not go as it validated their hatred for the surface.

If we look rationally, we see a horse who should have been there (she was 1 for 1 on a similar surface, and horses like QR shipped to the BC on synth, not caught up in it), but she will get a pass. Rachel not shipping 3000 miles for the most prestigious and richest end of year race in NA is fine, Z not shipping to Belmont or Saratoga is heresy. Therein lies the disconnect in the argument.

[FenceBored]

The last time I checked Rachel Alexandra was female. The last time I checked Rachael Alexandra has raced and won on a synthetic surface at Keenland. Zenyatta did her part by shipping to Oaklawn. Why aren't you and others clamoring for Rachael to ship this time?


Why don't we all clamor for Mr. Tsui to unretire Sea the Stars and ship him to Churchill for the Breeders Cup? :jump:

[Dahoss9698]

As Chick posted, that is why the surface has trumped all and everything for some, especially where Rachel meeting Z is concerned. Their meeting last year was there for them - the BC. Rachel did not go. For some who hate the surface this was splendid - it made them happy she did not go as it validated their hatred for the surface.

If we look rationally, we see a horse who should have been there (she was 1 for 1 on a similar surface, and horses like QR shipped to the BC on synth, not caught up in it), but she will get a pass. Rachel not shipping 3000 miles for the most prestigious and richest end of year race in NA is fine, Z not shipping to Belmont or Saratoga is heresy. Therein lies the disconnect in the argument.

Rachel was never under consideration for the BC because of the surface. Her campaign was constructed with the idea that she was not going to the BC. Again, we can choose to ignore that fact or bring up that she won a sprint at Keeneland (because we all know how predictable that surface is :rolleyes: ) but Jess Jackson made it known very early she was not going there.

It's not about giving someone a pass. No dirt horses want to ship to California, unless it is of course the BC. Because of the surface. That is the disconnect. People want to gloss over the surface issue and it's sort of mind boggling. It would be like wondering why Gio Ponti isn't running in the BC Classic this year.

[Dahoss9698]

I will end this by saying: For the last time , you just don't get it. I specifically said to "ACHEIVE GREATNESS" This does not apply to those who think she is great but would like to see a different campaign. It does apply to those who insit she is not great. READ THE WORDS: ACHEIVE GREATNESS!!!

In addition: I have never met a trainer who when asked would not gladly rank horses! These would not be negative comments just ranking. Again those in the camp that say Zenyatta has not achieved greatness should be able to find a trainer that say something like "Shes good but I would not rank her in the top 10 of all time" Again, the key words are ACHEIVE GREATNESS

No, I get it. All to well I get it.

[carlonr]

Rachel was never under consideration for the BC because of the surface. Her campaign was constructed with the idea that she was not going to the BC. Again, we can choose to ignore that fact or bring up that she won a sprint at Keeneland (because we all know how predictable that surface is :rolleyes: ) but Jess Jackson made it known very early she was not going there.

It's not about giving someone a pass. No dirt horses want to ship to California, unless it is of course the BC. Because of the surface. That is the disconnect. People want to gloss over the surface issue and it's sort of mind boggling. It would be like wondering why Gio Ponti isn't running in the BC Classic this year.

Your theory holds true for dirt horses, but not for horses that have run on synthetics. The surface issue was an excuse in Rachael Alexandra's case. However, if one has an aversion to synthetics themselves, then they will buy into that excuse. I guess I just don't understand why some people treat the surface excuse the same as if Rachael Alexandra had never raced and WON on synthetic.

[Dahoss9698]

Your theory holds true for dirt horses, but not for horses that have run on synthetics. The surface issue was an excuse in Rachael Alexandra's case. However, if one has an aversion to synthetics themselves, then they will buy into that excuse. I guess I just don't understand why some people treat the surface excuse the same as if Rachael Alexandra had never raced and WON on synthetic.

So a sprint win as a 2 year old means Rachel Alexandra isn't a dirt horse? She's a dirt horse. Dirt horses did terrible at the BC at Santa Anita both years. That is a fact.

I'm of the opinion that is the BC was held at a track with dirt last year, her schedule would have had the BC on it. Her connections made it known she would not be running because of the surface very early on.

[FenceBored]

Your theory holds true for dirt horses, but not for horses that have run on synthetics. The surface issue was an excuse in Rachael Alexandra's case. However, if one has an aversion to synthetics themselves, then they will buy into that excuse. I guess I just don't understand why some people treat the surface excuse the same as if Rachael Alexandra had never raced and WON on synthetic.

I guess I just don't understand why some people can't grasp that a change in ownership means a change in the races to which a horse might be pointed.

[carlonr]

I guess I just don't understand why some people can't grasp that a change in ownership means a change in the races to which a horse might be pointed.

A change in ownership has validity. Saying a horse can't handle the surface with a win on it does not.

[DeanT]

I guess I just don't understand why some people can't grasp that a change in ownership means a change in the races to which a horse might be pointed.
Very true. But how about some consistency on how we treat those owners decisions?

Jess Jackson: "I am not going to the BC because those tracks are dangerous"

Probably one of the most bizarre statements an owner can make on why he does not want to go somewhere. Hate synth for many reasons, a lot of them valid, but being dangerous is insane.

We heard "way to go Jess! Stick it to em!"

Quality Road's connections: "We are pointing to the BC so he will race only once every 100 days. The BC is the goal"

We hear : "Smart move. We cant race horses like they used to. He needs time between starts if we want to see him in the BC"

Z's connections: "We have always tried to keep her fresh for a long career. We have tons of grade ones at home here, so we are trying to take advantage of that. We are not going to ship for the sake of shipping. We will ship her to the BC because that is the goal."

We hear: Well no need to rehash it. There are 250 pages of posts about them.

I'm not asking for anything - it is a free country. But some consistency on this matter would be refreshing.

[Dahoss9698]

A change in ownership has validity. Saying a horse can't handle the surface with a win on it does not.

A win at Keeneland doesn't mean she will handle Pro Ride. But who said she can't handle it?

[Dahoss9698]

Very true. But how about some consistency on how we treat those owners decisions?

Jess Jackson: "I am not going to the BC because those tracks are dangerous"

Probably one of the most bizarre statements an owner can make on why he does not want to go somewhere. Hate synth for many reasons, a lot of them valid, but being dangerous is insane.

We heard "way to go Jess! Stick it to em!"

Quality Road's connections: "We are pointing to the BC so he will race only once every 100 days. The BC is the goal"

We hear : "Smart move. We cant race horses like they used to. He needs time between starts if we want to see him in the BC"

Z's connections: "We have always tried to keep her fresh for a long career. We have tons of grade ones at home here, so we are trying to take advantage of that. We are not going to ship for the sake of shipping. We will ship her to the BC because that is the goal."

We hear: Well no need to rehash it. There are 250 pages of posts about them.

I'm not asking for anything - it is a free country. But some consistency on this matter would be refreshing.

Nothing like being objective. :rolleyes:

[senortout]

I can't name any specific trainers by name, but I assure you, they do express their knowledge of and appreciation of the abilities of horses (beyond those they train.) They grant admiration by refusing to face those most feared!

"missing at the entry box were........"

senortout

[JustRalph]

A change in ownership has validity. Saying a horse can't handle the surface with a win on it does not.

If you think Keeneland is anything like the other fake ground up fan belt tracks, you are wrong. All of these poly surfaces are different.

If she were mine........never would she run in Ca.

[FenceBored]

Very true. But how about some consistency on how we treat those owners decisions?

Jess Jackson: "I am not going to the BC because those tracks are dangerous"

Probably one of the most bizarre statements an owner can make on why he does not want to go somewhere. Hate synth for many reasons, a lot of them valid, but being dangerous is insane.

We heard "way to go Jess! Stick it to em!"


I interpreted Jackson's statement a little less literally than you did and more as a tongue in cheek ironic brushback of the "if you don't run on synthetic, you want to injure horses" sentiment.


Quality Road's connections: "We are pointing to the BC so he will race only once every 100 days. The BC is the goal"

We hear : "Smart move. We cant race horses like they used to. He needs time between starts if we want to see him in the BC"


365/100=3.65. Well, since he's already raced 3 times this year and they're going to run in the BC (as well as a race or two before it) I'd say he's going to be overworked, wouldn't you? :D


Z's connections: "We have always tried to keep her fresh for a long career. We have tons of grade ones at home here, so we are trying to take advantage of that. We are not going to ship for the sake of shipping. We will ship her to the BC because that is the goal."

We hear: Well no need to rehash it. There are 250 pages of posts about them.

I'm not asking for anything - it is a free country. But some consistency on this matter would be refreshing.

You don't want consistency. Do you want me to point out thread after thread blasting Jackson for not sending Rachel to the BC last year? Gee, if it was fine for some people to rip Jackson a new one last year, I don't see why Moss and Shirreffs can't take their turn. That's consistency.

I defended Moss and Shirreffs last year for their campaign, because it made sense: the BC was in CA on synthetic, why ship across the country to run on a different surface. This year, the BC is not in CA, not on synthetic. The same rationale that made it a good idea to stay in CA last year says that its a good idea to relocate her to the eastern half of the US for some part of the fall. That is consistency.

[DeanT]

I defended Moss and Shirreffs last year for their campaign, because it made sense: the BC was in CA on synthetic, why ship across the country to run on a different surface. This year, the BC is not in CA, not on synthetic. The same rationale that made it a good idea to stay in CA last year says that its a good idea to relocate her to the eastern half of the US for some part of the fall. That is consistency.
Most excellent. I think you were the exception however.

Rationally Rachel and Z had two different years last year - one pointing to the BC and one who's super bowl ended up being the Woodward. Two different horses, two different ages, two different schedules. Comparing them and their schedules last year was specious from the very beginning.

This year we see both mares pointing to the same thing - the BC. We will likely see similar schedules; at least that's what the tea leaves tell us. They will more than likely race mares until the end of the year, when they hopefully will be in the Classic. Zenyatta is likely not going to prep for the BC against QR, nor should she. Neither will Rachel, nor should she.

That does not mean that Jess Jackson has turned from "sportsman" to "ducker" in a matter of months, it means he is managing his mare properly, just like JS has done the past two seasons, when he had the same goal Jackson has this year.

The fly in the ointment is east versus west and synth versus dirt. Rachel is stationed at Saratoga this summer and there are 10 racetracks within five or six hours for her to go to, on dirt. Great, expect herto easily race at one of those, not come to California. Z has her racetracks, which are all synth within stomping grounds where she is stationed. She is not going to ship to Yavapai to race on dirt there to appease someone. And it makes little sense to go many miles to do similar when the long term goal is CD.

If RA does not race QR next time even though she is stabled 50 feet away from the starting gate at Saratoga, she aint ducking, she is pointing. If Z does not race QR next time 3000 miles away, she is not ducking either. I wish we would see more common sense on that.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... She is not going to ship to Yavapai to race on dirt there to appease someone...

That's because they are ducking speed biased surfaces. Chicken... it's only $50 to nominate to the Willow Lakes HCP...

:p

[wisconsin]

Come on, now.....

She would have to go in the "Mile-Hi" because the purse is higher, and it's against the boys.... ;)

[Grits]

Most excellent. I think you were the exception however.

Rationally Rachel and Z had two different years last year - one pointing to the BC and one who's super bowl ended up being the Woodward. Two different horses, two different ages, two different schedules. Comparing them and their schedules last year was specious from the very beginning.

This year we see both mares pointing to the same thing - the BC. We will likely see similar schedules; at least that's what the tea leaves tell us. They will more than likely race mares until the end of the year, when they hopefully will be in the Classic. Zenyatta is likely not going to prep for the BC against QR, nor should she. Neither will Rachel, nor should she.

That does not mean that Jess Jackson has turned from "sportsman" to "ducker" in a matter of months, it means he is managing his mare properly, just like JS has done the past two seasons, when he had the same goal Jackson has this year.

The fly in the ointment is east versus west and synth versus dirt. Rachel is stationed at Saratoga this summer and there are 10 racetracks within five or six hours for her to go to, on dirt. Great, expect herto easily race at one of those, not come to California. Z has her racetracks, which are all synth within stomping grounds where she is stationed. She is not going to ship to Yavapai to race on dirt there to appease someone. And it makes little sense to go many miles to do similar when the long term goal is CD.

If RA does not race QR next time even though she is stabled 50 feet away from the starting gate at Saratoga, she aint ducking, she is pointing. If Z does not race QR next time 3000 miles away, she is not ducking either. I wish we would see more common sense on that.

Dean, you're still the best here in the role of sitting down at the table, coming to the decision, "its time to move foreward. Let's think this out, all rhetoric aside. This is the reality of now, of the present, not what's behind us, but what's before us."

One doesn't know what you do for a living, but you're not an attorney, you're not a real estate mogul, you're not a hard nosed, bottom line interest only businessman--stepping on others on his way to the top--all the while noting a scenario in ONLY one way. You can't be. You have to be attached somehow to working on solutions involving the input, the opinions of others. If not, you certainly should be.

[thaskalos]

Dean, you're still the best here in the role of sitting down at the table, coming to the decision, "its time to move foreward. Let's think this out, all rhetoric aside. This is the reality of now, of the present, not what's behind us, but what's before us."

One doesn't know what you do for a living, but you're not an attorney, you're not a real estate mogul, you're not a hard nosed, bottom line interest only businessman--stepping on others on his way to the top--all the while noting a scenario in ONLY one way. You can't be. You have to be attached somehow to working on solutions involving the input, the opinions of others. If not, you certainly should be. We agree with your assessment of Dean's qualities...but you neglected to comment on his main points!

Do you feel that Zenyatta's campaign is reasonable given the circumstances...or do you still feel that her trainer's part in the "Zenyatta movie" should be played by Nathan Lane...donning a tutu?

[PaceAdvantage]

A change in ownership has validity. Saying a horse can't handle the surface with a win on it does not.they never stated she couldn't handle it...Jess Jackson became a non-fan of synthetics after Curlin's run in 2008. That is a well known fact of which you should be aware.

[Pick6]

Horses don't know much about other people's horses. To think they do is pretty silly. Hell, they hardly know how their own horses will run.
I wish Robert Frankel were alive to get a chuckle out of this.

[PaceAdvantage]

Jess Jackson: "I am not going to the BC because those tracks are dangerous"

Probably one of the most bizarre statements an owner can make on why he does not want to go somewhere. Hate synth for many reasons, a lot of them valid, but being dangerous is insane. It's not bizarre at all. I believe someone is a big fan of trainer statements in this thread. Let's ask this person to dig up some statements from trainers illustrating the rash of soft tissue and hind-end injuries over synthetic surfaces.

It has been well documented that there was evidence of an increase of these types of injuries in California once they started racing over the AWS.

Thus, DANGEROUS, in this instance for Jess Jackson, may constitute a non-life-threatening but CAREER-ENDING injury...something that ANYONE who owns a horse would love to avoid if possible...is that bizarre and unreasonable?

I'm not saying that is THE reason for him saying what he said, but it surely is a reasonable explanation.

[DeanT]

Thus, DANGEROUS, in this instance for Jess Jackson, may constitute a non-life-threatening but CAREER-ENDING injury...something that ANYONE who owns a horse would love to avoid if possible...is that bizarre and unreasonable?

Your point would have more credibility if Jess had scratched Rachel for the Haskell on sloppy and sealed - which is more dangerous than any Santa Anita track is or was. Avoiding the track was his motive, but not for injury. He can do what he wants because it is his horse, but there was no need for the 'dangerous' nonsense.

[andymays]

Your point would have more credibility if Jess had scratched Rachel for the Haskell on sloppy and sealed - which is more dangerous than any Santa Anita track is or was. Avoiding the track was his motive, but not for injury. He can do what he wants because it is his horse, but there was no need for the 'dangerous' nonsense.

This year the Santa Anita surface was safer as far as fatalities but not soft tissue injuries. In prior years it was not all that safe.

[PaceAdvantage]

Your point would have more credibility if Jess had scratched Rachel for the Haskell on sloppy and sealed - which is more dangerous than any Santa Anita track is or was. Avoiding the track was his motive, but not for injury. He can do what he wants because it is his horse, but there was no need for the 'dangerous' nonsense.Was I wrong to reference the reports of increased soft tissue and hind-end injuries in California, reports that came from trainers themselves I believe? Would you not call that dangerous?

Even today, team Zenyatta is referencing problems with Del Mar's surface that is causing them to seriously consider NOT racing there this summer.

Is there evidence of increased injury over sloppy and sealed racetracks?

Like I said, this may or may not have been in Jackson's mind when he used the word 'dangerous'...but I'm not sure how you can say using the word dangerous is nonsense in the face of what I just wrote about.

[DeanT]

Is there evidence of increased injury over sloppy and sealed racetracks?

Yes. They are hard as rocks as well. As most folks have said, inconsistency in the surface trumps most things with injury.

Anecdotally, last year's Haskell Day was not a safe day.

Two jockeys hurt, horse euthanized

OCEANPORT, N.J. -- Two jockeys were injured, one horse was euthanized, and three of the biggest turf stakes of the meeting were moved to the main track Sunday on a rainy Haskell Day at Monmouth Park.

Jockey Fabrizio Jimenez suffered multiple fractures of his right leg, a fractured right hip, and a possible ankle fracture after his mount, Ballado Alert clipped heels with another horse entering the first turn of the fourth race. Jimenez was taken to Jersey Shore Trauma Center in Neptune for evaluation and probable surgery.

There was no report immediately available on Ballado Alert.

One race later, in a race run over a sloppy main track, jockey Pedro Cotto was unseated when his horse, Tale of Victory, suffered a fatal breakdown to a front leg down the backside. Cotto was sent to Jersey Shore Trauma Center for precautionary X-rays of his abdomen and back, according to Dr. Angelo Chinnici, Medical Director at Monmouth Park.

Tale of Victory was euthanized.

[andymays]

Jackson didn't send Rachel to run on Pro Ride because she most likely would have ran poorly over it. Running on Pro Ride is like running on turf.

[Pick6]

Jackson didn't send Rachel to run on Pro Ride because she most likely would have ran poorly over it. Running on Pro Ride is like running on turf.
I believe if the 2009 BCC was contested at CD RA's handlers would still have skipped it.

[Dahoss9698]

Anecdotally, last year's Haskell Day was not a safe day.

This isn't a fair statement.

[andymays]

I believe if the 2009 BCC was contested at CD RA's handlers would still have skipped it.


She may have been knocked out from her campaign but there was always 0 chance she was going to run on Pro Ride.

If the 2009 Classic were run at Churchill and Zenyatta went there and the track came up sloppy would she have scratched again?

[Dahoss9698]

I believe if the 2009 BCC was contested at CD RA's handlers would still have skipped it.

I believe you are incorrect.

[Grits]

We agree with your assessment of Dean's qualities...but you neglected to comment on his main points!

Do you feel that Zenyatta's campaign is reasonable given the circumstances...or do you still feel that her trainer's part in the "Zenyatta movie" should be played by Nathan Lane...donning a tutu?

And have no intention of commenting on his points this evening. I'm sorry, I'm weary of all of it.

You all are doing just fine. Not that it matters one whit . . . maybe tomorrow I'll feel differently. Apparently, you didn't read my post of this morning--I'm not, and never have I been, into a great amount or debating or arguing.

Thanks.

[Pick6]

I believe you are incorrect.
Nobody cares what trolls believe. But you are free to discover that on your own. Now move on please.

[Pick6]

She may have been knocked out from her campaign but there was always 0 chance she was going to run on Pro Ride.

If the 2009 Classic were run at Churchill and Zenyatta went there and the track came up sloppy would she have scratched again?
We will obviously never know about RA in 2009. Everyone was convinced she did enough with her campaign, so where was the risk/reward?

IRT Zenyatta, apply that to BCC 2010. Would you fault her handlers for scratching her from an unsafe surface?

[andymays]

We will obviously never know about RA in 2009. Everyone was convinced she did enough with her campaign, so where was the risk/reward?

IRT Zenyatta, apply that to BCC 2010. Would you fault her handlers for scratching her from an unsafe surface?

Why would it be unsafe?

I'm pretty sure Churchill didn't have a fatality for at least the first 26 days of the meet when I last checked?

[Pick6]

Why would it be unsafe?

I'm pretty sure Churchill didn't have a fatality for at least the first 26 days of the meet when I last checked?
So you think a sloppy/sealed track does not pose a risk not present in a normal track condition?

[Dahoss9698]

Nobody cares what trolls believe. But you are free to discover that on your own. Now move on please.

I'm a troll? That's rich.

[andymays]

So you think a sloppy/sealed track does not pose a risk not present in a normal track condition?


Everthing poses a risk. A workout poses a risk. Some things are more risky than others.

The troll stuff in your post #141 doesn't get the thread anywhere does it?

[Pick6]

Everthing poses a risk. A workout poses a risk. Some things are more risky than others.

The troll stuff in your post #141 doesn't get the thread anywhere does it?
I posed the question: "So you think a sloppy/sealed track does not pose a risk not present in a normal track condition?" In other words, if there are addtional risks with a sloppy/sealed track not present in normal track condtions, does that constitute a legitimate reason to scratch a horse, specifically Z in the 2010 BCC? All of us [should] understand there exist intrinsic (read: unavoidable) risks involved with racing, but that is not my question.

And how does one properly respond to a troll so he moves on and stops tarding up the thread?

[andymays]

I posed the question: "So you think a sloppy/sealed track does not pose a risk not present in a normal track condition?" In other words, if there are addtional risks with a sloppy/sealed track not present in normal track condtions, does that constitute a legitimate reason to scratch a horse, specifically Z in the 2010 BCC? All of us [should] understand there exist intrinsic (read: unavoidable) risks involved with racing, but that is not my question.

And how does one properly respond to a troll so he moves on and stops tarding up the thread?

If you want me to respond you need to knock off the troll crap. If not then have a good day.

[Pick6]

That was my intent. I appreciate trolling apparently about as much as you do.

[Spalding No!]

I posed the question: "So you think a sloppy/sealed track does not pose a risk not present in a normal track condition?" In other words, if there are addtional risks with a sloppy/sealed track not present in normal track condtions, does that constitute a legitimate reason to scratch a horse, specifically Z in the 2010 BCC?

If you believe it to be a legitimate reason to scratch the horse, then shouldn't all the other horses scratch as well?

Would Team Zenyatta really be scratching her because of the "new" risk involved, or merely because they're unsure she would handle the off going?

[DeanT]

If a horse stinks on slop, or yielding, or poly, I personally dont mind any owner scratching. Really, they only have five or six kicks at the can a year, so as a player and fan I don't much want to see them race when they are not going to be able to show their best. If Rachel stinks on poly, not racing her there is fine with me. If Z does not want slop, scratch her. I want to see superstars race where they will do best.

I know a lot of people disagree and would call them duckers etc, but that's my opinion.

I just want them to be straight with us as fans. When JJ was asked about the BC way back in June last year he said this:

Jackson said it is his disdain for synthetic surfaces that most likely would keep the two horses from meeting this season.

“I’m pretty much ‘anti’ all of them,” Jackson said of artificial surfaces. “I saw Curlin and how he struggled [at Santa Anita]. If it’s a dirt horse, it’s a dirt horse.

“Plastic favors turf horses. I’ve raced at Hollywood [Park], Del Mar, of course at Keeneland [Race Course] … all vary the normal handicapping potential of a good dirt horse, and Rachel is a good dirt horse.”

He was straight with us. He hated them, Curlin lost, "a good dirt horse should race on dirt."

It's when he changed his tune later (when he was pressed to go by the media and fans) and added the "dangerous" talk that I lost respect for his argument. There was, imo, no need for that. His case above was fine. He's the one who shelled out the GDP of Chad for the horse; if he dont like poly, he does not have to race there.

If Z's connections dont like slop, scratch her too, just like at CD. Just dont snow us with some crazy story.

[Pick6]

If you believe it to be a legitimate reason to scratch the horse, then shouldn't all the other horses scratch as well?
Do all horses react the same way to non-normal track conditions?

Would Team Zenyatta really be scratching her because of the "new" risk involved, or merely because they're unsure she would handle the off going?
Unsure implies an additional element of risk, no?

[Spalding No!]

Unsure implies an additional element of risk, no?

Sure.

But we're still talking about athletic endeavors here, right?

Or are we baking a cake?

[Pick6]

No, I cannot recall anyone here posting anything about baking a cake.

[Spalding No!]

No, I cannot recall anyone here posting anything about baking a cake.

Good, 'cause I don't think conditions in a horserace are ever going to be ideal enough to know the outcome beforehand, certainly not when we're talking about championship events.

Perhaps Team Zenyatta would do better in the WWE.

[Fastracehorse]

Not much more to say. People are free to have whatever opinions they want. I am only pointing out that of all of the comments by trainers regarding Zenyatta, there are few if any that subscribe to the theory that she is not a superhorse.

...............she is amazing.

I marveled at her rally getting St. Trinians.

fffastt

[Pick6]

Good, 'cause I don't think conditions in a horserace are ever going to be ideal enough to know the outcome beforehand, certainly not when we're talking about championship events.

Perhaps Team Zenyatta would do better in the WWE.
Strawman argument. We all know nothing is certain. It is the risk/reward of competing that defines if one should participate in the event.

Obviously a number of respected trainers with valuable horses participated in the 2009 and 2010 BC races on wax. It was their belief that the reward of participating was worth the risk. Jackson did not.

[andymays]

Strawman argument. We all know nothing is certain. It is the risk/reward of competing that defines if one should participate in the event.

Obviously a number of respected trainers with valuable horses participated in the 2009 and 2010 BC races on wax. It was their belief that the reward of participating was worth the risk. Jackson did not.

No wax in Pro Ride.

[Dahoss9698]

No, I cannot recall anyone here posting anything about baking a cake.

We've seen your ideas on how a rabbit impacts a race. Baking might be a better topic for you to discuss. It has to be better than your horse racing opinion.

[Dahoss9698]

And how does one properly respond to a troll so he moves on and stops tarding up the thread?

Uh oh.

[Pick6]

Thanks for your contributions, again. Do you get paid to troll here?

[Pick6]

No wax in Pro Ride.
"Wax" is a slang term used to describe artificial racing surfaces.

[Dahoss9698]

Thanks for your contributions, again. Do you get paid to troll here?

Yes. When is the next time you will be banned and are you going to whine about it when you come back again?

[Pick6]

I'll let you take that road.

[Grits]

Uh oh.

No Dh, not uh oh, just unfortunate.

[BetCrazyGirl]

"Wax" is a slang term used to describe artificial racing surfaces.

I thought plastic was the term.

[carlonr]

I interpreted Jackson's statement a little less literally than you did and more as a tongue in cheek ironic brushback of the "if you don't run on synthetic, you want to injure horses" sentiment.



365/100=3.65. Well, since he's already raced 3 times this year and they're going to run in the BC (as well as a race or two before it) I'd say he's going to be overworked, wouldn't you? :D



You don't want consistency. Do you want me to point out thread after thread blasting Jackson for not sending Rachel to the BC last year? Gee, if it was fine for some people to rip Jackson a new one last year, I don't see why Moss and Shirreffs can't take their turn. That's consistency.

I defended Moss and Shirreffs last year for their campaign, because it made sense: the BC was in CA on synthetic, why ship across the country to run on a different surface. This year, the BC is not in CA, not on synthetic. The same rationale that made it a good idea to stay in CA last year says that its a good idea to relocate her to the eastern half of the US for some part of the fall. That is consistency.

But what if you already know your horse performs better on dirt?

[Spalding No!]

But what if you already know your horse performs better on dirt?

In that case, you just sit around at home, ocassionally squaring off against cream puffs, waiting for the last big race of the season to come along, hoping that a few of your main rivals stub their toe for one reason or another along the way, making sure there's a viable reason for you to even make the effort while looking in every nook and cranny for a way out of it, and then when it appears there is no other recourse, cross your heart and put your feet in the water.

Epilogue: Make sure you save up some cash so you can pay off some key industry people to start a no holds barred campaign letting everyone know your the best, the greatest, the ultimate, the unbelievable, all the while standing in front of a mirror at home practicing your "Home Alone" face to show off in public when they tell you you didn't get Horse of the Year.

Oh, and don't forget to let Sting out of his "gimp" box down in the basement on the day of the awards ceremony.

[chickenhead]

Jess Jackson is a Sonoma County guy. Sonoma County Fair is dirt, and fits both their schedules for their next race, perfectly. A short van ride for the big Z. Could probably even stuff Vic in the van so he could call the race.

I'm just saying.

[PurplePower]

I think you are misreading what I'm saying, probably my fault. Most trainers take very good care of their horses, and I respect that. That does not mean they are all knowing about other horses on the backside. They are not handicappers. I've seen many trainers that bet, and I would bet very, very, very few show any type of profit even betting on their own horses.

I know a lot about betting, but couldn't put on a tongue tie. Being competent in one area doesn't automatically make someone competent in another area, but that is what the original poster is implying.
I agree with you about the handicapping (and most trainers probably would too). There are a few that handicap well and some use that information to claim horses.

I interpreted your comment to mean that, since trainers do not know anything about handicapping, their comments about Zenyatta (or Rachel or Quality Road - any horse) cannot be considered worthwhile. Most of the time when trainers make comments about these horses they are not doing so based on what they read in the past performances. In fact, the old adage, "horses don't read the racing form" can be applied here, too. Trainers generally do have the ability to look at a horse and recognize the qualities of confidence, fitness, determination and superior racing ability. Last Saturday I only saw Rail Trip on TV (in paddock). I did not know his pedigree or past performance record but I rewound DVR and started tape so I can show it in Trainers' Exam Prep class as "THIS is what I'm talking about" when we're discussing how to visually evaluate a horse's ability and readiness to race.

By the way - anyone notice how TERRIBLE St Trinians action is? That is one of fastest spraddle-legged runners I have seen recently.

[cj]

As Chick posted, that is why the surface has trumped all and everything for some, especially where Rachel meeting Z is concerned. Their meeting last year was there for them - the BC. Rachel did not go. For some who hate the surface this was splendid - it made them happy she did not go as it validated their hatred for the surface.

If we look rationally, we see a horse who should have been there (she was 1 for 1 on a similar surface, and horses like QR shipped to the BC on synth, not caught up in it), but she will get a pass. Rachel not shipping 3000 miles for the most prestigious and richest end of year race in NA is fine, Z not shipping to Belmont or Saratoga is heresy. Therein lies the disconnect in the argument.

There is a big difference between skipping a race after a very long and tough campaign and cherry picking a few races here and there during a light campaign.

[PaceAdvantage]

It's when he changed his tune later (when he was pressed to go by the media and fans) and added the "dangerous" talk that I lost respect for his argument. There was, imo, no need for that. His case above was fine. He's the one who shelled out the GDP of Chad for the horse; if he dont like poly, he does not have to race there.Just out of curiosity, when exactly was it when those stories of hind end and soft tissue injuries started cropping up in California, from the mouths of trainers themselves. I bet andymays knows the answer to this question. If it dovetails nicely with Jackson's "dangerous" comment, then all will be explained.

[Grits]

By the way - anyone notice how TERRIBLE St Trinians action is? That is one of fastest spraddle-legged runners I have seen recently.

Someone else, I cannot remember who, did note his leg action in one of these gazillion threads around here, somewhere. LOL

[PaceAdvantage]

By the way - anyone notice how TERRIBLE St Trinians action is? That is one of fastest spraddle-legged runners I have seen recently.Yup, and she ain't much to look at when she's not running either. But then again, the same applies to me... :lol:

[PurplePower]

Rachel was never under consideration for the BC because of the surface ..........
That is not a true statement. In order for it to be true you must add the words "after Jess Jackson bought her". My youngest son was Hal Wiggins' assistant trainer for 7 years and was in the barn with Rachel A. from the time she arrived as a 2-year old until the Wednesday after the Oaks. A plan was mapped that would take her to the Acorn, possibly the triple tiara, but if she dominated in the Acorn as she did in the Oaks, the Haskell-Travers were considered for next two races, Keeneland opening weekend for her BC prep and then HOY showdown with Zen. That was the plan. Jess Jackson, the "great sportsman" is the person who took that possibility out of consideration.

[PurplePower]

I believe if the 2009 BCC was contested at CD RA's handlers would still have skipped it.
Rachel LOVED CD and that was (and is) obvious. If BC had been held at CD the connections would have known that and most likely mapped out a different schedule. I think they would have figured that Rachel could win HOY by winning at the BC and probably would not have raced her in Woodward. I think they raced in Woodward because they figured that if she did not beat older males she would not have as strong a resume for HOY. On the other hand, I don't know that for sure either.

[DeanT]

I'm glad you are taking time to post here Reid. Nice stuff.

BTW, kudos to your son and Wiggins for putting such a nice foundation under that mare. We are talking about her and enjoying her today in part because of that fine work, in my opinion.

[Grits]

Forgive my stupidity, gentlemen, I called this mare legs, his.

[Dahoss9698]

That is not a true statement. In order for it to be true you must add the words "after Jess Jackson bought her". My youngest son was Hal Wiggins' assistant trainer for 7 years and was in the barn with Rachel A. from the time she arrived as a 2-year old until the Wednesday after the Oaks. A plan was mapped that would take her to the Acorn, possibly the triple tiara, but if she dominated in the Acorn as she did in the Oaks, the Haskell-Travers were considered for next two races, Keeneland opening weekend for her BC prep and then HOY showdown with Zen. That was the plan. Jess Jackson, the "great sportsman" is the person who took that possibility out of consideration.

Fine, add the words after Jess Jackson bought her. I'm glad he did, because as a fan I prefer the path he chose.

[PurplePower]

I'm glad you are taking time to post here Reid. Nice stuff.

BTW, kudos to your son and Wiggins for putting such a nice foundation under that mare. We are talking about her and enjoying her today in part because of that fine work, in my opinion.
Thanks Dean. I'll be back on road starting next week (Wednesday to Washington state) and will be on the road steady through middle of August. I'll check in more regularly, but will beg forgiveness that I may make a comment without having read all the thread(s) so may repeat something. :)

Yep, it was quite a ride with RA while it lasted. And, admist all the "great sportsman" talk of the traumatic aspects of that same transaction were glossed over. But, that is the BUSINESS. :)

[PurplePower]

Fine, add the words after Jess Jackson bought her. I'm glad he did, because as a fan I prefer the path he chose.
I think many fans share your opinion. We can only speculate what might have happened on the other pathway. Jess mapped out and Steve implemented a plan that brought her Horse of the Year. As a result my son has on his resume the experience of working with a HOY that ran the most impressive Kentucky Oaks ever.