Bill Finley: Why I'm not voting for Ghostzapper

[PaceAdvantage]

http://espn.go.com/horse-racing/story/_/id/7660614/why-not-voting-ghostzapper

There are parallels to baseball. If Ghostzapper were a baseball player he would be something along the lines of Don Mattingly. Mattingly was the best in the game or close to it, but only for a while. He had five spectacular years, one pretty good one and a bunch that were mediocre. Mattingly, whose career was hampered by injuries, didn't pass the test of time and that's why he's not in the Hall of Fame.

Racing Hall of Fame voters are going to have to figure out how horses from the "creampuff" era should be treated because there are a slew of them coming along who will be up for induction. Ghostzapper is just the first. Over the last 15 years or so, trainers haven't demanded much of anything from their horses. Concentrating on select spots, they'd race them four or five times a year and usually for no more than two campaigns. Ten or 11 starts has come to be considered a full career by owners and trainers who became convinced that the timid approach was the right approach.

[menifee]

I'm a huge Don Mattingly fan, but this comparison is unfair to Ghostzapper. The horse has no control over how many starts his owner/trainer gives him. The horse ran six straight races at over a 115 Beyer ranging from distances 6.5 furlongs to a mile and a quarter. Extremely fast, extremely versatile and ultra consistent. Certainly, the best horse that I've ever seen (I'm 35). A.P. Indy is in the Hall of Fame and he only had 11 starts. I really think Finley is wrong on this one.

[cj]

I have no problem with his argument. However, not many recent horses will be getting inducted any time soon by those criteria.

[rastajenk]

He could have also compared it to the football Hall of Fame, but he might have come up with a different conclusion. Canton isn't against recognizing brilliance over a shorter period of time (given the nature of the game) as opposed to building up an impressive stats resume over a long career.

[Fager Fan]

I'm a huge Don Mattingly fan, but this comparison is unfair to Ghostzapper. The horse has no control over how many starts his owner/trainer gives him. The horse ran six straight races at over a 115 Beyer ranging from distances 6.5 furlongs to a mile and a quarter. Extremely fast, extremely versatile and ultra consistent. Certainly, the best horse that I've ever seen (I'm 35). A.P. Indy is in the Hall of Fame and he only had 11 starts. I really think Finley is wrong on this one.

What do you mean, it's not the horse's fault? GZ was brought back for another year but he was too fragile to get through the year. Add this to the fact that his fragility is what caused him to have so few starts to that point in time. So his fragility was the cause, not his people.

But even if it's his people's fault for retiring early, if you lower the standards for getting into the HOF then that's exactly what you'll get. Keep the standards high and then those who care about getting in will be encouraged to keep their horses running longer.

[Cardus]

I have no problem with his argument. However, not many recent horses will be getting inducted any time soon by those criteria.

And I have no problem with such recent horses not getting inducted into the Hall of Fame.

[Valuist]

I believe we hear words like "great" used way too much and the media tends to throw too many bouquets to horses and riders.

But I don't know how you could keep Ghostzapper out. Its been a long time since we've seen a horse capable of winning Grade 1s sprinting and at 10 furlongs with Beyers as good as any we've seen in the past decade.

I do have an issue with having riders eligible while they are still active in their careers. You don't see that in other sports.....why should racing be different?

[Cardus]

I'm a huge Don Mattingly fan, but this comparison is unfair to Ghostzapper. The horse has no control over how many starts his owner/trainer gives him. The horse ran six straight races at over a 115 Beyer ranging from distances 6.5 furlongs to a mile and a quarter. Extremely fast, extremely versatile and ultra consistent. Certainly, the best horse that I've ever seen (I'm 35). A.P. Indy is in the Hall of Fame and he only had 11 starts. I really think Finley is wrong on this one.

If one were to believe that his Hall of Fame induction were wrong because of his brief career, then should the mistake be perpetuated?

[classhandicapper]

I have no problem with Finley's line of reasoning, but I think it's more applicable to marginal cases. If Ghostzapper was the kind of horse we'd be debating the merits over on talent/ability then I would be all for leaving him out because of the limited campaigns. But he was so clearly a HOF caliber horse I think he has to get in.

[pandy]

I totally agree with him on this.

[cj]

And I have no problem with such recent horses not getting inducted into the Hall of Fame.

Me either, might allow some deserving horses from past generations that actually raced to get in. I'd still vote for Ghostzapper though. He might want to consider I won 112 races with Ghostzapper on Gallop Racer!

[Robert Fischer]

both should be HOF

[Marlin]

Me either, might allow some deserving horses from past generations that actually raced to get in. I'd still vote for Ghostzapper though. He might want to consider I won 112 races with Ghostzapper on Gallop Racer!Sedate Ruler is a HOFer fo sho!:)

[Jasonm921]

One, I was a big Mattingly fan. Two, I don't believe AP Indy belongs in the HOF. Three, Lure should be in before any of these other lightly raced horses.

[v j stauffer]

While I think Bill makes some salient points. I don't think our industry changing so dramactially should be held against a potential inductee.

There was a bygone era where horses were judged by longevity and overall body of work much more than today.

This generation is more about speed and brilliance. Even if it's fleeting.

In Kelso's day. Or even Ruffian there was much less opportunity to pick and choose super races. Assembling fields where championships were decided, other than for three year olds, didn't happen.

With the advent of the Breeders Cup and the Dubai World Cup owners, breeders and trainers know this generation of champions can be crowned with campaigns that are specifically designed to culminate in one huge all encompassing performance. In a way as if the World Series was changed to just one game.

The past 20 years has seen some truly great horses. Some it could be argued belong in the talk for greatest ever. Rachael and Zenyatta. Curlin and Mineshaft. Those and many many all with similarly structured campaigns as Ghostzapper.

Were these careers short perhaps because they were too good. Went too fast for their on good? Were they retired earlier because the game has become so difficult economically? If so we certainly can't overlook them as legends because of that.

I was once talking with John Sadler. I said the way I pick my Derby horses was the "wow" factor. When you see them run. Seeing it live really helps. You say " WTH " was that? Wow!! That day it happened to be Sydney's Candy after he broke his maiden at Del Mar I think it was.

In my 35 years of being a fan I can list on the fingers of two hands the ones I saw that made the hair stand up on the back of my neck.

Zenyatta
Chinook Pass
Azeri
Spectacular Bid
Precisionist
Officer
Bates Motel
Barbaro
Midnight Lute

and most certainly Ghostzapper.

I was standing on the apron at Lone Star the day he won the Classic. IMO no horse that has ever lived, yes even Big Red, would have outrun him that day. Never before or since have I seen anything like it. He passed me twice. I swear he looked fitter, faster and stronger the 2nd time. Devastating.

I believe the Hall of Fame has more than one criteria for induction. See Calvin Borel. In Ghostzapper's case longevity isn't in the mix. Speed, brilliance, winning at the highest level and overall dominance when he was at his best is enough for me.

He gets my vote.

[JustRalph]

If GZapper doesn't get in...... does anybody since him?

I have only been playing this game for about 11 years........and GZapper is in the top couple I have seen. I know that's a short period, but who gets in that ran after him?

[thaskalos]

Comparing Ghostzapper to Don Mattingly is ridiculous. Ghostzapper wasn't Mattingly...he was horse racing's Gale Sayers...and for athletes of this quality, not only should the rules be bent -- they should be broken in pieces.

Ghostzapper's star didn't shine for long...but what a light it was while it lasted...

Hall Of Fame all the way...with his head held high.

[foregoforever]

I was standing on the apron at Lone Star the day he won the Classic. IMO no horse that has ever lived, yes even Big Red, would have outrun him that day. Never before or since have I seen anything like it. He passed me twice. I swear he looked fitter, faster and stronger the 2nd time. Devastating.

I was on the rail at Saratoga for the King's Bishop ... the last race that Ghostzapper didn't win. He had a bit of a traffic trouble at the top of the stretch and came up short. But when he blew by, everyone around me either gasped or uttered expletives of varying degrees. Not only was he a blur, but his form was just beautiful. I never saw Secretariat run in person, but I saw an "incredible machine" that day.

If he doesn't belong in the HOF, they might as well close the place.

[JustRalph]

just a reminder

kXqlw_UztZs

[Spalding No!]

There was a bygone era where horses were judged by longevity and overall body of work much more than today.
i.e., we should embrace the damaging trends of a fading industry.

This generation is more about speed and brilliance. Even if it's fleeting.
Maybe they can start a Hall Of Lame then.

In Kelso's day. Or even Ruffian there was much less opportunity to pick and choose super races. Assembling fields where championships were decided, other than for three year olds, didn't happen.
You must have missed a bunch of Fall Championship Meets at Belmont. Do you go into quarantine and winter in Dubai or something?

The past 20 years has seen some truly great horses. Some it could be argued belong in the talk for greatest ever. Rachael and Zenyatta. Curlin and Mineshaft. Those and many many all with similarly structured campaigns as Ghostzapper.
You're kidding, right? In what way was Ghostzapper even remotely campaigned similar to Curlin, Mineshaft, or Rachel Alexandra? Aside from Blind Luck and Congaree, you might have mentioned the only horses that were actually campaigned in a "throwback" manner in recent years. And yet you liken them to Ghostzapper and his 4-race Monmouth to Lone Star World Domination Tour?

Good stuff.

Were these careers short perhaps because they were too good. Went too fast for their on good? Were they retired earlier because the game has become so difficult economically? If so we certainly can't overlook them as legends because of that.
Pure fluff. They couldn't race for one reason or another, but we still should laud them as racehorses.

I was once talking with John Sadler.
Has he ever trained a Hall Of Famer? I guess you'll have to wait until you can vote Twirling Candy in.

I said the way I pick my Derby horses was the "wow" factor. When you see them run. Seeing it live really helps. You say " WTH " was that? Wow!! That day it happened to be Sydney's Candy after he broke his maiden at Del Mar I think it was.
Not sure what the Derby has to do with any of this, but Sidney's Candy was 17th in the 2010 Kentucky Derby.

In my 35 years of being a fan I can list on the fingers of two hands the ones I saw that made the hair stand up on the back of my neck.
Thank God it's not a list of the ones that made your voice crack to high pitch in the booth.

We'd be here for a while.

Officer
Was his career cut short because he had to run outside of the state-bred ranks? Was he retired because he was humiliated after a trumped up "superhorse" reputation was popped like a balloon late in his juvenile year? If so, we certainly can't overlook him as a legend.

Midnight Lute
Now here's a horse that was campaigned like Ghostzapper.

and most certainly Ghostzapper.
Interesting that Lava Man doesn't make the cut. Or Sidney's Candy.

I was standing on the apron at Lone Star the day he won the Classic. IMO no horse that has ever lived, yes even Big Red, would have outrun him that day. Never before or since have I seen anything like it.
Black Tie Affair did the same thing in '91 at Churchill Downs. He was helped by In Excess opting for the BC Mile. Ghostzapper was helped by Bobby Frankel conning Ken Ramsey into taking Roses In May off the front end.

He passed me twice.
Hate to break it to you, but any horse could pass you twice on the racetrack. More than twice, actually.

I swear he looked fitter, faster and stronger the 2nd time. Devastating.
Most of that was delirium caused by fatigue, dehydration, and exhaustion setting in. Judging by this post, you still haven't fully recovered.

He gets my vote.
At least drink some water first. Not the Kool-Aid you've been serving up.

[classhandicapper]

If GZapper doesn't get in...... does anybody since him?

I have only been playing this game for about 11 years........and GZapper is in the top couple I have seen. I know that's a short period, but who gets in that ran after him?

Among males I would definitely vote Invasor in and I'd probably give Bernadini some thought (especially if he continues like this as a sire)

[v j stauffer]

i.e., we should embrace the damaging trends of a fading industry.


Maybe they can start a Hall Of Lame then.


You must have missed a bunch of Fall Championship Meets at Belmont. Do you go into quarantine and winter in Dubai or something?


You're kidding, right? In what way was Ghostzapper even remotely campaigned similar to Curlin, Mineshaft, or Rachel Alexandra? Aside from Blind Luck and Congaree, you might have mentioned the only horses that were actually campaigned in a "throwback" manner in recent years. And yet you liken them to Ghostzapper and his 4-race Monmouth to Lone Star World Domination Tour?

Good stuff.


Pure fluff. They couldn't race for one reason or another, but we still should laud them as racehorses.


Has he ever trained a Hall Of Famer? I guess you'll have to wait until you can vote Twirling Candy in.


Not sure what the Derby has to do with any of this, but Sidney's Candy was 17th in the 2010 Kentucky Derby.


Thank God it's not a list of the ones that made your voice crack to high pitch in the booth.

We'd be here for a while.


Was his career cut short because he had to run outside of the state-bred ranks? Was he retired because he was humiliated after a trumped up "superhorse" reputation was popped like a balloon late in his juvenile year? If so, we certainly can't overlook him as a legend.


Now here's a horse that was campaigned like Ghostzapper.


Interesting that Lava Man doesn't make the cut. Or Sidney's Candy.


Black Tie Affair did the same thing in '91 at Churchill Downs. He was helped by In Excess opting for the BC Mile. Ghostzapper was helped by Bobby Frankel conning Ken Ramsey into taking Roses In May off the front end.


Hate to break it to you, but any horse could pass you twice on the racetrack. More than twice, actually.


Most of that was delirium caused by fatigue, dehydration, and exhaustion setting in. Judging by this post, you still haven't fully recovered.


At least drink some water first. Not the Kool-Aid you've been serving up.

So you disagree? You don't think Ghostzapper should be a Hall Of Famer?

[Steve 'StatMan']

I'm glad the horses don't know that there is a hall of fame, much less that they are or are not in it.

I suppose the great horses know they are great, Even those that occasionally lost but were extremely good probably think they are/were great. (That Class thing.)

[PaceAdvantage]

And just so I don't get accused of pulling an AndyM, I'd like to add that I would vote for Ghostzapper...only lost twice...won BC Classic, Woodward, Met Mile, Vosburgh, Tom Fool, Iselin...

Still holds the record for the fastest BC Classic ever...won graded stakes sprinting and routing...a truly unforgettable horse...yeah, he'd get my vote.

[Spalding No!]

So you disagree? You don't think Ghostzapper should be a Hall Of Famer?
I'm not bothered one way or the other about his HOF status. I disagree with your reasoning why you think he should be in and your take on the current state of affairs of horse racing.

None of that means that Ghostzapper wasn't a phenomenal racehorse or one of the fastest of all-time.

[Steve R]

I've been watching horses since the days of Native Dancer. Tom Fool, Nashua, Round Table, Swaps, Kelso, Dr. Fager, Damascus, Secretariat, etc, etc. Ghostzapper is the best I've seen since Spectacular Bid. For me it's a no brainer.

[Paseana]

While I think Bill makes some salient points. I don't think our industry changing so dramactially should be held against a potential inductee.

There was a bygone era where horses were judged by longevity and overall body of work much more than today.

This generation is more about speed and brilliance. Even if it's fleeting.

In Kelso's day. Or even Ruffian there was much less opportunity to pick and choose super races. Assembling fields where championships were decided, other than for three year olds, didn't happen.

With the advent of the Breeders Cup and the Dubai World Cup owners, breeders and trainers know this generation of champions can be crowned with campaigns that are specifically designed to culminate in one huge all encompassing performance. In a way as if the World Series was changed to just one game.

The past 20 years has seen some truly great horses. Some it could be argued belong in the talk for greatest ever. Rachael and Zenyatta. Curlin and Mineshaft. Those and many many all with similarly structured campaigns as Ghostzapper.

Were these careers short perhaps because they were too good. Went too fast for their on good? Were they retired earlier because the game has become so difficult economically? If so we certainly can't overlook them as legends because of that.

I was once talking with John Sadler. I said the way I pick my Derby horses was the "wow" factor. When you see them run. Seeing it live really helps. You say " WTH " was that? Wow!! That day it happened to be Sydney's Candy after he broke his maiden at Del Mar I think it was.

In my 35 years of being a fan I can list on the fingers of two hands the ones I saw that made the hair stand up on the back of my neck.

Zenyatta
Chinook Pass
Azeri
Spectacular Bid
Precisionist
Officer
Bates Motel
Barbaro
Midnight Lute

and most certainly Ghostzapper.

I was standing on the apron at Lone Star the day he won the Classic. IMO no horse that has ever lived, yes even Big Red, would have outrun him that day. Never before or since have I seen anything like it. He passed me twice. I swear he looked fitter, faster and stronger the 2nd time. Devastating.

I believe the Hall of Fame has more than one criteria for induction. See Calvin Borel. In Ghostzapper's case longevity isn't in the mix. Speed, brilliance, winning at the highest level and overall dominance when he was at his best is enough for me.

He gets my vote.

Nice post, Vic. There's some other reasons why horses can't be "blamed" for the way they are campaigned now, at least at the higher level. First of all, there's such a focus now on win percentage. A loss is unacceptable anymore, and that leads inevitably to the best stock, or at least the stock with the highest potential ending up in the hands of a very small percentage of trainers.

And then there's the unfortunate emergence of the "Sheets Philosophy" over the last 20 years or so. It started out as a handicapping tool to help horseplayers make money, but it's become pervasive in almost every aspect of the sport. Owners and trainers are not running their stakes horses in spots where they would have before because the folks at Ragozin and/or Thorograph are telling them that their horse will "bounce". Well, gawd forbid that the horse should lose a race, so let's just wait another 2 weeks, 3 weeks, or a month.....whatever. It's great for the trainers' day rates, but it sucks for the sport.

Ghostzapper was brilliant. The numbers he put up in speed figs were just sick. But does 4 GI wins in an 11 race career from age 3 to 5 put a horse in the Hall Of Fame? His GI wins were in the Vosburgh, the Met Mile, the Woodward, and the BC Classic (6.5f, 1M, 9f, & 10f respectively), but is that really enough to get a plaque in the Hall?

Sorry, but I don't think so. I don't think we'll ever again see the Beyer numbers put up by Ghostzapper, and the Eclipse Awards that he earned were absolutely spot on. But the Hall Of Fame is something else again, and I really think that if Ghostzapper is voted in, it will not only endorse a sparse campaign over 3 years, but will send a message that speed figures really do mean everything, and that's too bad.

[PaceAdvantage]

but will send a message that speed figures really do mean everything, and that's too bad.No it absolutely will not.

And for the record, name a horse currently in the Hall of Fame with certifiably abysmal speed figures, since according to you, speed meant little in the past.

[turninforhome10]

just a reminder

kXqlw_UztZs
If my eyes don't deceive me Ralph Castellano only flagged him with the stick a couple of times Thanks for the clip

[classhandicapper]

No it absolutely will not.

And for the record, name a horse currently in the Hall of Fame with certifiably abysmal speed figures, since according to you, speed meant little in the past.

I think he's implying that there are a lot of horses that have won way more than 4 Grade 1s that are not on the HOF, but people consider Ghostzapper worthy because of his superior speed figures.

As is often the case, I am in the minority. I think he belongs in the HOF but I also think a few of his speed figures were inflated. :lol:

By the way, IMO, one of his losses was totally excusable. I thought there was a gigantic bias and he made a terrific close to just miss. On an normal track he would have won for fun. (I think it was at Saratoga as a 3YO)

[Track Phantom]

I think you shut the Hall of Fame down until they can run legitimate races that aren't tainted by performance enhancing drugs.

Until we can believe a race is legitimate, it's hard to honor any performance.

[PaceAdvantage]

I think you shut the Hall of Fame down until they can run legitimate races that aren't tainted by performance enhancing drugs.How far do you go back? You are kidding yourself if you think there weren't any performance enhancing drugs back in the days of Secretariat and beyond.

Research would continue and by the late 1930’s the first injections of testosterone-propionate were administered to humans and in the Soviet Union by the 1940’s anabolic steroid use was becoming common place. During the 1940’s the Soviet Union was the dominating force in athletics thanks to anabolic steroid use but this dominance was short lived as Dr. John Ziegler, the U.S. Olympic team physician found a way to soon develop methandrostenolone; you know it as Dianabol or Dbol.So if humans were juicing up for athletic competition as early as the 1940s, how soon thereafter do you think trainers were juicing their horses?

Let's get real here.

Source: http://www.steroid.com/History-of-Steroids.php

[rastajenk]

So if humans were juicing up for athletic competition as early as the 1940s, how soon thereafter do you think trainers were juicing their horses?
Or more likely, how long before?

[Track Phantom]

How far do you go back? You are kidding yourself if you think there weren't any performance enhancing drugs back in the days of Secretariat and beyond.

So if humans were juicing up for athletic competition as early as the 1940s, how soon thereafter do you think trainers were juicing their horses?

Let's get real here.

Source: http://www.steroid.com/History-of-Steroids.php

Certainly not arguing the fact that there were drugs used in yesteryear. The only difference now is we have much more empirical data to support obvious PED use.

Also, I don't remember such obvious form "turnarounds" back in the '80's and early '90's. I remember it was a big deal when a claimer rattled off 5, 6 in a row and moved up the claiming ladder. Didn't happen that regularly. Today--Jamie Ness has to go on suicide watch if he claims a runner for $5,000 and it doesn't crush for $15,000 in its next start.

I remember breeding meaning something. Now it is marginalized because supertrainers can take a 15,000 animal and have him competing on the highest levels.

Maybe we just aren't as niave any longer but no matter how you slice it, it's pretty difficult to get worked up over a supertrainer runner who freaks today. Unfortunately, whenever I see a great performance today (give or take a few), I always think the runner is getting an edge. Sucks---wish I didn't feel that way.

[FenceBored]

Nope, they didn't used to worry 'bout dope.
The principal alteration was in the wording of the amendment which related to horses having dope administered to them As the original rule made it a case of being ruled off for giving to an animal a dose of whiskey or coffee a change was made excepting these stimulants.
-- The New Eastern Rules (DRF, Feb. 16, 1897)
http://kdl.kyvl.org/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=drf1890s;cc=drf1890s;rgn=full%20text;idno=dr f1897021601;didno=drf1897021601;view=pdf;seq=1_3;n ode=drf1897021601%3A1.3

[Fager Fan]

Nope, they didn't used to worry 'bout dope.
The principal alteration was in the wording of the amendment which related to horses having dope administered to them As the original rule made it a case of being ruled off for giving to an animal a dose of whiskey or coffee a change was made excepting these stimulants.
-- The New Eastern Rules (DRF, Feb. 16, 1897)
http://kdl.kyvl.org/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=drf1890s;cc=drf1890s;rgn=full%20text;idno=dr f1897021601;didno=drf1897021601;view=pdf;seq=1_3;n ode=drf1897021601%3A1.3


It really isn't much to worry about if their "juice" back then was caffeine or alcohol, neither of which will make a horse run better or faster.

[JustRalph]

How much whiskey would you have to give a 1200 pound horse for it to have any effect ? Christ!!

[FenceBored]

It really isn't much to worry about if their "juice" back then was caffeine or alcohol, neither of which will make a horse run better or faster.

You're misreading, they changed the wording of the rule to keep whiskey and caffine legal. The Jockey Club of 1897 wasn't worried about them.

[Steve R]

This notion of longevity superseding talent and ability is, in a word, silly. Half of the 14 highest ranked horses in Europe over the last 70 years (i.e., rated at 140 or more by Timeform) ran 10 or fewer times in their career including top-rated Sea-Bird II and co-second-rated Tudor Minstrel. The others are Dancing Brave, Dubai Millennium, Harbinger, Sea the Stars and Shergar. Clearly the desire for longevity must be an American thing.

IMO Ghostzapper is the best horse to race in North America since Spectacular Bid and on a par with some of the European horses listed above. On a given day I believe he was competitive with any horse in history from 6 1/2 to 10 furlongs. In addition, he was among the most beautiful movers I've seen in almost 60 years of race watching.

[Cardus]

I'm not bothered one way or the other about his HOF status. I disagree with your reasoning why you think he should be in and your take on the current state of affairs of horse racing.

None of that means that Ghostzapper wasn't a phenomenal racehorse or one of the fastest of all-time.

Sharp post.

[Cardus]

This notion of longevity superseding talent and ability is, in a word, silly. Half of the 14 highest ranked horses in Europe over the last 70 years (i.e., rated at 140 or more by Timeform) ran 10 or fewer times in their career including top-rated Sea-Bird II and co-second-rated Tudor Minstrel. The others are Dancing Brave, Dubai Millennium, Harbinger, Sea the Stars and Shergar. Clearly the desire for longevity must be an American thing.

IMO Ghostzapper is the best horse to race in North America since Spectacular Bid and on a par with some of the European horses listed above. On a given day I believe he was competitive with any horse in history from 6 1/2 to 10 furlongs. In addition, he was among the most beautiful movers I've seen in almost 60 years of race watching.

It's not about longevity superseding talent.

It would be refreshing if they co-existed in top racehorses. I suspect that everyone agrees with that notion.

Perhaps Ghostzapper would have been competitive with any horse in history between 6 1/2 and 10 furlongs, but if he had to race against history's best two and three weeks apart for a series of races, for how long would he have been competitive?

We do not know that he would have been able to compete at all.

[FenceBored]

Ghostzapper to Finley: "Whatever, dude. Who needs you anyway."

Stronach Stable’s 2004 Horse of the Year Ghostzapper, jockey John Velazquez, and trainers Roger Attfield and Robert Wheeler have been elected to the National Museum of Racing’s Hall of Fame.
Read more: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/69161/ghostzapper-velazquez-atffield-new-to-hof#ixzz1ssYLWRQB

[thaskalos]

Ghostzapper to Finley: "Whatever, dude. Who needs you anyway."



Stronach Stable’s 2004 Horse of the Year Ghostzapper, jockey John Velazquez, and trainers Roger Attfield and Robert Wheeler have been elected to the National Museum of Racing’s Hall of Fame.


Read more: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/69161/ghostzapper-velazquez-atffield-new-to-hof#ixzz1ssYLWRQB














Awesome!

The truly great horses don't have to follow any set of rules...or meet any man-made qualification demands for HOF induction.

When voting time comes around, these great horses just stand up and say..."Here I am, boys and girls; dare to keep me out."

The HOF should be about the horses and their accomplishments; not about the writers, and their "views".

[castaway01]

Good choice, Ghostzapper was versatile and brilliantly fast.

[Pine Tree Lane]

Certainly not arguing the fact that there were drugs used in yesteryear. The only difference now is we have much more empirical data to support obvious PED use.

Also, I don't remember such obvious form "turnarounds" back in the '80's and early '90's. I remember it was a big deal when a claimer rattled off 5, 6 in a row and moved up the claiming ladder. Didn't happen that regularly. Today--Jamie Ness has to go on suicide watch if he claims a runner for $5,000 and it doesn't crush for $15,000 in its next start.

I remember breeding meaning something. Now it is marginalized because supertrainers can take a 15,000 animal and have him competing on the highest levels.

Maybe we just aren't as niave any longer but no matter how you slice it, it's pretty difficult to get worked up over a supertrainer runner who freaks today. Unfortunately, whenever I see a great performance today (give or take a few), I always think the runner is getting an edge. Sucks---wish I didn't feel that way.

You never met Oscar Barrera ;)