PaceAdvantage |
10-27-2010 11:27 PM |
Why and how does Zenyatta cause folks to become irrational?
Case in point:
I'm reading my latest issue of Horseplayer Magazine, specifically the Editor's Note, by Editor Frank R. Scatoni. I'm not at all familiar with the name, but I will assume Mr. Scatoni has a pretty good knowledge of Thoroughbred racing, seeing as he is the Editor of HM.
Here is something he wrote that I could not believe:
Quote:
It took her three tries, but Rachel eventually got a win in 2010 and followed up that victory with another score, but a disappointing flop in the Personal Ensign at Saratoga finally got her strongest supporters to admit what everyone else could see: that she just wasn't the same horse as last year, and that Rachel probably shouldn't have won Horse of the Year after ducking the reigning distaff champion Zenyatta as well as the best handicap horses in the world in the 2009 Breeders' Cup Classic.
|
Phew...that was quite the lengthy sentence. Utterly irrational when you realize what you do in 2010 has no impact on the 2009 award. The 2009 award is for 2009 performances, and Rachel outperformed Zenyatta. Simple as that. Nothing done or not done by either runner in 2010 should have any impact on the legitimacy of the 2009 award. That's the bottom line, and that's how rational racing fans view the world.
But, just when you thought it couldn't get any better, a little further down the line, we get this gem (this was obviously written prior to RA's retirement):
Quote:
I'll go on record as saying that I think Rachel should run in the Filly & Mare Sprint. She'd be devastating at 7-furlongs. Her combination of speed and heart would make her tough to beat in that race. But I don't make those decisions - I'm just a racing fan who likes to speculate.
|
Zenyatta must translate somewhere into "Scrambled Brains"...can anyone check that out for me?
|