What does that mean? Every horse deemed as great has to handle everything that's thrown at them every time they run whether it be unorthodox training, last minute audibles, off tracks, quick turnarounds, different distances, cross-country shipping?
Again, you are holding Secretariat to a higher standard then other horses you seem to think are great.
That's a rabbit hole. It's not important to speculate on the possible reasons why training on one surface to race on another might compromise a horse's form; simply put, it is not ideal. That aside, the main purpose of highlighting Secretariat's turf works was to prove the point that he was not training for the Woodward but rather a different race 9 days later.
Just reading this cold sweated, fevered, bloodshot-eyed outburst makes me think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngw6KaHlSf0
We definitely have different definitions of reading comprehension. Sorry, but I have no interest in going on some Mr. Toad's Wild Ride with you through Secretariat's career.
In your haste to rail against anyone who would defend Secretariat vis-a-vis Flightline, you presume that I think Secretariat was unbeatable or that he could have won all 21 of his starts. You are putting words in my mouth. Firstly, I never suggested anything to that effect in my original post; I focused simply on the circumstances surrounding the Woodward loss.
In a later post, I paid lip service to your Poe-like obsession with Secretariat's false indestructibility by stating thus (emphasis mine):
That has nothing to do with my post. But I suppose Secretariat could have easily been undefeated if he was managed the way top horses are now. But we probably wouldn't have seen him more than 10 times on the track (and likely never after the Belmont).
Dissemble no more! Tear up the track! Here, here! It is the beating of his hideous hooves!
