Quote:
Originally Posted by AskinHaskin
What have you been smoking?
I was clearly suggesting a solution to the riddle presented by someone else in an attempt to help you to understand whatever he/she wrote.
|
Thanks for helping me "understand", but my confusion was supposed to be sarcastic. The original contention was that Arrogate's 4-race campaign is legit. When I challenged this, the contention instead became his campaign is irrelevant because the horse is an uber-talent.
Thus, the goal posts had changed. I don't think anyone involved in the discussion at the time was questioning Arrogate's talent.
Quote:
|
My solution fit the parameters (offered by a third party) you questioned quite well.
|
I understand you are trying to stake your claim as the board sage or whatever, but these oblique attempts to mystify your posts cut no ice.
If your "solution" is the example of Ghostzapper, it is a weak one for the reasons already stated. Ghostzapper had all sorts of setbacks
throughout his career as opposed to one that kept him from racing as a juvenile. At no point in his career did he campaign for a full season (i.e., a 12 month stretch) no matter where you arbitrarily place the starting date.
And Ghostzapper's owner went on record saying he wanted to showcase the horse for the public
precisely because the horse was an uber-talent.
"I thought it would be good for the public to see him run another year," Stronach said. "Money-wise, it doesn't make any sense, because he would have commanded a pretty good stud fee. We had had a lot of inquiries from people who were interested in breeding to him. We hope he stays healthy and gives the public another great year."
That the horse's physical condition didn't oblige doesn't mean the intent wasn't real.
So actually, the example of Ghostzapper is the exact opposite of what is likely to transpire with Arrogate.
