"Talented filly had no plans for Derby"

[KinkyFriedman]

Jerry Hollendorfer is gutless.

[1st time lasix]

This trainer has done nothing to you....the horse's connectiions have every right to run her in the Oaks. If she were to win....it would increase her value three fold. There are plenty of opportunities to get in the gate against colts....and those races won't have 19 other entries! The only gutless coward I can see in this is the one who writes this kind of inflamatory.... ignorant comment from a keyboard on the internet.

[wisconsin]

Is this the new wave of the future, that any sensational filly or mare must now face males? Who made this rule?

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by KinkyFriedman

Jerry Hollendorfer is gutless.

Pretty easy to spend other people's money isn't it?

[KinkyFriedman]

Originally Posted by wisconsin

Is this the new wave of the future, that any sensational filly or mare must now face males? Who made this rule?

No one, but the best 3-year-old in the country should be in the premier race. She's the best 3-year-old of EITHER sex...she should be in the Derby.

[BluegrassProf]

Off the top of my head...

1.) Have you watched the Kentucky Derby? Given the size of the field and the nature of the race, would you consider it notably less than a cavalry charge? If so, why?

2.) Do you know the win percentage of Derby-winning horses? If so, would you still consider it the "premiere race?" If so, why?

3.) Do you know what the plans are for this horse in the long-term? Do you assume that running in the Derby is appropriate for said campaign? If so, why?

4.) Do you have a stake in BL's career? If so, why run in the Derby (see #1 & #2 above)?

5.) Does abstaining from the Derby mean that BL will never face males? If so, why?

6.) Does abstaining from the Derby justify referring to a trainer as a "ball-less, gutless coward?" If so, why?

[kenwoodallpromos]

You have 11 posts, mostly wanting the female in the KY Derby. I woujld have loved to see that too. But the trainer you are calling gutless ennters (males) into the erby whenever they qualify. When I call his stables he answers personally when available. I just in case you were wondering, I did a websearch for Blind Luck's owner and found this:
"Built by Dr. Mark Dedomenico, the Pegasus compound is dedicated to the training and ****rehabilitation of what he calls "equine athletes." To that end, it includes state-of-the-art everything -- a five-furlong training track featuring the Polytrack artificial surface; an indoor arena with Polytrack; a hyperbaric oxygen chamber believed to be just the second for horses west of the Mississippi; a below-water treadmill called an Aquatred; a swimming pool, and several self-propelled, hot-walker-like Eurocisers.

There are 17 buildings, including the well-appointed barns linked architecturally (and aesthetically) by Kentucky-like cupolas, a main office and accommodations for grooms.


Dr. Mark Dedomenico stands on Pegasus' track, made of a material called Polytrack that's thought to be safer for horses than traditional dirt. "It's so safe we just don't have any animals getting hurt," Dedomenico says.
All of this is surrounded by spit-and-polish landscaping featuring weed-free lawns.

Pegasus, which opened two years ago, is the answer to a question Dedomenico said he often pondered during the 37 years he has been involved as a partner/owner in the Woods Creek Training Center in Monroe, a facility founded by his late father, Paskey.

"I just kept wondering how we could do it better," said Dedomenico, once a ****highly successful heart surgeon who at 69 continues to research answers to human medical questions as ****owner of the 40,000-member PRO Sports (health) Club in Redmond, while satisfying a passion for training and rehabilitating thoroughbreds at Pegasus, where he lives."

JUST FYI!

[1st time lasix]

anyone who would post that this trainer is a "gutless coward" from his decision to enter this filly in the Oaks deserves inclusion on my "ignore" list.

[KinkyFriedman]

Originally Posted by BluegrassProf

Off the top of my head...

1.) Have you watched the Kentucky Derby? Given the size of the field and the nature of the race, would you consider it notably less than a cavalry charge? If so, why?

2.) Do you know the win percentage of Derby-winning horses? If so, would you still consider it the "premiere race?" If so, why?

3.) Do you know what the plans are for this horse in the long-term? Do you assume that running in the Derby is appropriate for said campaign? If so, why?

4.) Do you have a stake in BL's career? If so, why run in the Derby (see #1 & #2 above)?

5.) Does abstaining from the Derby mean that BL will never face males? If so, why?

6.) Does abstaining from the Derby justify referring to a trainer as a "ball-less, gutless coward?" If so, why?

(1) Any race with 20 horses is a cavalry charge. I think BL is good enough that she can run her come-from-behind style in that size of field.

(2) Are you going to argue that the Oaks is a more prestigious race than the Derby?

(3) Don't know what the plans are. But I believe that the best horses should be running against the best opposition. Zenyatta's owner/trainer, up to the BCC last year, thought the same way BL's owner/trainer do. It cost them HOTY.

(4) No stake whatsoever, except that I'm a fan of the sport, have followed it closely for about 50 years, and think that it is best for the sport when, again, the best horses face the best competition. The best competition isn't going to be found on Friday when she crushes the field in the Oaks.

(5) Of course not, no more than it meant that for Rachel Alexandra last year. If I had been active on this board last year I would have been saying the same things about her. But the fact that Blind Luck can run against colts later in the year doesn't justify not doing it now.

(6) When you have the best 3-year-old in the country, of EITHER sex, I feel that to race in the Oaks, when you could have the Derby for the taking, is a cowardly, gutless move. Sorry.

That's my opinion. Seems like most here differ...that's what makes it a free country.

[Spalding No!]

The problem is that you are putting Blind Luck on the throne before she's won a "division defining" race.

Last I check, she lost both the BC Juvenile Fillies and the Santa Anita Oaks, her most important starts to date.

What you're suggesting would be akin to Zenyatta having run in the BC Classic in 2008, before she had even won a championship.

Let her win the Kentucky Oaks and validate all the talk and then we can worry about the Preakness or Travers, etc.

[Audioslavery]

I was going to come out and cut down the OP but it seems like everyone else has done that already hehe.

Obviously this field is too massive, she'll run her in the Preakness if at all. She's a great filly, I wouldn't want anything to happen to her. The only reason that Devil May Care is running in the derby is because she has no chance against Blind Luck.

The OP is probably some East Coaster that has some sort of extreme bias against the west.

[KinkyFriedman]

I'm an East Coaster, but I have no bias against the West. I have a great bias against stupid decisions made by people lucky enough to have great horses.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by KinkyFriedman

I'm an East Coaster, but I have no bias against the West. I have a great bias against stupid decisions made by people lucky enough to have great horses.

So, how stupid are the connections if she gets beaten in the Oaks?

[ddog]

Originally Posted by KinkyFriedman

(1) Any race with 20 horses is a cavalry charge. I think BL is good enough that she can run her come-from-behind style in that size of field.

(2) Are you going to argue that the Oaks is a more prestigious race than the Derby?

(3) Don't know what the plans are. But I believe that the best horses should be running against the best opposition. Zenyatta's owner/trainer, up to the BCC last year, thought the same way BL's owner/trainer do. It cost them HOTY.

(4) No stake whatsoever, except that I'm a fan of the sport, have followed it closely for about 50 years, and think that it is best for the sport when, again, the best horses face the best competition. The best competition isn't going to be found on Friday when she crushes the field in the Oaks.

(5) Of course not, no more than it meant that for Rachel Alexandra last year. If I had been active on this board last year I would have been saying the same things about her. But the fact that Blind Luck can run against colts later in the year doesn't justify not doing it now.

(6) When you have the best 3-year-old in the country, of EITHER sex, I feel that to race in the Oaks, when you could have the Derby for the taking, is a cowardly, gutless move. Sorry.

That's my opinion. Seems like most here differ...that's what makes it a free country.

With a line like that, well everyone can have an opinion, don't expect to be taken as seriously informed. I can't recall a horse that would "have the Derby for the taking,".

I guess your opinion then is at least gutless and maybe cowardly since you don't OWN the animal at this time, am I correct?

Oh and you may want to consider that they feel they do have a great horse and the chances of it staying great may , in their minds, call for the campaign as they planned it.

[KinkyFriedman]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

So, how stupid are the connections if she gets beaten in the Oaks?

If she loses in the Oaks, without (God forbid) an injury, I'll take a picture of myself, standing in my underwear by the front gate to Belmont (I live about five minutes from the track), holding up a sign saying "I know nothing about thoroughbred racing." And post it here on the forum.

I have no expectation of having to do so.