Pegasus Cup

[cj]

Originally Posted by onefast99

Per Sherman after the race he didn't cool out well, looked like fluid on the right knee. At the half mile marker CC folded, if it was the track or the weight he carried no one will ever know.
Arrogate wasn't getting beat that day.

I don't believe trainers any farther than I can throw them. They make a living with excuses. They even believe them sometimes, but that doesn't make them true.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by cj

I don't believe trainers any farther than I can throw them. They make a living with excuses. They even believe them sometimes, but that doesn't make them true.

It's called being a trainer. It's your job to try to understand all that your horses do. In any event, he didn't exit the race in perfect shape and was seen by Bramlage when he got to Ky.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

He also had a pretty brutal trip in the Pegasus if memory serves.

Yep.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

It's called being a trainer. It's your job to try to understand all that your horses do. In any event, he didn't exit the race in perfect shape and was seen by Bramlage when he got to Ky.

There is a difference between understanding your horse and blaming the track. Whatever, he is retired, water under the bridge now.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by cj

There is a difference between understanding your horse and blaming the track. Whatever, he is retired, water under the bridge now.

I don't think it was the track either, but I'm constantly surprised that onlookers are surprised that trainers try to come up with explanations for performances. It's their job. It's what they do every day with their horses, trying to figure out each horse and try to get the best out of it. Handicappers of all people should understand that as every betting day they try to look for explanations for past performances and guess whether pace or surface or blinkers or post position or a myriad of other things may affect horses in the field.

If your point is that some can't always be believed, I'll grant you that. But it's some and not always. Some also tell the truth, and some do it always.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

I don't think it was the track either, but I'm constantly surprised that onlookers are surprised that trainers try to come up with explanations for performances. It's their job. It's what they do every day with their horses, trying to figure out each horse and try to get the best out of it. Handicappers of all people should understand that as every betting day they try to look for explanations for past performances and guess whether pace or surface or blinkers or post position or a myriad of other things may affect horses in the field.

If your point is that some can't always be believed, I'll grant you that. But it's some and not always. Some also tell the truth, and some do it always.

Reason and excuse are two different things.

A reason is supported by some evidence. "His post position cost him any chance in the race" is a reason.

If the jock comes back and says the horse was in distress and never got his footing and the trainer says "he didn't like the track", I have no objection.

But many times a trainer is just searching for anything to explain a poor performance, without any evidence. That's an excuse.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Reason and excuse are two different things.

A reason is supported by some evidence. "His post position cost him any chance in the race" is a reason.

If the jock comes back and says the horse was in distress and never got his footing and the trainer says "he didn't like the track", I have no objection.

But many times a trainer is just searching for anything to explain a poor performance, without any evidence. That's an excuse.

Maybe no evidence to you. In addition, horses don't speak, so it's not always as easy as you think.

It can be an educated guess, speculation, not always an "excuse" which has a negative implication.

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Maybe no evidence to you. In addition, horses don't speak, so it's not always as easy as you think.

It can be an educated guess, speculation, not always an "excuse" which has a negative implication.

Both sides of this argument have merit. I have heard from at least 6 trainers I have had over the past 15 years various explanations of why the horse didn't run his race, and then the jock would give his opinion and once a day went by and it wasn't anything physical I would know what was reality and what was BS. Anyone saying "many times a trainer is just searching for anything to explain a poor performance, without any evidence" is not true. There are a lot of variables, how do you know the horse didn't suffer an injury that 2 minutes after the race wasn't noticeable or the horse scopes poorly? There are no sensors that tell you "check your engine" and as you said horses don't speak!

[cj]

Let me simplify what I was trying to say. Trainers often say things that aren't based in fact. That is fine, it is what they do and part of their job even. But when others start repeating what trainers say as if it is fact, I find that weird.

Anybody still believing Arrogate "didn't like the Del Mar surface"?

[Afleet]

Originally Posted by cj

Anybody still believing Arrogate "didn't like the Del Mar surface"?

Gun Runner would have smoked him anywhere on planet earth

[cj]

The absurdity continues.

http://www.drf.com/news/stronach-com...-pegasus-slots

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by cj

Let me simplify what I was trying to say. Trainers often say things that aren't based in fact. That is fine, it is what they do and part of their job even. But when others start repeating what trainers say as if it is fact, I find that weird.

Anybody still believing Arrogate "didn't like the Del Mar surface"?

I didn't believe it from the second he ran up the track the first time. Horses as supposedly good as Arrogate don't fall completely apart over any track surface.

But we have to use common sense too. What do you think the public reaction would be to, "He's got a physical issue that we're going to try to nurse him through in his few remaining races"? They'd go ballistic [not necessarily for good reason], and Baffert would be [rightly] run out of the business if the horse suffered a breakdown on the track.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by cj

The absurdity continues.

http://www.drf.com/news/stronach-com...-pegasus-slots

What's absurd about it? I appreciate Stronach putting up his own money in trying to get this off the ground.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

What's absurd about it? I appreciate Stronach putting up his own money in trying to get this off the ground.

Let's start with calling it a 16 million dollar race when almost half of that isn't even in play. Next, they couldn't sell the slots. So instead, Stronach "buys" them himself and will sell them off. So others had to pay full price, and the others come later will get a discount, probably a big discount. Next year why would anybody buy a slot? Just wait to Frank buys them again and pay him 10 cents on the dollar.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by cj

Let's start with calling it a 16 million dollar race when almost half of that isn't even in play. Next, they couldn't sell the slots. So instead, Stronach "buys" them himself and will sell them off. So others had to pay full price, and the others come later will get a discount, probably a big discount. Next year why would anybody buy a slot? Just wait to Frank buys them again and pay him 10 cents on the dollar.

His accountant must love him..
It is starting to have the feel of an uneven playing field with parallels to recent BCBC imbalances...with one group having a share in more than 1 interest...