romans and lukas make letterman's top 10 list - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

freeneasy · 06-10-2005, 08:45 PM

even if i made it up myself so
what kind of reasoning can these two morons possibly offer for their decisions to run their 3 year olds in tomarrows belmont? let us count the ways
10)we thinks were as smart as we thinks we are
9)were not as smart as we think you are
8) a.p. arrow showed us the real stuff he's made of when he went wire to wire in an open mile and a quarter 6 horse maiden field and beat nolans cat and we think he can wire this field right back and at a mile and a half.
7) nolans cat may still be a maiden but he got a good second behind a.p. arrow and since the belmont is a quarter of a mile longer, we think that because of that that will give us the advantange were looking for and that this time around we'll be able to get the better of a.p. arrow and since lukas thinks that apa is going to win the belmont then that means we should be able to win the belmont since we think that this time we're going to be the ones thats going to be able to get the better of apa. see what i mean.
6) iam d. wayne kookas
5) iam d. wayne romans
4) we really, really like our chances to run 1-2 today so we got together and conspired to bet a $100 exacta box and split the cost for $50 dollars each
3) me and dale got much better spots all picked out later on but in the meantime were going to use this race to shade their form so's we can get some bigger odds for the next time
2) its our race to lose
1) the owners made me do it

saratoga guy · 06-10-2005, 10:46 PM

On the other hand, let's take a realistic look at the race and think about why those horses might be entered:

Grade 1
$1 million purse -- with the 5th place finisher getting $30K
...and in this field of eleven, eight of them are eligible for NW2.

The better question might be -- why are connections with more talented runners sitting on the sidelines?

PaceAdvantage · 06-11-2005, 12:19 AM

The funny part about this latest Lukas bashing is, quite a number of folks on this board rank A.P. Arrow a lot higher than I would have thought....

Must be the breeding, and the Jerry Bailey factor....

freeneasy, let's face it, this isn't the deepest Grade 1 race you'll ever see....if I had any halfway decent 3yo, and the money, I'd enter too.....good chance at picking up a check.....

Once you get past the top 2 or 3, it's WIDE open....

freeneasy · 06-11-2005, 01:29 AM

the entire field is 18 for 63
after i made the first post i put my numbers down and strictly by the numbers a.p. arrow comes out 4th behind giacomo, reverberate and alex afleet ahead of southern africa and andromeda's hero. but in the speed department alone a.p. arrow comes up between 6th and 7th. if i played a tri i wouldnt give him a second and i'd have to fight off my better judgement to give him a 3rd but in a super i think id have to give him a forth but dale romans horse, nolans cat, is the most less apt to win horse in this race.

keilan · 06-11-2005, 10:10 AM

Aside from Giacoma (2 for 9) and Afleet Alex (7 for 11), the other nine horses total one graded stakes and a combined 16 victories from 54 starts.

It’s embarrassing to the sport that this is the best field that is entered for such a prestigious race. I wish Foggy was in the race cause he would kick their asses that’s how bad I think this group is. If the BELMONT were being run in my backyard today, I would get up and close the drapes.

freeneasy · 06-11-2005, 11:00 AM

i put up a makeshift analogy on this race in 'selections' and if iam right then i wouldnt be suprised if this race went out in 2 minutes and some 31 seconds. bla

Tom · 06-11-2005, 11:05 AM

Agree - zero interst in the Belmont. Horses in it could actually get beat at Finger Lakes next week!

Actaully, the feature at FL is far more interesting - I might just go out an watch it live. BTW....admission is always FREE - no 900% increase for a NW1 stake race. LOL! Classy move.

JustRalph · 06-11-2005, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keilan

If the BELMONT were being run in my backyard today, I would get up and close the drapes.

skate · 06-11-2005, 02:46 PM

since its already a given

this post reminds me of the gal that aaassumes, the more she pays the better the product will become.

Buckeye · 06-11-2005, 03:43 PM

"I wish Foggy was in the race cause he would kick their asses that’s how bad I think this group is."

You and me both keilan. I have singled him in race 8

Dancer's Image · 06-11-2005, 09:29 PM

"what kind of reasoning can these two morons possibly offer for their decisions to run their 3 year olds in tomarrows belmont?"

Freeneasy,
I thought for sure we'd see your apology by now. How would you like your crow served?

freeneasy · 06-12-2005, 03:50 PM

the only reason nolans cat was in this race was in the hopes of picking up a 4th or a 5th. you know it, i know it and everybody else and their brother knows it. he got the show and did better then expected.
nolans cat was not put in this race with the unshakable confindence that he is the best horse in this race and will prove that out over the rest of the field when he crosses the finish line first. afleet alex on the other hand was put in this race for just that purpose.
the belmont is a race that is there for the purpose of winning and for that reason and that reason only lukas and romans had no bussiness to enter and should have never ran these two horses.
now for the purpose of possibly picking up a check or two, whatever. but in some of the most important 3 year old races that we have like the belmont i like to see horses that are ment to win, not place, show or again whatever.
but this i can tell you and that is i doubt very much that you bet 'nolans cat' like i bet 'afleet alex' and if thats eating crow then baby all i can say is is "whats for desert"

Dancer's Image · 06-12-2005, 06:32 PM

Let's get one more thing straight here...

You made the stupid statement..."what kind of reasoning can these two morons possibly offer for their decisions to run their 3 year olds in tomarrows belmont?"...which was proven to be stupid by the fact that Nolan's Cat finished 3rd.
Then instead of admitting your mistake, you compound your error by making another stupid statement..."nolans cat was not put in this race with the unshakable confindence that he is the best horse in this race and will prove that out over the rest of the field when he crosses the finish line first. afleet alex on the other hand was put in this race for just that purpose.
the belmont is a race that is there for the purpose of winning and for that reason and that reason only lukas and romans had no bussiness to enter and should have never ran these two horses."...by this reasoning, no other horses should have entered the race because AA was the best horse on paper, but they don't run the race on paper, and Nolan's Cat at least, proved he belonged in the race.
I have no problem with you making any predictions you want, although I do disagree with you using Letterman's top ten gimmick, and then not being a bit funny. But part of being a mature person is to admit when you are wrong, and you were wrong. Hopefully, you'll grow up one day, and maybe even find a sense of humor!

The Hawk · 06-12-2005, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeneasy

nolans cat was not put in this race with the unshakable confindence that he is the best horse in this race and will prove that out over the rest of the field when he crosses the finish line first. afleet alex on the other hand was put in this race for just that purpose.
the belmont is a race that is there for the purpose of winning and for that reason and that reason only lukas and romans had no bussiness to enter and should have never ran these two horses.
now for the purpose of possibly picking up a check or two, whatever. but in some of the most important 3 year old races that we have like the belmont i like to see horses that are ment to win, not place, show or again whatever.
but this i can tell you and that is i doubt very much that you bet 'nolans cat' like i bet 'afleet alex' and if thats eating crow then baby all i can say is is "whats for desert"

This is utter nonsense. If trainers entered horses in races only when they had "unshakable confidence", whatever that is, we'd have a lot more short fields than we already do. The Belmont is a race that is there for the purpose of winning? Remember Commendable? How about Sarava? I'm sure if their trainers needed "unshakable confidence" they wouldn't have even been in the race. It's a horse race, with a big purse. Just because you don't like a horse, that doesn't mean he doesn't belong in the race.

Even if longshots don't win, like Nolan's Cat, there's nothing wrong with them entering to try to get a check. Let's not make it out to be anything more than what it is: it's a business, one where a trainer can make a score for his owner just by getting third. Give the guy credit, he had the horse in a good spot. Just because it's called "THE BELMONT" doesn't mean the field is any better than a Grade 3 race, and outside of the winner that's basically what it was. And he was as good as the rest of them, at least on Saturday.

Everybody loves to bash Lukas for putting his horses in tough spots and then those same people complain about the nationwide problem of short fields. If everyone was like Frankel and ran their horses 5 times a year we'd really be screwed.

Just admit, Free, that you were wrong in your original thread, instead of offering this inane rationalization. Nothing to be ashamed of, everybody who plays this game is wrong a few times a day.

freeneasy · 06-12-2005, 11:50 PM

you think, talk and play a different ball game of horseracing then i do. if nolans cat was good enough to get the show in this field then he should have been good enough and it would have been better to go after and secure a win in a more suited race of lesser stength, and value.
seeing as how outstanding they must think their horse is iam sure that romans must have 3 or 4 races for 3yo's lined up for nolans cat where he should easily be a winner picking up 120 to $180,000 two maybe three times. if this is the case then we'll see how well his horse does after this belmont 3rd. if he falters then we can raise the issue that the decision to pick up a third and run this horse in the belmont as the culprit for future loses.
if the horse is this good then the better opportunity to quite possibly earn up to three times the hundred grand he earned in his belmont 3rd could very well have been ruined because of romans decision to run in the belmont.
if you got the horse put him where he belongs, give up the belmont, get the wins and the good money.
maybe they think this maiden is all that he can be right now and can go on from this belmont and blaze thru the rest of his campaign, meet afleet alex later on, beat that one and get hoty honors.
could be they didnt have any more future plans for nolans cat after the belmont until next year whereby then i guess if this was romans last shot to pick up a hundred grand then whatever.
and i entirely dissagree that just because this race is called the belmont that it doesnt mean the field is any better then a grade three race. the belmont is and always will be a grade 1 race because for the simple reason that when you answer the question why it is that it is the only race in the nation for three year old's thats carded at a mile and a half then will you understand that this race is only for the best, and only the best should be competeing in it, not some maiden that i'd bet if they put right back in a maiden race would'nt even be able to get that.
if you dont think you have the the horse that can win today then stay the hell out instead of stinking up this great classic with some bullshit maiden that gets a 3rd.
and yeah i think if you talk to ritchy and rose that there was no doubts in their mind as to who the best horse was before, during and after the race. i'd say that you would'nt have been able to convince them otherwise. the way rose shook that horse free just told me that ritchy and rose knew that there horse could have won from anywhere.
see, part of my handicapping the belmont is from the standpoint of what this race is all about. the trainers that make this race famous. take charlie whittingham. charlie knew how tough it was to get your horse back after a race and espeacially after a tough classic and never ever would have put nolans cat in this belmont for the sake of picking up a 100 grand, ever, not for the sake of nothing.
and dancers image? that was a stupid move by dale romans. a stupid move by lukas and pretty stupid of you to insist upon my stupidity 3 times and play it all off like your some kind of father figure to be awed and admired and perhaps even looked up to for the untainted maturity you seem to think you exude. no, what you need to do is press your middle finger right up underneath the bottom tip of your thumb and let go with a flick as hard as you can at that prissy little pimple you got stuck on the end of that nose until it goes pop. now thats what i call growing up with a sense of humor!

hawk: dont get me wrong, i enjoyed your post and my attitude is not the same as with the above but i have never seen lukas make so many moves that just go way outside of simple reasoning. used to be that the man could do just about no wrong. but look no further then the 8th at belmont with 'going wild' and that in itself will tell you close to all you need to know about what he was thinking when he didnt scratch a.p. arrow. all i can tell you is i feel sorry for his horses. i mean its like the man is losing touch with reality and sometimes the air about him seems like he just couldnt be concerned about it or couldnt be bothered by it. i dont know thats just not the inner sanctem of horseracing to me. i dont hate the man or nothing but sometimes it just gets to goofy with the guy and when i see that plainly just does not make any sense at all, then yeah i guess i can go off the radar a little bit. but this is not after seeing this stuff once or twice, it just seems to keep going on and you start to think how can he just keep repeating the same mistakes over and over. when he's good he's a great one. when he's bad, man he's the worst.