Yes, and we explain to you why and you don't listen and now you have cleared up why you have no understanding of why people do the things they do.

oh, i thought you meant later, after their racing careers-- which were very short btw. both three lifetime starts. red ransom won two, EE won all three.

What you see as no understanding may not be no understanding. Sometimes, it's just doing things different. You criticized me for saying that George Washington should run in the Classic. I said there was nothing to gain by running in the Mile but the potential gain by a good run in the Classic would be just what his owners wanted....a Danehill that can run well on dirt. But you just told me how stupid I was for that. When I suggested that Ghostzapper, when he was returning to the races in 2005, that they try some new and interesting things with him, including a try in the Arlington Million and/or Arc......because coming back and facing the same dirt foes over and over that he had already proven he was better than would be boring, you told me how stupid I was for suggesting that. Yet three years later, you say it's a good idea for Curlin........for exactly the same reasons.

If you like to keep things simple and do them the same way that they have been done for 100 years, that's fine. Not everyone will see it the same way though. And sometimes, it's ok to speak as a fan and suggest things that we'd like to see even though we know that if we were in the position of being the owner or trainer, we wouldn't do those same things.

Again, thank you for your response.

Well, good call on running George Washington in the Classic.

You should spend some time with people who have made money within the game. It would do you a lot of good....and improve your credibility.

Of course. Because you know who I've been around and who I haven't. Hell, you even know what I've made or lost in the game. Remember the other day you told me I don't even bet. Thanks for the advice though. It's my life dream to be creditable in your eyes. Perhaps I'll take heed.

Pretty sad that you would take GW dying and say that's proof that it was a bad call. Guess Barbaro's owners were also idiots for running in the Preakness and Go for Wand's owners should lose their licenses for running in the BC since tragic accidents obviously are the result of bad race placement.

I would say it was pretty stupid to run George Washington over a surface he had already shown he didn't care for. Running him in that slopfest probably didn't do him any favors either.

Steve Asmussen feels that Curlin runs better the second time he's had a chance to try a surface. Is it crazy that maybe GW could have done the same? The field for the Classic, outside of Curlin, IMO, wasn't too tough on paper. Perfect time to take a shot. The main point wasn't that he had a better shot to win the Classic than the Mile. I don't believe that to be true. But he had nothing to prove or gain by winning the Mile.

There also were quite a few horses, the vast majority I believe, that ran over that same slop and didn't die.

You're really in a twist things around mode tonight I see.

On George Washington, I fully understood why they ran him on the dirt the first time, as unlike you I understand enough about breeding to know what it could do to his value, but after his perfect trip non-effort the first year, I felt it was foolish the second time because he was clearly not the horse in 2007 he was in 2006 and more obviously because he had proven not to be effective on the dirt. Putting those two together, and considering how weak the mile turf field was, I felt it made perfect sense to run there.

Steve Assmussen was referring to Curlin at a particular track. How is that comparable to George Washington running at Belmont and then Monmouth?