Derby Trail Forums
Page 3 of 4 < 12 3 4 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Paddock (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Pletcher to have no horses in the Travers (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15862)

Thoroughbred Fan 08-14-2007 03:52 PM
I think NoLuvForPletch summed up my opinon in the best way...Pletcher is a VERY VERY overrated trainer!

He starts with so much of the best bloodstock that the ones that get to the track and run under his name are actually a subset of what he is given. He sends some away which don't have much talent before they even get a chance to further reduce his stats.

Sightseek 08-14-2007 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardus
Does anyone have these numbers/information:

How many drug positives does Pletcher have?

What was the infraction for each?
I'm not sure where you can get that information but it is something that should be made easily available through TOBA or NTRA for people looking to get into the game.

Thoroughbred Fan 08-14-2007 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardus
Does anyone have these numbers/information:

How many drug positives does Pletcher have?

What was the infraction for each?
I don't but i'd also like to know how many 2yo started with him only to be retired early due to injury or end up being run down a la Flower Alley.

The Indomitable DrugS 08-14-2007 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
The horses don't train themselves.
Discreet Cat does.

Riot 08-14-2007 04:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch
True, but he's like a New York bred, he "starts with an advantage". A really, really BIG advantage. Especially when you factor in that he has so much good stock and he prevents them from running into each other that his numbers and the numbers of his animals are a bit inflated.
To get successful athletic performance (be it humans, horses, or the best flying monkeys), you need three things:

1) Genetic potential: Conformation, cardiovascular and physiologic capabilities, muscle type, mental attributes

2) Optimal health: Nutrition, disease prevention, maintaining soundness

3) Training and conditioning practices: Training to perform a specific task, conditioning to appropriate fitness, mental preparation

The trainer is responsible for all of the above. Pletcher may maximize #1 (which goes to his ability to select or accept stock with appropriate potential), but he's still responsible for #2 and #3, too.

NoLuvForPletch 08-14-2007 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ELA
Actually, no, a one dimensional view of "data" -- your data in this case -- which is a very myopic view -- is not an indicator of his abilities . . . and you know that . . . oh no you don't . . . look at your handle, LOL.

Was BC day results an indicator of Bobby Frankel's training abilities, when he was 0 for 30 plus? It didn't keep him out of the Hall of Fame. Sure, there were his critics and their opinion counted for crap then, just like it does now. People who are in this business, who have been in this game a long time, who have paid their dues -- some of them know who good trainers are. Not someone who picks one stat and says "Hey, look what I found, and now my opinion counts".

We all know what they say -- Statistics don't lie, only statisticians do.

Listen, I am not a fan of Todd Pletcher. I have often said that in his position, and in his situation, going 0 for whatever in TC races can be an issue, especially for the critics. However, his owners don't seem to mind. That's neither here nor there. It's their issues -- not mine. I've often said -- do those owners spend that kind of money to win training titles, maiden specials, and "A other thans" or do they spend that kind of money to win the big dance? It's easy to be a critic, but that doesn't make Todd Pletcher "not a very good trainer" so to speak. Regardless, that one piece of data, is not an indication of his abilities.

Anyway, that is just one of the reasons he wouldn't be my choice to train a top 2yo or 3yo. I've never been a fan of corporate training per se. Although I have a trainer who has 200 or so horses, however, I view it as a different operation, set-up, different mindset, requirements, etc. I've spoke with several trainers, well respected horsemen, who question his operation, methodolgies, ability to manage an operation with that size and scope, and so on. Some think he does an excellent job, others think he's more of a CEO than a trainer. Still, others think he is not a good horseman and things must slip through the cracks. And still others think that the assembly line is not a way to train horses, and so on and so on. One of these opinions comes from a Hall of Fame trainer, one who I respect. When those opinions start being thrown around here, I'll listen to them -- not to one piece of myopic and one dimensional information.

In addition, I have also said, that aside from shooting incredible #'s, which has it's substance and it's distortions, and winning record #'s of Grade 1's -- if you look at the truly prestigeous big dance races, the most prestigeous G'1s, it was not often that Pletcher truly came over with "the horse to beat" so to speak. Ashado was of course, and there might have been another instance or two. However, it's not like he strolled into every prestigeous G1 -- the ones that count on a stallion's or mare's resume -- and was even money or 3-5. I get all that and have said that often. That might of changed the past year or so, but prior, even Pletcher said in an interview, this was the case.

However, to say that "Pletcher is not a very good trainer" or to look at one piece of data and make that statement -- well, I guess there is not only plenty of horse manure at the track, but here as well, LOL.

I'll leave the rest to the critics and the training icons.


Eric

So after all of that, is it your contention that he is a "bad trainer", "so-so trainer", "good trainer", "very good trainer", "excellent trainer", "the best current trainer", "the best trainer of all time" or is he "more of a CEO"?

It was merely MY opinion that with all that he is provided by his owner in the way of bloodstock, his numbers in those races that he can't control the make-up of the race, like BC races (you can also throw TC races in there) his numbers are less than stellar. Hence MY contention that he might be slightly overrated.

Riot 08-14-2007 04:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS
Discreet Cat does.
:D

ArlJim78 08-14-2007 04:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch
Actually, you don't feel the 2 for 41 (5%) in BC races is any sort of indicator of his abilities?
No i don't. i won't rehash the response because ELA has already given you the reasons why.

NoLuvForPletch 08-14-2007 04:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
To get successful athletic performance (be it humans, horses, or the best flying monkeys), you need three things:

1) Genetic potential: Conformation, cardiovascular and physiologic capabilities, muscle type, mental attributes

2) Optimal health: Nutrition, disease prevention, maintaining soundness

3) Training and conditioning practices: Training to perform a specific task, conditioning to appropriate fitness, mental preparation

The trainer is responsible for all of the above. Pletcher may maximize #1 (which goes to his ability to select or accept stock with appropriate potential), but he's still responsible for #2 and #3, too.
So take the Barclay Tagg's of the world. What do you thing he might do with Pletcher's client list? Or how about Allen Jerkens? What do you think he would do with Pletcher's client list? I'm just tired of people making him to out to be some kind of superhero. Like he's reinvented horse training or something. He's a guy who trains horses. And most of the time they are the best horses.

Riot 08-14-2007 04:21 PM
Quote:
I've never been a fan of corporate training per se. Although I have a trainer who has 200 or so horses, however, I view it as a different operation, set-up, different mindset, requirements, etc. I've spoke with several trainers, well respected horsemen, who question his operation, methodolgies, ability to manage an operation with that size and scope, and so on.
I've read somewhere (don't know if it's true) that you can give the name of any horse spread anywhere across the country in Pletcher's barns, and he can tell you all about that horses' current status, where it is in it's training, etc.

Riot 08-14-2007 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch
So take the Barclay Tagg's of the world. What do you thing he might do with Pletcher's client list? Or how about Allen Jerkens? What do you think he would do with Pletcher's client list? I'm just tired of people making him to out to be some kind of superhero. Like he's reinvented horse training or something. He's a guy who trains horses. And most of the time they are the best horses.
Speculation is just that - nobody knows. We don't know how many great horses never made it to our radar as they were with a lesser trainer at a lesser track.

I agree with you - he's a guy who trains horses. No superhero. But he does very well for himself, and his owners.

NoLuvForPletch 08-14-2007 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
Speculation is just that - nobody knows. We don't know how many great horses never made it to our radar as they were with a lesser trainer at a lesser track.

I agree with you - he's a guy who trains horses. No superhero. But he does very well for himself, and his owners.
Allen Jerkens is a "lesser trainer"? Wow!

ELA 08-14-2007 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardus
After the great "should Street Sense run in the Belmont Stakes" debate, I've tried to get out of the "(fill-in-the-blank)" should run in such and such a race. Question for you: has there been an instance in which you thought it was BS for a trainer to skip a race?
Great question -- very thought provoking, just in me having to think about giving you an answer. I really tend not to "worry" about other people's business, decisions, etc. -- I concentrate and have enough of my own, LOL. You make an excellent point with regard to the Street Sense debate; although I never viewed it has a debate. I didn't have a problem with the Nafzger/Tafel decision. Sure, like everyone, I would have loved to see him run. However, as I mentioned, I thought it was ludicrous to call them names or to say they don't care about the game, business or sport. I tought it nonsense to criticize them and their decision and say they are not "sporstmen" or anything of the like.

Be that as it may, although I can't think of the specific instance, I am sure there has been a case where my initial thought might have been that it was BS for a trainer to skip a race. But it's their decision. And if I did feel that way, it would have been myopic as well, due to the fact that it's his/her decision and I would have been completely unaware of the facts, circumstances, etc. Am I qualified to make such a decision? No, and I don't think many others are qualified as well.

I make my decisions based upon the input, advice, guidance, etc. from my own advisors -- primarily the trainer in question. If I don't trust that trainer, or his recommendation, then I have a much bigger problem.

Eric

Riot 08-14-2007 04:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch
Allen Jerkens is a "lesser trainer"? Wow!
??? Heck no, where'd you get that from? ("We don't know how many great horses never made it to our radar as they were with a lesser trainer at a lesser track." was general, certainly no reference to Jerkens or Tagg!)

Cannon Shell 08-14-2007 04:34 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/mo..._eclipsed.html

ELA 08-14-2007 04:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch
So after all of that, is it your contention that he is a "bad trainer", "so-so trainer", "good trainer", "very good trainer", "excellent trainer", "the best current trainer", "the best trainer of all time" or is he "more of a CEO"?

It was merely MY opinion that with all that he is provided by his owner in the way of bloodstock, his numbers in those races that he can't control the make-up of the race, like BC races (you can also throw TC races in there) his numbers are less than stellar. Hence MY contention that he might be slightly overrated.
I am not going to argue with you -- again, it's a fallacious argument. I am also not going to argue with you because you clearly have an orientation, and slant in your opinions -- to the point where you selected the handle you selected. I think that basically shows that you can't be truly objective.

You may have used the term "overrated" -- and I am not arguing that point. The other term or label states was that Todd Pletcher "is not a very good trainer".

I am not criticizing the opinion, although I disagree with the statement that he is not a very good trainer. I am questioning whether or not it's a qualified opinion and the mindset of using one piece of data, neglecting all other facts and knowledge, to substantiate that he is "not a very good trainer". That's all.

Eric

ELA 08-14-2007 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardus
Aside from the debate about Pletcher's ability, in one sense, NoLuvForPletch is consistent with some trainers and Eclipse Award voters: he is putting as much emphasis on the Breeders' Cup as do they.
Good point. However, hasn't Pletcher won numerous Eclipse awards despite his performance on BC day? How about Frankel? I am not sure if he won any Eclipse awards in years where he didn't win the BC -- and according to the stats, there were plenty of them, LOL.

Eric

ELA 08-14-2007 04:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
I've read somewhere (don't know if it's true) that you can give the name of any horse spread anywhere across the country in Pletcher's barns, and he can tell you all about that horses' current status, where it is in it's training, etc.
I've been told the same thing, and I believe it. I currently have a horse -- at best he's a 16 claimer -- with a trainer who has 200 horses. I bumped into him while the horse was in his barn and he told when when he worked, what equiptment he wore (changes that were made), the problems he had when he got there, what he did to address them, when the horse was going to race, where, the race and more!

I also bumped into him when the horse was turned out on a farm. He also gave me a detailed status report up through about 5 days earlier.

Eric

Cannon Shell 08-14-2007 04:47 PM
"Running him back in the Travers and then keeping him at that level for another 60 days is unrealistic, as opposed to backing off and targeting it directly."

This quote from Steve Assmussen is frightening. Now races in August are too stressful for races in November? If I was just a fan, I would probably find a new sport because this attitude is not only wrong historically, it is destructive for the sport of our sport. Not only are top horses going to be retired early, they are not even going to be campaigned much while running, just spotted randomly every 60 days or so.

I thought that Nafzger did the right thing by skipping the Belmont because of the grind of 3 races in 5 weeks without a chance for the Triple Crown. But this is entirely different. These are well rested horses that are at a point in their lives where they are maturing and getting stronger. Not running them is not only unsporting, it is disgraceful. And don't place all the blame on the trainers. The owners are as much to blame by captiulating and allowing this to happen. There is very little evidence that this style of training is sucessful in winning Breeders Cup races and as such is disheartening to see so many going down this path.

ArlJim78 08-14-2007 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardus
Aside from the debate about Pletcher's ability, in one sense, NoLuvForPletch is consistent with some trainers and Eclipse Award voters: he is putting as much emphasis on the Breeders' Cup as do they.
true enough. i think though a couple of solid BC days for pletcher and that whole argument goes away as his percentage could go up quite rapidly.

ELA 08-14-2007 05:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
"Running him back in the Travers and then keeping him at that level for another 60 days is unrealistic, as opposed to backing off and targeting it directly."

This quote from Steve Assmussen is frightening. Now races in August are too stressful for races in November? If I was just a fan, I would probably find a new sport because this attitude is not only wrong historically, it is destructive for the sport of our sport. Not only are top horses going to be retired early, they are not even going to be campaigned much while running, just spotted randomly every 60 days or so.

I thought that Nafzger did the right thing by skipping the Belmont because of the grind of 3 races in 5 weeks without a chance for the Triple Crown. But this is entirely different. These are well rested horses that are at a point in their lives where they are maturing and getting stronger. Not running them is not only unsporting, it is disgraceful. And don't place all the blame on the trainers. The owners are as much to blame by captiulating and allowing this to happen. There is very little evidence that this style of training is sucessful in winning Breeders Cup races and as such is disheartening to see so many going down this path.
Chuck, I think you made excellent points, and I agree with you on them. However, don't we need to look at the other aspects here as well? While I am not a trainer, and you are, with regard to Curlin -- in this specific case -- here is a colt who showed tremendous natural ability, and very early on. He did what he did in his 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th lifetime starts (after not racing as a 2yo). I agree that this type of mindset is very damaging and it's rampant in the industry, and it's ruining aspects of our industry and sport.

But in this case, isn't there more going on? Yes, he was getting bigger and stronger (I guess), and maturing. But he was asked to do a lot, as much as other horses who had more experience and seasoning. Doesn't that play a role? In an individual case? I guess what I am asking is that in this case -- can you possibly see that for this horse, especially after the Haskell (being that he didn't perform up to some expectation), is it possible that maybe skipping the Travers -- maybe it's possibly the right thing to do . . . a) for this horse in this situation, and b) keeping in mind that there is more than a/the purse at stake. You have 3yo horse of the year, horse of the year, a stallion career, and so on.

Thanks for the insight Chuck. I'll buy a few beers for us tomorrow and we can talk about it (actually, you can talk and I can listen, LOL).

Eric

SentToStud 08-14-2007 05:10 PM
Blame the Eclipse Award voters who place too much emphasis on the BC. It's all the same bunch of people. I bet if you looked at the Board of Directors of the NTRA you would find 25% of them use an initial instead of a first name. Same people as the Breeders Cup people. Some of the rest go by three or four names or a nickname WTF - what 60 year old man goes by the name of Binny? It's all about keeping the money as close to the breeders as possible.

After all, it is called the Breeders Cup.

Cannon Shell 08-14-2007 05:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ELA
Chuck, I think you made excellent points, and I agree with you on them. However, don't we need to look at the other aspects here as well? While I am not a trainer, and you are, with regard to Curlin -- in this specific case -- here is a colt who showed tremendous natural ability, and very early on. He did what he did in his 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th lifetime starts (after not racing as a 2yo). I agree that this type of mindset is very damaging and it's rampant in the industry, and it's ruining aspects of our industry and sport.

But in this case, isn't there more going on? Yes, he was getting bigger and stronger (I guess), and maturing. But he was asked to do a lot, as much as other horses who had more experience and seasoning. Doesn't that play a role? In an individual case? I guess what I am asking is that in this case -- can you possibly see that for this horse, especially after the Haskell (being that he didn't perform up to some expectation), is it possible that maybe skipping the Travers -- maybe it's possibly the right thing to do . . . a) for this horse in this situation, and b) keeping in mind that there is more than a/the purse at stake. You have 3yo horse of the year, horse of the year, a stallion career, and so on.

Thanks for the insight Chuck. I'll buy a few beers for us tomorrow and we can talk about it (actually, you can talk and I can listen, LOL).

Eric
Individual horses and their problems are not the real problem. It is the attitude that horses, 3 year olds especially, need to be handled with kid gloves especially when they are a race or 2 away from retiring. Assmussen's quote is crazy. You cant keep a horse at the top of his game for 60 days if you race them? The irony is that the end of the year awards are fairly meaningless in the breeding business. Invasor was won the horse of the year last year but wanna bet Bernardini stands for a heck of a lot more money? (Not that either owner needs the bucks) Sure maybe Brndni stands for a lot more if he wins but only one horse wins the damn race. The rest of them lose anyway. The problem with these carefully managed "campaigns" is that we never really find out how good any of these horses are. There are no more great horses because greatness requires passing tests. Sure it is not our business what a man does with his horse. But it makes me sick when billionaires protect their horses reputations with brief campaigns and early retirements. For what? So they can make a couple of million more? Whatever happened to the pride of having the fastest horse?

One thing that Assmussen was correct about in the Daily News article is that guys are getting rewarded for not running. There really needs to be a closer look taken at the credentials of those who are doing the voting for these awards. Just being a card carrying member of the turf writers association shoul not cut it. A lot of the guys who vote dont pay much attention to the sport outside of the Triple Crown and Breeders Cup anyway.

Racing always screws up when we try to be more like other sports. The "win and your in" concept is so flawed I wont even say anymore about it. The making of the Breeders Cup into a "championship" day demeans the entire racing schedule. We aren't Nascar or Ncaa Basketball and letting outside interests try to make us into that hurts the sport's creditability.

Danzig 08-14-2007 06:16 PM
it used to be that the horses who showed they were the best on the track were the top draws in the breeding shed. that is now distorted by running a horse sparingly so that he can't do much to tarnish his image, while at the same time keeping many in the dark about how hardy of a horse he could be--or not be...
you have ghostzapper, who showed that most don't care how unsound or lightly raced a horse is, they are still willing to shell out tremendous money to breed to a horse made of glass, because once every other blue moon he accomplished something--and there's money to be made.

these horses, rushed to the shed before they can really PROVE their worth, their true value, are nothing more than illusions, and aren't what a breeds future should be built upon.
but money sure does talk, doesn't it?

Sightseek 08-14-2007 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
Individual horses and their problems are not the real problem. It is the attitude that horses, 3 year olds especially, need to be handled with kid gloves especially when they are a race or 2 away from retiring. Assmussen's quote is crazy. You cant keep a horse at the top of his game for 60 days if you race them? The irony is that the end of the year awards are fairly meaningless in the breeding business. Invasor was won the horse of the year last year but wanna bet Bernardini stands for a heck of a lot more money? (Not that either owner needs the bucks) Sure maybe Brndni stands for a lot more if he wins but only one horse wins the damn race. The rest of them lose anyway. The problem with these carefully managed "campaigns" is that we never really find out how good any of these horses are. There are no more great horses because greatness requires passing tests. Sure it is not our business what a man does with his horse. But it makes me sick when billionaires protect their horses reputations with brief campaigns and early retirements. For what? So they can make a couple of million more? Whatever happened to the pride of having the fastest horse?

One thing that Assmussen was correct about in the Daily News article is that guys are getting rewarded for not running. There really needs to be a closer look taken at the credentials of those who are doing the voting for these awards. Just being a card carrying member of the turf writers association shoul not cut it. A lot of the guys who vote dont pay much attention to the sport outside of the Triple Crown and Breeders Cup anyway.

Racing always screws up when we try to be more like other sports. The "win and your in" concept is so flawed I wont even say anymore about it. The making of the Breeders Cup into a "championship" day demeans the entire racing schedule. We aren't Nascar or Ncaa Basketball and letting outside interests try to make us into that hurts the sport's creditability.
Amen!

Danzig 08-14-2007 06:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sightseek
Amen!
hell, just look at Songster for example. eight lifetime starts. absolutely ridiculous!

GBBob 08-14-2007 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
"Running him back in the Travers and then keeping him at that level for another 60 days is unrealistic, as opposed to backing off and targeting it directly."

This quote from Steve Assmussen is frightening. Now races in August are too stressful for races in November? If I was just a fan, I would probably find a new sport because this attitude is not only wrong historically, it is destructive for the sport of our sport. Not only are top horses going to be retired early, they are not even going to be campaigned much while running, just spotted randomly every 60 days or so.

I thought that Nafzger did the right thing by skipping the Belmont because of the grind of 3 races in 5 weeks without a chance for the Triple Crown. But this is entirely different. These are well rested horses that are at a point in their lives where they are maturing and getting stronger. Not running them is not only unsporting, it is disgraceful. And don't place all the blame on the trainers. The owners are as much to blame by captiulating and allowing this to happen. There is very little evidence that this style of training is sucessful in winning Breeders Cup races and as such is disheartening to see so many going down this path.

Chuck....After huddling with my people...T-Pletch and C-Ass...I am advising against running Top Royelle at Saratoga Thursday. I know she's in great shape and I know you think the race fits, but if we are truly aiming for that 52k Alw NW 1 in Feb at The Fairgrounds, this race makes no sense.
Regards,
Bob

Danzig 08-14-2007 06:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GBBob
Chuck....After huddling with my people...T-Pletch and C-Ass...I am advising against running Top Royelle at Saratoga Thursday. I know she's in great shape and I know you think the race fits, but if we are truly aiming for that 52k Alw NW 1 in Feb at The Fairgrounds, this race makes no sense.
Regards,
Bob

lol

i love it!

Riot 08-14-2007 06:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GBBob
Chuck....After huddling with my people...T-Pletch and C-Ass...I am advising against running Top Royelle at Saratoga Thursday. I know she's in great shape and I know you think the race fits, but if we are truly aiming for that 52k Alw NW 1 in Feb at The Fairgrounds, this race makes no sense.
Regards,
Bob
:D :D :D :D

Cannon Shell 08-14-2007 06:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardus
Here is my question about the portion that I highlighted: if Street Sense had been a head better in the Preakness, he would have run in the Belmont Stakes, no questions asked.

Is it your contention that a trainer risks ruining or wearing out a horse for the summer by running him in the third leg of the crown only if he hasn't a chance to win the Triple Crown? Is it acceptable to subject a horse to that grind -- with the chance of ruining him -- if he has won the first two legs?
I never said that he would be ruined. But it is most certainly a risk vs reward thing. If you have the chance for the Triple Crown then you have to go for it unless there is a grave danger of the horse being incapicitated. My contention is that the Belmont is not that important unless you win the other legs and because of the timing of it there is risk that you may knock your horse out for the rest of the year. If you win the Triple Crown, do you really think the horse would continue to run anyway?

Cannon Shell 08-14-2007 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GBBob
Chuck....After huddling with my people...T-Pletch and C-Ass...I am advising against running Top Royelle at Saratoga Thursday. I know she's in great shape and I know you think the race fits, but if we are truly aiming for that 52k Alw NW 1 in Feb at The Fairgrounds, this race makes no sense.
Regards,
Bob
You know I am not that happy with the post position...so lets just retire her. I'll see if we can get a cheap season to Curlin if he is unable to recover from his strenous Haskell effort and is retired with his one Grade 1.



She has done enough

GBBob 08-14-2007 07:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
You know I am not that happy with the post position...so lets just retire her. I'll see if we can get a cheap season to Curlin if he is unable to recover from his strenous Haskell effort and is retired with his one Grade 1.



She has done enough
As soon as she wins a race in North America, I agree

hoovesupsideyourhead 08-14-2007 07:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GBBob
As soon as she wins a race in North America, I agree
lololololololloll...thursday..good luck.tell that little frenchman to get over...asap


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:03 AM.
Page 3 of 4 < 12 3 4 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.