Originally Posted by Revolution

My boss has never posted here. You are the idiot who believed that. I know you are not very bright, but do you think an attorney is going to waste his time with you.

The guy wrote "The chance of Bernardini reproducing himself at stud is slim to none" and that isn't exactly something a person marketing his horse wants to see in print, especially when Haskin has no expertise for making that decision.

Originally Posted by oracle80

Did YOU actually just accuse someone of writing stupid things?
Thats gotta be the most incredibly ironic thing I have ever seen.

Originally Posted by Revolution

My boss has never posted here. You are the idiot who believed that. I know you are not very bright, but do you think an attorney is going to waste his time with you.

The guy wrote "The chance of Bernardini reproducing himself at stud is slim to none" and that isn't exactly something a person marketing his horse wants to see in print, especially when Haskin has no expertise for making that decision.

Originally Posted by Revolution

My boss has never posted here. You are the idiot who believed that. I know you are not very bright, but do you think an attorney is going to waste his time with you.

The guy wrote "The chance of Bernardini reproducing himself at stud is slim to none" and that isn't exactly something a person marketing his horse wants to see in print, especially when Haskin has no expertise for making that decision.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

So let me get this straight, in order to accurately write about racing it is necessary to understand physical ailments thoroughly and not bet?

That is baloney.

Not sure what writers that was referring to, and frankly there aren't an abundance of terrific writers covering racing, but the smattering of good ones are more " handicapping oriented " so to speak...thus perhaps the opposite would be true. Maybe the less known about horses the better.

Originally Posted by oracle80

What he said was absolutely logical. "Freaks" very rarely reproduce themselves and I'd be doubting that any little Ghostzappers will run with the brilliance of their old man.
I think his point may have been what many people are wondering. WHy do you spend billions of dollars looking for a horse thats so good only to retire him at the end of his three year old year when hes been lightly raced and is sound? Its not like they need the money, and its indeed puzzling.
Do you actually disagree with these sentiments?

Originally Posted by Hickory Hill Hoff

The King's Bishop of 2003, I believe he broke poorly and finished like a rocket ship for third at 6-1 no less! Pick him that day and had Valid Video as my longshot. This might have been the race to lead him to "superstar" status. I'm I right?

Originally Posted by oracle80

The less known about horses the better?
You can't be ****ing serious.
Yeah, I think at least a minor knowledge about horses and what can be done to improve them should be a prerequisite before you write articles about "juicing" and "cheating".
Some of these guys think Gastrogard is a contraceptive.
Sorry, but you can't pass yourself off as having any true knowledge of the sport with at least knowing a bit about it.
Its true that "handicappers" require none and can be quite successful at what they do without it, but saying a writer doesn't need it doesn't wash with me if hes going to write about things other than handicapping and selections.

Originally Posted by oracle80

I actually made my biggest score of the meet that day, maybe the year, boxing Valid Video and Great Notion and screaming for the wire to come.
There was an incredible speed bias that day, and on that basis I tossed the Zapper, who came rolling like a train for 3rd against the bias.
But his greatest race was his BCC, although some would argue his met Mile.
His BCC was a flat out display of raw power.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I was making a point concerning the better writers in the game.

Your comments are dangerously close to the silly horsemen comments spewed when some trainer doesn't like hearing the truth. Obviously the better one knows his field the better he or she can cover it. However, the common backstretch comment of " have you ever ridden or trained a horse " or the like are just frivolous cover-ups for " we don't like what yer writing ".

It would be a lot easier to respond specifically if you identified what writers and/or pieces you are referring to. Frankly, if some writer was putting out the kind of stuff you seem to be referring to he, and his publisher, would be embroiled in a lawsuit.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

So let me get this straight, in order to accurately write about racing it is necessary to understand physical ailments thoroughly and not bet?

That is baloney.

Not sure what writers that was referring to, and frankly there aren't an abundance of terrific writers covering racing, but the smattering of good ones are more " handicapping oriented " so to speak...thus perhaps the opposite would be true. Maybe the less known about horses the better.

Originally Posted by Revolution

Listen to Oracle, he knows about lawsuits for saying moronic things. :eek:

Originally Posted by Revolution

Listen to Oracle, he knows about lawsuits for saying moronic things. :eek:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Sorry, dude, I may not get along with Oracle but he knows fifty thousand times as much about racing as you. Don't look for me as an ally...because I'm not yours.

Originally Posted by oracle80

You mean like those "great handicappers and writers and tv personalities" that explained to us all that Afleet Alex's lung infection "was just an excuse" and that he was "just a closing sprinter"? I wish I had one buck for each one of those.
If any of them had one ounce of horse knowledge they would have seen that he was done before the 6F mark and that he had indeed run like a horse who had an air problem. But nah, don't go using physical conditions and effects of a lung infection on a living breathing creature.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Look, there are MANY people covering this game that are downright incompetent. However, their incompetence is hardly based on not knowing the things you are pointing out. Sorry if I don't disagree with a writer questioning excuses coming from a horse's camp. Yes, any one ( myself included ) that disbelieved the Afleet Alex story was wrong in this case ( and I know a number of people that know horses very well that were also skeptical ) but frankly this was, sadly, more the exception than the rule.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I didn't think you were talking about Steve.