Derby Trail Forums
Page 6 of 8 « First < 45 6 78 >
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)
-   -   Final Verdict ... Fog Is A Fraud (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2006)

dalakhani 07-19-2006 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalakhani
So what are you saying? That he was a deserving champion? There may not have been a "worthy" champion last year and LITF may have been the best of a bad lot. But does that mean he still wasnt overrated?

You said earlier in this thread that you wont "judge him when he doesnt fire" but when do you judge him if that is the case? When he is dancing past overmatched garbage?

Let me give you what i have heard over the last couple of months and tell me what you think:

Sept 05- he doesnt need to go to belmont for a prep. Nah...he just needs to stay home and collect a check and not tire himself out before the big dance. This is one of the best sprinters of all time.

Oct 05- (after bc loss) he just wasnt himself today. It just wasnt him. I mean- look who beat him. Those horses arent any good and it proves that he just wasnt right. Too much travel.

April 06- He doesnt need to go to gulfstream for the richter scale or Aqueduct for the carter. For the first time out, lets just give him an easy preop.

May 06- (after loss) The layoff and the weight took its toll. It wasnt the real foggy. You will see next time.

June 06- (after aristides win) That was the real fog today. It didnt matter what he beat, he beat what dared to load against him.

July 06- (after loss in smile) He didnt show up today. Nope- he didnt fire. Hes acting studdish. He has a quarter crack. The post hurt. He didnt like the track. He was giving too much weight. This wasnt the real fog.



When is it ever going to be "the real fog" that loses? Horses dont "fire" for a reason and when you disregard the factors that lead to a hrose not "firing" you are being blinded by the hype. It seems fog doesnt "fire" when there is a horse in the race that is capable of beating him. Its as simple as that.

He isnt a pig but he isnt close to being the best sprinter in the country. And if that is the case, he is a fraud.
Now, look at kentuckyrosesinmay's "reasons" as to why LITF didnt fire and tell me that there arent some shocking similarities.

Amazing.

Goo-gooism at its finest.

The fact that this horse has NEVER beaten a decent field and has lost every time he has faced one is not enough to convince the goo goos that this horse was overrated.

dalakhani 07-19-2006 08:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay
Ok, I'll offer my analysis on why LITF didn't win those three races. I have very good explanations on what happened to him.

BC SPRINT-No other horse in the BC sprint had traveled around the country and had a grueling campaign like LITF did last year. Just like LR did in the Derby, LITF was too weary and tired. That is why he gave around the final turn. I believe that the horse's physical problems are a direct result from this race because while the connection's intentions have always been noble, they went a step too far and pushed LITF over the edge.

CARTHAGE-LITF was coming off of a huge layoff and was not fit. He ran into a monster in Carthage in which the trainer of Carthage specifically announced that this would be the only time he could beat LITF. LITF ran a good second to a horse that was 100% fit and ready for this race.

SMILE SPRINT-LITF was never into the race. I don't know how this race can even be debatable. The horse was clearly not himself. You have to watch the races. I think the horse is having some serious physical problems combined with the fact that he didn't take to the track. Something was wrong with him. That is why he may be retired. I mean LITF was seventh at the quarter pole. In what other race in his career has he been seventh at the quarter pole and sixth at the half? NONE. This race can hardly be used to debate that the horse is not good against older quality sprinters. This particular race was clearly indicative of physical problems/not taking to the track. Not that he isn't good enough.

The proof lies within the Aristrides. If LITF was not that good of a horse, the nice Kelly's Landing would have easily beat him. I am very confident in that althought like Rupert, I could be wrong. It definitely wouldn't be the first time.

Also, LITF will never live up to the reputation that has been set for him. He was supposed to be an undefeated horse according to most. He is never supposed to get beaten. Hardly any horses throughout the history of the sport could have lived up the the expectations that have been set for LITF. I really like the horse and I hope they can find out what is wrong with him and fix it. He isn't one of the greatest ever, but he is definitely not as bad or a fraud like some of the posters are making him out to be.
Kelly's Landing is hardly "nice" and that horse got smoked on saturday as well.

You are right that LITF will never live up to the reputation that was set for him. He will never be an "all time great". But he isnt even a grade 1 animal. We have a defending Eclipse champ that cant even COMPETE in open company grade 2's. That is the definition of "fraud" in its purest form.

Bold Brooklynite 07-19-2006 09:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalakhani
Kelly's Landing is hardly "nice" and that horse got smoked on saturday as well.

You are right that LITF will never live up to the reputation that was set for him. He will never be an "all time great". But he isnt even a grade 1 animal. We have a defending Eclipse champ that cant even COMPETE in open company grade 2's. That is the definition of "fraud" in its purest form.
I argued over-and-over again throughout last year's Eclipse balloting season ...

... that the Sprint Award should have been vacated ... no champion named.

There are some years ... and some divisions ... where no horse is really desrving of the accolade of "champion" ... and last year's sprint division was one of them.

To give the award to a horse which never won an open G2 ... much less G1 sprint ... and probably was not even one of the ten best sprinters ... was a joke ... and a debasement of the word "champion."

And my position then has been completely vindicated by this year's events.

Bold Brooklynite 07-19-2006 09:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalakhani
Goo-gooism at its finest.

The fact that this horse has NEVER beaten a decent field and has lost every time he has faced one is not enough to convince the goo goos that this horse was overrated.
Sidebar:

For those of you who were never members of the "other" forum ...

... it was I ... little old me ... who coined the term "goo-goo" 2+ years ago ... to describe the naïve dreamers who ... in the Spring of 2004 ... had declared that year's 3YOS to be the greatest crop in American history.

So, yes ... I'll take both the credit ... and the blame ... for coining that term.

Rupert Pupkin 07-19-2006 09:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalakhani
Now, look at kentuckyrosesinmay's "reasons" as to why LITF didnt fire and tell me that there arent some shocking similarities.

Amazing.

Goo-gooism at its finest.

The fact that this horse has NEVER beaten a decent field and has lost every time he has faced one is not enough to convince the goo goos that this horse was overrated.
He's never beaten a decent field? That's absurd. He's won six graded stakes races the past year and a half. You guys say the most ridiculous things. I could say that Afleet Alex has not beaten a decent field. Who did he beat in the Belmont? Andromeda's Hero and Nolan's Cat. Who did he beat in the Preakness? Scrappy T. Afleet Alex never beat an older horse and when he faced really tough fields like in the Ky Derby and the BC Juvenille he lost.
Who did Leroidisanimaux ever beat? He never beat any really good horses. When he finally faced a tough field in the BC Mile, he lost.
I could make the same arguments that you guys made about practically any horse. There are only a few horses over the past 10 years, that you couldn't make these argumnets about. The only horses that you couldn't make such arguments about are horses that are pretty much undefeated and have beaten really good horses. The only horse I can think of that you could say that about would be Ghostzapper. He was practically undefeated and he beat a couple of very good horses in Saint Liam and Roses in May. But there's even a big knock on Ghostzapper. He hardly ever ran. You could argue that the only reason his recrd was so good was because he ran so infrequently.
You guys think you're making these brilliant arguments but you're not. We know that LITF is not doing well. We know he's got physical problems. His trainer has been very concerned about these problems, so concerned that they may retire the horse in July. Horses don't retire in July unless they are hurt. What more do you need to know?

kentuckyrosesinmay 07-19-2006 09:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalakhani
Now, look at kentuckyrosesinmay's "reasons" as to why LITF didnt fire and tell me that there arent some shocking similarities.

Amazing.

Goo-gooism at its finest.

The fact that this horse has NEVER beaten a decent field and has lost every time he has faced one is not enough to convince the goo goos that this horse was overrated.
Well, then you tell me what happened to some of the other top horses at Calder on July 15th. The top horses weren't winning. I guess it was because they all just aren't good enough.:rolleyes:

dr. fager 07-19-2006 09:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
You guys think you're making these brilliant arguments but you're not. We know that LITF is not doing well. We know he's got physical problems. His trainer has been very concerned about these problems, so concerned that they may retire the horse in July. Horses don't retire in July unless they are hurt. What more do you need to know?
Ok, my only question is why run him this past Saturday then? Why not keep him in California instead of shipping him across the country?

Bing Crosby is coming up, or didn't they want him to lock up with Bordonaro?

Rupert Pupkin 07-19-2006 09:50 AM
[quote=ArlJim78]You called Carthage a monster. Well the problem for LITF in the Smile is that there were 5-6 horse with Carthage type speed. LITF has never shown the ability to handle this situation.
"I don't know why it's considered not even debatable that he ran pretty much his usual effort considering the data I posted yesterday."

Jim, To me it's not debatable because even before the race Gilchrist said that the horse has problems this year and they had considered retiring the horse last month. Trainers don't say stuff like that if their horse is doing well.
With regard to the data you posted, we don't have any faith in that data. If I told you that according to my speed figures, Dubai Escapade ran her best on Saturday but lost because she was overmatched, would you buy it? Of course you wouldn't, so why would you expect us to buy your argument?
Now you may very well be right that LITF would not have won even if he did run his best, but that's a different issue.

kentuckyrosesinmay 07-19-2006 09:51 AM
Just because the horse lost a few races in which he had legitimate excuses does not make the horse a fraud. The only people who think this horse is a fraud are the ones that set too high of expectations for him in the first place. It is not his fault that you all did that. I still say that he is at least Grade II company and maybe Grade I. We may never know though because they will probably retire him because he is having major physical problems. I don't get why people are so apt to jump all over this horse when he loses. He's a horse not a machine.

Answer this question...

Why did many of the top contenders in July 15th's races at Calder not win?

Rupert Pupkin 07-19-2006 10:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr.fager
Ok, my only question is why run him this past Saturday then? Why not keep him in California instead of shipping him across the country?

Bing Crosby is coming up, or didn't they want him to lock up with Bordonaro?
These trainers run their horses all the time when they're not doing well. It would be easy to name 1000 horses that have run when they weren't doing well. Most horses don't stay in form for very long. One of the main reasons is because they are very fragile and most of the time they are battling some type of physical problem. If trainers only ran horses when they were at the top of thier game, we'd have nothing but 3 horse fields. I doubt Gilchrist knew for sure that the horse would run bad. The horse was coming off a nice win. I think he probably had some of the sme problems going into that race, yet he still won, so I'm sure that Gilchrist was hopeful that maybe the horse would win despite the fact that he wasn't at his best. The reason he chose the Calder race was because of the timing and because of the huge purse, not to mention that the horse had won at Calder before.

Rupert Pupkin 07-19-2006 11:39 AM
I have one more point to make. I've already said it, but I don't know if I really made it clear. In my opinion, you don't assess a horse's ability simply based on who they beat. It's not who they beat. It's how they did it. Case in point is Afleet Alex. He may not have beaten anyone great in the Preakness or Belmont, but you could still see that AA was a great horse based on his performance in those two races. It doesn't matter who he beat. It was how he did it.
Giacomo, on the other hand, won the KY Derby and he beat a great horse in Afleet Alex(who obviously did not run his best in the Derby ) that day. So not only did Giacomo win a huge race, he beat a great horse. Despite this, Giacomo is far from a great horse.
So we have Afleet Alex who never beat anyone and he is a great horse. Then you have Giacomo who did beat someone, yet Giacomo is not a great horse.
This type of stuff is quite typical in horseracing. There are many ordinary horses out there who have beaten great horses. And there are many great horses who have never beaten good horses. It's not who you beat. It's how you do it.

ArlJim78 07-19-2006 12:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
I have one more point to make. I've already said it, but I don't know if I really made it clear. In my opinion, you don't assess a horse's ability simply based on who they beat. It's not who they beat. It's how they did it. Case in point is Afleet Alex. He may not have beaten anyone great in the Preakness or Belmont, but you could still see that AA was a great horse based on his performance in those two races. It doesn't matter who he beat. It was how he did it.
Giacomo, on the other hand, won the KY Derby and he beat a great horse in Afleet Alex(who obviously did not run his best in the Derby ) that day. So not only did Giacomo win a huge race, he beat a great horse. Despite this, Giacomo is far from a great horse.
So we have Afleet Alex who never beat anyone and he is a great horse. Then you have Giacomo who did beat someone, yet Giacomo is not a great horse.
This type of stuff is quite typical in horseracing. There are many ordinary horses out there who have beaten great horses. And there are many great horses who have never beaten good horses. It's not who you beat. It's how you do it.
In my opinion it is definetely not an either or. It has to be both, who the horse beat and how. No question. The who and the how are both important.
To say that it doesn't matter who a horse beats seems somewhat absurd to me. The best situation is to find a horse that beats classy fields and looks good doing it.

I also don't agree with your comment that AA didn't run his best in the derby.
Are you saying he didn't "fire". I'm sorry but to me it was the single best performance in that derby all things considered. It was an incredible race. If you're saying he could have won it with different rating tactics I would agree, but how much more could AA have given that day?

dalakhani 07-19-2006 12:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
He's never beaten a decent field? That's absurd. He's won six graded stakes races the past year and a half. You guys say the most ridiculous things. I could say that Afleet Alex has not beaten a decent field. Who did he beat in the Belmont? Andromeda's Hero and Nolan's Cat. Who did he beat in the Preakness? Scrappy T. Afleet Alex never beat an older horse and when he faced really tough fields like in the Ky Derby and the BC Juvenille he lost.
Who did Leroidisanimaux ever beat? He never beat any really good horses. When he finally faced a tough field in the BC Mile, he lost.
I could make the same arguments that you guys made about practically any horse. There are only a few horses over the past 10 years, that you couldn't make these argumnets about. The only horses that you couldn't make such arguments about are horses that are pretty much undefeated and have beaten really good horses. The only horse I can think of that you could say that about would be Ghostzapper. He was practically undefeated and he beat a couple of very good horses in Saint Liam and Roses in May. But there's even a big knock on Ghostzapper. He hardly ever ran. You could argue that the only reason his recrd was so good was because he ran so infrequently.
You guys think you're making these brilliant arguments but you're not. We know that LITF is not doing well. We know he's got physical problems. His trainer has been very concerned about these problems, so concerned that they may retire the horse in July. Horses don't retire in July unless they are hurt. What more do you need to know?
What is absurd about that statement? Now lets not start double talking. Earlier in the thread, you said that we were too fixated on race grading and NOW you have the nerve to use it as the basis for this weak argument. Quit flip flopping.

Who did he beat? Name one quality field

Bold Brooklynite 07-19-2006 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHoss9698
He has won 11 of 14, come on hardly fraudulent to me.
How can a great record be fraudulent?

Two words ... Andy Kaufman.

kentuckyrosesinmay 07-19-2006 01:10 PM
I will ask this question for the third time because NOONE WANTS TO GIVE IT A RESPONSE...

Why did many of the top contenders in July 15th's races at Calder not win? Were they all just not good enough or could there be some other logical explanation?

Hmmm....I wonder.

Bold Brooklynite 07-19-2006 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay
I will ask this question for the third time because NOONE WANTS TO GIVE IT A RESPONSE...

Why did many of the top contenders in July 15th's races at Calder not win? Were they all just not good enough or could there be some other logical explanation?

Hmmm....I wonder.
Perhaps the reason no one is reponding to the question ... is that it's totally irrelevant.

Does anyone know or care who won or lost on the undercard when Smoke Glacken defeated Wise Dusty in the DeFrancis Memorial? Or when Housebuster defeated Senor Speedy in the Forego Handicap?

What difference does it make what happened in races that Lost In The Fog didn't run in?

kentuckyrosesinmay 07-19-2006 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
Perhaps the reason no one is reponding to the question ... is that it's totally irrelevant.

Does anyone know or care who won or lost on the undercard when Smoke Glacken defeated Wise Dusty in the DeFrancis Memorial? Or when Housebuster defeated Senor Speedy in the Forego Handicap?

What difference does it make what happened in races that Lost In The Fog didn't run in?
The relevance is that some of the horses didn't take to the track which is why no one would answer my question.

SentToStud 07-19-2006 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
Perhaps the reason no one is reponding to the question ... is that it's totally irrelevant.

Does anyone know or care who won or lost on the undercard when Smoke Glacken defeated Wise Dusty in the DeFrancis Memorial? Or when Housebuster defeated Senor Speedy in the Forego Handicap?

What difference does it make what happened in races that Lost In The Fog didn't run in?
Get it right, huh?

The Smile WAS an undercard race. The top race of the day was the G1 Princess Rooney.

Not even close here daddy.

Bold Brooklynite 07-19-2006 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay
The relevance is that some of the horses didn't take to the track which is why no one would answer my question.
Yes ... you're correct ... some horses didn't take to the track ... but ...

... other horses did ... and ...

... other horses weren't affected ... and ...

... all of that happens every single day wherever horse races are held.

And the relevance to Lost In The Fog's inability to win open G1/G2 sprints is ... ?

kentuckyrosesinmay 07-19-2006 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
Yes ... you're correct ... some horses didn't take to the track ... but ...

... other horses did ... and ...

... other horses weren't affected ... and ...

... all of that happens every single day wherever horse races are held.

And the relevance to Lost In The Fog's inability to win open G1/G2 sprints is ... ?
He was having physical problems and didn't take to the track.

Bold Brooklynite 07-19-2006 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay
He was having physical problems and didn't take to the track.
OK ... in other words ... he lost.

Am I missing something here?

Damascus '67 07-19-2006 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay
The relevance is that some of the horses didn't take to the track which is why no one would answer my question.
Did Calder's racing strip change so much in one year that he went from liking it to disliking it? I really don't see the relevance.

dalakhani 07-19-2006 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay
The relevance is that some of the horses didn't take to the track which is why no one would answer my question.
Why is it that he "didnt take to the track" in races on tracks that he had already raced and won at?

I heard the track excuses when he lost in his combacker. How do you not like your home track???????

His career best beyer was at calder. Lost there now.

Second best beyer was at belmont. Lost there now.

So, if he goes to Saratoga and loses again there, will he not like the track?

Why hasnt he run a single race in So Cal? We are going on his third season in training and races at 8 or so different tracks but still not a race in So cal. Why is that? Could it be because the early pace scenarios in So Cal sprints are generally greater than anything you will see in the east? Wouldnt that support what Arljim is saying?


Why cant you look at facts...facts provided here in this thread? Why are you looking for these intangibles?

Are you that desperate for a hero?

ArlJim78 07-19-2006 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay
I will ask this question for the third time because NOONE WANTS TO GIVE IT A RESPONSE...

Why did many of the top contenders in July 15th's races at Calder not win? Were they all just not good enough or could there be some other logical explanation?

Hmmm....I wonder.
Well I have seen this question and here are my thoughts;
1) It's a complicated and challenging question. Of course it very well may be different answers in each case. If you can narrow it down and give one or two I might give it a crack. I don't think anyone is ignoring the question, it's just that it is so open ended that it would require a lot of work in order to make a dilligent response. Who has the time to review the entire card that day?

2) By asking this question over and over, are you implying that there is some overriding obvious explanation that we should be aware of without even studying each horse and race on a case by case basis.

3) Whatever the reasons are for other top contenders not winning at Calder on Saturday, how is that relevant to the very narrow discussion we are having about LITF? Let's say that another top contender on the card did not win due to the very same reasons being ascribed to LITF, didn't fire, wasn't right, etc. That wouldn't imply that this was the same reason for LITF's performance. I believe this is a logical phallacy, one doesn't imply the other.

Maybe I'm misundetstanding the reason for your question.

ArlJim78 07-19-2006 01:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArlJim78
Well I have seen this question and here are my thoughts;
1) It's a complicated and challenging question. Of course it very well may be different answers in each case. If you can narrow it down and give one or two I might give it a crack. I don't think anyone is ignoring the question, it's just that it is so open ended that it would require a lot of work in order to make a dilligent response. Who has the time to review the entire card that day?

2) By asking this question over and over, are you implying that there is some overriding obvious explanation that we should be aware of without even studying each horse and race on a case by case basis.

3) Whatever the reasons are for other top contenders not winning at Calder on Saturday, how is that relevant to the very narrow discussion we are having about LITF? Let's say that another top contender on the card did not win due to the very same reasons being ascribed to LITF, didn't fire, wasn't right, etc. That wouldn't imply that this was the same reason for LITF's performance. I believe this is a logical phallacy, one doesn't imply the other.

Maybe I'm misundetstanding the reason for your question.
nevermind I see it's already been answered. I'm too slow and wordy!

dr. fager 07-19-2006 01:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
Perhaps the reason no one is reponding to the question ... is that it's totally irrelevant.

Does anyone know or care who won or lost on the undercard when Smoke Glacken defeated Wise Dusty in the DeFrancis Memorial? Or when Housebuster defeated Senor Speedy in the Forego Handicap?

What difference does it make what happened in races that Lost In The Fog didn't run in?
LOL...right on.

But since she can't look for herself 4 of 13 favorites won about 30%...sounds on par to me

and 2 finished second, and 1 third.

Bold Brooklynite 07-19-2006 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalakhani
Why is it that he "didnt take to the track" in races on tracks that he had already raced and won at?

I heard the track excuses when he lost in his combacker. How do you not like your home track???????

His career best beyer was at calder. Lost there now.

Second best beyer was at belmont. Lost there now.

So, if he goes to Saratoga and loses again there, will he not like the track?

Why hasnt he run a single race in So Cal? We are going on his third season in training and races at 8 or so different tracks but still not a race in So cal. Why is that? Could it be because the early pace scenarios in So Cal sprints are generally greater than anything you will see in the east? Wouldnt that support what Arljim is saying?


Why cant you look at facts...facts provided here in this thread? Why are you looking for these intangibles?

Are you that desperate for a hero?
OK ... Dalakhani ... I think I've finally figured out what they're saying. It's very complex ... so try to follow it closely. Here it is ...

Horses win races when they "take to the track" and "fire" ... and horses lose races when they "don't take to the track" and "don't fire."

It took me quite a while to understand that ... because it's so deep and so profound. Were you able to follow it ... or should I try to explain it further?

SentToStud 07-19-2006 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
Yes ... you're correct ... some horses didn't take to the track ... but ...

... other horses did ... and ...

... other horses weren't affected ... and ...

... all of that happens every single day wherever horse races are held.

And the relevance to Lost In The Fog's inability to win open G1/G2 sprints is ... ?
And every other horse was not giving 8-13 lbs. Twist it how you want, the horse wasn't 100%, the track was likely a factor and, hey, guess what, none of them win all the time. You comment that they should have not voted any horse Sprinter of the Year is assinine. Until, at least, you are given an Eclipse Award vote.

And when was the last time ANY sprinter gave 8 lbs+ in a race?

dalakhani 07-19-2006 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
OK ... Dalakhani ... I think I've finally figured out what they're saying. It's very complex ... so try to follow it closely. Here it is ...

Horses win races when they "take to the track" and "fire" ... and horses lose races when they "don't take to the track" and "don't fire."

It took me quite a while to understand that ... because it's so deep and so profound. Were you able to follow it ... or should I try to explain it further?
Okay, i need a little bit more explanation. I have often heard "he just wasnt himself". Can you help me understand what that means? Every time he loses, "he just wasnt himself" and when he wins "that was the real fog".

So what happened here? Can we possibly assign some Freudian logic to the case of this emotionally troubled horse.

Do you think that maybe he suffers from feelings of inadequeacy as the result of feelings of abandonment caused by being taken from his mother too early?

Do you think that maybe he doesnt feel loved and that in turn makes him feel like he is not good enough to be "the real fog" all of the time?

Do you think that maybe he is being resentful towards his trainer because he wanted an extra mint before the race and decides to throw in the towel to show him who is the real boss?



What do you think?

ArlJim78 07-19-2006 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalakhani
Why is it that he "didnt take to the track" in races on tracks that he had already raced and won at?

I heard the track excuses when he lost in his combacker. How do you not like your home track???????

His career best beyer was at calder. Lost there now.

Second best beyer was at belmont. Lost there now.

So, if he goes to Saratoga and loses again there, will he not like the track?

Why hasnt he run a single race in So Cal? We are going on his third season in training and races at 8 or so different tracks but still not a race in So cal. Why is that? Could it be because the early pace scenarios in So Cal sprints are generally greater than anything you will see in the east? Wouldnt that support what Arljim is saying?


Why cant you look at facts...facts provided here in this thread? Why are you looking for these intangibles?

Are you that desperate for a hero?
Dalakhani, you and I know why he avoids SoCal, he would be buried. They run the exact type of race shape that works against him, loaded up front speed. They have got some real burners down there that would eat his lunch if he tried to run with them. Give the connections some credit as they have placed him for the most part where he can win, but there are few places he can hide now if he is going to be considered a true champion sprinter.

dalakhani 07-19-2006 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SentToStud
And every other horse was not giving 8-13 lbs. Twist it how you want, the horse wasn't 100%, the track was likely a factor and, hey, guess what, none of them win all the time. You comment that they should have not voted any horse Sprinter of the Year is assinine. Until, at least, you are given an Eclipse Award vote.

And when was the last time ANY sprinter gave 8 lbs+ in a race?
Are you kidding me? Xtra heat use to do it all the time. Thats off the top of my head. How much did GZ give in his sprints? Kona Gold? Do you want me to keep going?

ArlJim78 07-19-2006 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalakhani
Okay, i need a little bit more explanation. I have often heard "he just wasnt himself". Can you help me understand what that means? Every time he loses, "he just wasnt himself" and when he wins "that was the real fog".

So what happened here? Can we possibly assign some Freudian logic to the case of this emotionally troubled horse.

Do you think that maybe he suffers from feelings of inadequeacy as the result of feelings of abandonment caused by being taken from his mother too early?

Do you think that maybe he doesnt feel loved and that in turn makes him feel like he is not good enough to be "the real fog" all of the time?

Do you think that maybe he is being resentful towards his trainer because he wanted an extra mint before the race and decides to throw in the towel to show him who is the real boss?



What do you think?
you guys are cracking me up!

Bold Brooklynite 07-19-2006 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalakhani
Okay, i need a little bit more explanation. I have often heard "he just wasnt himself". Can you help me understand what that means? Every time he loses, "he just wasnt himself" and when he wins "that was the real fog".

So what happened here? Can we possibly assign some Freudian logic to the case of this emotionally troubled horse.

Do you think that maybe he suffers from feelings of inadequeacy as the result of feelings of abandonment caused by being taken from his mother too early?

Do you think that maybe he doesnt feel loved and that in turn makes him feel like he is not good enough to be "the real fog" all of the time?

Do you think that maybe he is being resentful towards his trainer because he wanted an extra mint before the race and decides to throw in the towel to show him who is the real boss?



What do you think?
Hmmm ... a ferrrrrry interrr-restink zeory youff got zere.

Allow me to zink about zot zome more ... vile I conzult mit mein colleaks.

ezrabrooks 07-19-2006 02:09 PM
What's this "the horse wasn't 100%"? They shipped a cripple from coast to coast to run when he was hurt? No sense can be made of that statement.

I can't follow half of the arguments being put forward on behalf of this Fog horse.

Ez

Bold Brooklynite 07-19-2006 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezrabrooks
What's this "the horse wasn't 100%"? They shipped a cripple from coast to coast to run when he was hurt? No sense can be made of that statement.

I can't follow half of the arguments being put forward on behalf of this Fog horse.

Ez
Then you're a genius, Ez ...

.. because I can't follow any of it.

Bold Brooklynite 07-19-2006 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHoss9698
Bold, I'm not making excuses for LITF, but what does Andy Kaufman have to do with anything? Andy Kaufman's matches were fixed,
Wrong ... wrong ... wrong ...

... all of Andy's matches against women were legit ... only his final match against a man was a con job.

Lost In The Fog's opposition wasn't quite as suspect as Kaufman's ... but the analogy makes the point ...

... don't be overly impressed by winning streaks against restricted opposition ... wait until everyone is allowed to play.

Bold Brooklynite 07-19-2006 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHoss9698
I'm sure most people out there would love to train or own a horse who has won 11 of 14, whether it's a $5,000 claimer or a stakes horse.
And I'd have loved to have been Andy Kaufman's agent.

Lost In The Fog's connections are to be commended ... they won a lot of races and a lot of money with a modestly talented sprinter. Hats off to them!

Gander 07-19-2006 03:04 PM
and I'm sure most people out there would love to train or own a horse who has won 11 of 14, whether it's a $5,000 claimer or a stakes horse.

I think anyone on here would be happy owning a 5K claimer who is 0 for 14, LOL!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:25 PM.
Page 6 of 8 « First < 45 6 78 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

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