Now I Have Zero Respect Left for Shirreffs
 

“I think because Zenyatta is undefeated and beat such a strong field, she should strongly be considered for Horse of the Year,” Shirreffs said.

Asked if Zenyatta should have been in the Classic in order to vie for Horse of the Year against the best in the world, Shirreffs referenced the breakdown of Eight Belles in the Kentucky Derby.

“On the heels of some of the things that happened earlier in the year, it was in the best interest of Zenyatta, and in the best interest of racing, to run in the Ladies’ Classic against the best fillies in the world, and they all showed up,” Shirreffs said.

“It’s always in your mind when filles cross over, not just Eight Belles,” he said. “I just didn’t feel it was the right thing to do. I felt it was important for her to win a Breeders’ Cup race and be a champion. That was more important than racing in the Classic.”
___________________________

Complete and absolute bullshit. He could have run her in the Classic and made his case. As was talked about in another thread, if you want to run in the Distaff, feel free. But don't do your campaigning in the media afterwards when you had the opportunity to do it on the track. And then to reference Eight Belles in his reasoning for not taking on males? Is he ****ing serious? Did he not see Zarkava win her race? What about Goldikova win hers? Do female horses only break down when they face males? He's got to be kidding right? So, if he had a horse that won the Derby again, would he then skip the Preakness because of what happened to Barbaro? What about if he won the Derby and Preakness, would he skip the Belmont because of what happened to Charismatic? For that matter, why did he even run in the Distaff? Didn't he see what happened Go for Wand?

I heard his defenders talking about how he's brought her along slowly and because she's only run 9f once, taking her to a 10f race against the best in the world wasn't practical. Then we watched two 3yo's who had never been past a mile and were trying a new surface for the first time and shipping across the ocean to do it run 1-2.

Shirreffs just wanted to take the easiest path. He didn't want to take any chances with her and that's his right. But again, don't go campaigning in the media when you had your chances on the track. That's completely bushleague.

Yea, its alot easier to have respect for the big talkers out there like Dutrow, Mullins, Sadler and Mitchell.

I'll take those guys in a heartbeat. At least you know where you stand with them. They aren't those cookie cutter types that give you cliched and politically correct answers all the time. They wear their emotions on their sleeves. If I ask Dutrow what does he think about BB's chances in the Belmont, I want to know what he really feels. I don't care about him saying the right things to make others happy. If he doesn't have overwhelming confidence in his horse in that situation, something is wrong and I have no issue with him saying it.

I can't believe that even Sheriffs can get attacked on a message board

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8BWB...eature=related

You sir are crazy as a a Coconut!

King were you having a bad day holy Cow:eek:

Here's the thing. I didn't like the fact that he didn't want to run Zenyatta against the boys all year. I thought he was chicken. I wanted to see it happen but hey, I'm just a fan. He has to do what he thinks is right for his horse. While I was disappointed as a fan and voiced that disappointment, I could at least understand it. If he honestly felt his horse didn't have the maturity or the ability to take on that challenge at this time, he has to make the decision he made. That being said, don't give out those bullshit excuses as to why he didn't do it. Because of what happened to Eight Belles? Seriously? He's been around the game too long to know that freak accidents happen all the time and it's not only because of females running against the boys. Like I mentioned, Go for Wand broke down in the Distaff against girls. So should that have been in the back of his mind too? Why was Eight Belles the one he referenced but didn't reference Zarkava. Or Miesque. Or Lady's Secret, Personal Ensign, Winning Colors, Serena's Song, etc? They all ran against the males and didn't die. They even WON. So don't try to insult our intelligence and play on our sympathy by bringing up Eight Belles. And then don't campaign in the media when you had every chance to make your case on the track. Sort of like the Big Brown/Curlin stuff. Big Brown WAS eligible to run in the races Curlin ran in. Curlin wasn't eligible to run in Big Brown's races, save his last one. Zenyatta WAS able to run in the Classic this year and if Shirreffs believes she's the best horse and wanted to make his case for her, that's where she should have been. If you don't show up, then you win your race, take your trophy, take your check, and be happy about it. But then don't have the nerve to make your case in the media when you could have made it on track.

Personally, I have no issue with Shireffs on this matter . I understand his reasoning .

"Obviously that decision would be up to the Mosses as well, but it really goes against my nature to run fillies against males," said Shirreffs. "I've never done it during my career. The boys play a lot rougher than the fillies do and I wouldn't want to put her through that. To me, the risk would not be worth the potential reward."

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/hor...ory?id=3663674

I'm with KG on this one. Shirreffs plays it very, very safe with her (and has done a terrific job, no question). But he seems to be saying, "She beat all the best fillies, but any colt would have been too much for her because they play too rough." By that standard, Goldikova should be HOTY.

Of course, Zenyatta won't care either way. Neither will Curlin. :)

So do you think Zarkava shouldn't have run in the Arc or Goldikova shouldn't have been in the Mile? After all, we saw what happened to Eight Belles.

King Glorious has a point. If you want to be the best you have to beat the best.


WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

If according to his own words, the risk is not worth the reward......then he shouldn't receive the reward. Come on.

You dont understand the award.

The award goes to the horse who accomplished the most in the sport for the calender year, not who was the "best" horse. The two are often synonymous but not always.

Kotoshaan was horse of the year, I highly doubt he was a better horse then Bertrando or Best Pal, but they ran in separate divisions and their accomplishments are weighted separately.

Hmmmmmm...you sure about that?

I have debated this many times and I always thought it was for the "best" horse to run in North America. Is what you are saying written anywhere? It would really put an end to a lot of silly debate.

There are no rules, but he is right, it is pretty much based on accomplishment.

Well, i guess you just lost some respect for Byk also. he is on air eating up every word sheriffs is saying. Dont see how a filly that has only run in restricted races can be considered for HOY.
I have the utmost respect for Zenyatta...i think she may be the best filly/mare in the last 20 years. But let her prove herself against OPEN company. Could you imagine if an European trainer said that his filly should be HOY if she had only raced against females. He/She would get laughed in their face.

is that for any eclipse award or just Horse of the year?

The idea is basically for the best dirt router in the country. Usually, that's an older male horse. The door gets opened up to others when there is no clear outstanding older dirt male. That was the case when Azeri won it and when Lady's Secret won it. Same as when Kotashaan won it. There usually has to be a strong resume compiled throughout the year but that's not a requirement. As I've mentioned before, Arazi was one of the three HOY finalists in 1991 and that was after winning only the BC Juvenile during his year. This year, Curlin has compiled a good enough resume to win it. It's not the strongest ever presented but it is good enough. I don't think Zenyatta has come close to accomplishing the most in the sport this year. The ironic thing is that there's no doubt in my mind that she's actually better than Curlin this year.

My argument is not whether or not she should win the award. I wouldn't vote for her but I can totally understand those that would. My point is having the opportunity to make your case but chosing not to take it and then campaigning in the media is weak.

I think that statement is very debatable and thus why it will be a close vote, that in the end Curlin will win, for various reasons that are not as clear as one would imagine.

I don't think Sherriffs should give the Eight Belles incident as a reason for not running against the boys. He and the Moss's thought the Ladies Classic was the right spot and that is their perogative. Using the tragic accident, as the reasoning, is just a cheap way out. They've been in the game too long to believe this themselves.

It is debatable, I agree. Like I said, I feel like she's a better horse than Curlin is. But she compiled a record beating up on the same stiffs over and over again on courses that she obviously loves. It was great that she ventured out and took the Apple Blossom but that wasn't enough to offset what Curlin did. I hate giving it to Curlin because I don't think he's as good as her or even as good as he was last year. But to venture to Dubai, run in Kentucky, run at Saratoga, run at Belmont, and then even though his trainer wasn't comfortable doing it and could have stayed home and clinched HOY, they came out to California to try it. When Big Brown retired, Curlin had it clinched but he didn't take the back door in. They tried to cement it. Zenyatta shouldn't win the award ONLY because Curlin lost it and especially if she wasn't the one that beat him.

Can someone explain to me why either is more deserving than Big Brown?

That was a pretty big field in the Classic. She hasn't been facing that many horses in her races. I think that would of concerned me more than the quality of the field.

Curlins year -1st Stepher Foster /1st Woodward/ 1st Gold Cup/ 2nd Man o War/4th BC Classic
Zenyatta - 1st a bunch of synthetic races against pretty pathetic competition/ 1st apple Blossom/ 1st BC Distaff

BB- 1st FL Derby/1st KY Derby/ 1st Preakness/ 1st Haskell/1st made up turf stake

he should be in the discussion

Are you serious? Worst three year old crop in years and minor stake runners on the grass? It must be his connections. :D

Look who Curlin and Zenyetta beat and tell me if I should be serious.

And just who did Big Brown beat?

3 year olds, and the cashier at Goodwill.

Curlin proved he was a length better than Past the Point and wandering boy and a few better than Einstein on the dirt. Those are probably the weakest editions of those races in years. Zenyatta beat nobodies all year except at Oaklawn and the Distaff. Big browns crop wasnt good but he won 2/3rds of the TC pretty handily, easily won the FL derby , was not impressive despite winning the Haskell and beat older horses on a second surface. As a matter of fact I dont think one of Curlins foes on the Dirt all year showed up in a BC race.

Curlin did win the World Cup & Foster.....I guess it's BB's Belmont that still bothers me.

LOL! :D

i agree, he should. i think both curlin and big brown should be considered ahead of zenyatta. neither big brown nor curlin played it safe, and both had a very good year-a good enough year to get hoy. she didn't do anything special really. hell, if you just want to go with beating fillies and winning out, then i guess one could also throw pepper's pride into the mix, right? ok, i'm not really serious with that...but zenyatta didn't do anything outside of restricted company, and only shipped once. curlin went to dubai and back, big brown won the fla derby and ky derby from what was felt to be an impossible spot, and did it with ease. curlin attempted three surfaces, big brown attempted turf, simultaneously vs older, and won.
it's not a gimme for zenyatta at all. i think she should be considered, but in the end i think one of the other two deserves it more.

Well Armed.

Big Brown's foe in his big turf win at Monmouth ran a very poor third at even moneyish in a G3 Turf Stake at Belmont Saturday. His Haskell foe, Coal Play, got drowned in the G3 Pegusus Friday night at the Meadowlands.

The World Cup isnt a North American race
The Foster was a joke

Does anyone really think the east coast media, which represents the largest segment of voting, is going to vote for a horse who did most of their running on synthetics------even if they thought she should get it? If they did it would be a vote of support of the surface, the west coast Breeders Cup, and I highly doubt it would go over very well with their constituents.

It wasn't much of a year for North American racing. It's like winning Most Popular in a Home School.

I am not saying he is an outstanding choice but Curlins campaign has hardly been great and Zenyatta beat only fillies. You may not agree he should win but it is pretty hard to keep him from being in the discussion.

I hope your paranoia doesn't go so far as to actually believe this. If nothing else, your giving the voters way too much credit.

How come nobody on the East Coast has a East Coast/West Coast bias paranoia?

Of course he belongs in the conversation and making an argument for him isn't hard.

I couldn't care less who wins HOY. I am concerned with who wins horse races in the future.....not awards.

seriously who the hell even makes up the racing media anymore? Virtually no newspapers have a horseracing person and it is hard to believe that a trade mag or paper writer would be biased toward any coast. Though Ray Paulick and gary west are extremely biased towards a certain horse and its connections