Quote:
|
Originally Posted by brianwspencer
Seriously, I'm not trying to be snarky, but this is the kind of thing that makes me feel GREAT about playing the races.
The morning-line is one of the few items in the program that actually has NO effect on the horse at all. The horse will run the same whether it's 5-1 or 20-1, she doesn't know the difference. So if someone is deliberately choosing to ignore the items that ACTUALLY have to do with the horse, and are instead relying on the morning-line to do their handicapping for them, then it creates great prices for everyone doing their homework. It's not like every angle here listed by people was not right there on paper. The slow works angle has been debunked several times, the 12 post is no hindrance, and it's not like the horse was listed as trained by Jamie Sanders (and really, thought experiment, QUICK what is Ken McPeek known for? If your first answer isn't 2-year olds in the fall, it's South American imports....and then 2-year olds in the fall) and someone missed a late change announcement. Absolutely all of the relevant information needed to peg this horse a contender was listed right there in black and white, and if someone is relying on a morning-line to make their assessment and blaming that when they lose, rather than the fact that they seemingly overlooked EVERY pertinent angle on the horse’s page, it’s an awfully tough call to ask for that to pull at the heartstrings.
Seeing as the ML in no way influences the horse or her talent, it would be similar to me capping the races, seeing tons of relevant angles on a horse called GONNAWINONFRIDAY and then tossing the horse because it’s a Thursday afternoon, before crying to everyone that it was a putover because the horse was obviously not meant to run well on Thursday….because you know, it was right there in the program.
Please.
|
I will say one more thing about this then leave it alone.
Hindsight is 20/20 and reading what everyone has said about McPeek and what he does and how he points his horses I cannot disagree with anything here that has been said. Now that being said I only believe that backs up everything ive said about being screwed. If there is so much overwhelming evidence that this horse had a great shot of winning why did it "slip" past the person that gets paid to know this kind of stuff. Here I am a casual bettor it gets by me ok but slips by Mike B too and im the fool for not catching it?
Now i wouldnt be as mad if the horse won going by some collapsing speed or certain things happened to give the horse an advantage. BUT THIS WAS ONE OF THE MOST SENSATIONAL PERFORMANCES BY A 2YR OLD FILLY IVE EVER SEEN. For Mike to not take everything into consideration about McPeek and not know of any of the buzz going around about this horse is hard for me to fathom. I just dont believe he had no knowledge about this horse.