Quote:
|
Originally Posted by oracle80
Tim this is getting old its pretty obvious that a fluky pace like none other in the HISTORY of the Arl Million allowed the Tin Man to win, in an effort worthy of victory.
But you are attempting to use one race with an extremely fluky set of conditions as a basis that he is superior overall to the other hores in there.
If you want to believe this then fine, but its not really logical to expect most people to agree.
|
You have it backwards. The truth is that it's not logical to use a slow pace as an excuse when your horse(Cacique) was basically on the lead. Cacique was neck and neck with The Tin Man at the quarter pole. I'm still waiting for you to explain what Cacique's excuse was. When they hit the stretch, The Tin Man and Cacique were neck and neck. At this point they both started sprinting and the next thing you knew, The Tin Man had a 3 length lead at the 1/16th pole. Cacique had no excuse. Do you honstly think the result would have been different if The Tin Man tracked Cacique the whole race? Either way, they would have been neck and neck at the quarter pole. How would the result have been different? When you get outsprinted that badly in the stretch, there is nothing that would have changed the outcome of the race.
When I watch a race where the pace is very slow and the winner goes wire-to-wire, I watch the come-from-behinders to see if any of them were closing even a little ground in the stretch. For example, if the pace is :50 and some horse comes from 7 lengths back and and only loses by a length or two, you could make a case that the horse would have had a chance to win with a faster pace. I'm obviously going to be watching to see how the horse is travelling too. Even if a horse is gaining ground, I'm not going to bet them in their next race unless the horse was moving well. That's why I was not going to bet that Clement Horse back that had all the trouble with Gomez. The horse was gaining some ground after having trouble, but the horse was not moving very well.