[ninetoone]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I answered your question. The answer is "yes", it would have been possible for NI to run 2:02 3/5 with the trip he got, if he had about 4 lengths more ability (talent) than he has. You could say that about any horse that has trouble or gets a bad ride. If a horse has 2-3 lengths of trouble and loses a sprint race by 2 lengths, and the final time of the race was 1:09 3/5, I think most people would say, "That trip really cost that horse." I guess you would be the only one to say, "If that horse could have run 1:09 2/5, he would have won, even with the trouble." That is a strange argument, to say the least.

Every single handicapper, regardless of approach thinks NI was compromised by his ride. Some people may think the ride cost him a length. Others may think the ride cost him two lengths. Others may think the ride cost him 3 lengths or even more. It's debatable exactly how many lengths the ride cost him, but it's not debatable that he would have finished at least somewhat closer with a more patient ride. BTW thinks so, Cmorioles thinks so, Doug thinks so, Beyer thinks so (he mentioned it in his article), Ateam thinks so, Bigjag thinks so, NTamm thinks so, Port Conway thinks so, etc. It's hard to find anyone, regardless of their handicapping approach, that doesn't think the move was premature.

Sorry, I disagree. If you don't have trouble & you don't get a bad ride, sometimes you're still just not good enough to win. I appreciate all the names you mentioned, but not "every single handicapper" feels the same way. I already said I realize I'm in the minority here, and that's fine. You can keep saying the argument is strange & putting the dizzy symbols down if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that (I believe) the ride was OK.