[King Glorious]

Interesting conversation. I don't know anything about the race or the trainer and everything I've learned has come from this thread. I think good arguments have been made on both sides. The result was completely unforseeable. That winner may not have been my selection to win even if no other horse was entered. There was absolutely nothing to indicate a performance like that was even possible. When you start looking for reasons why it happened, the soft turf seems like a good one. Something nefarious seems no less like a good reason. Without knowing anything about the individuals involved, I wouldn't make the claim or insinuation that something was done that wasn't on the up and up. I do, however, see how anyone could come to that conclusion and I definitely wouldn't argue with them and tell them they are wrong.

In the end, isn't that the bigger issue? As is the case with so many things, perception often becomes reality. Some people constantly bring up guys like Baffert and Cox and talk about how they cheat and ruin the sport. I counter that I have believed from the start and still do believe that cheating is a regular part of the game so when I get beat by something or someone that I feel like was unfair, I chalk it up to acceptable risk. The perception of the public when it comes to horse racing is that cheating is a regular part of the game. That's why I appreciate the Bob Baffert's of the world. At least they are more apparent with what they do. An old saying is that the enemy you know is better than the one you don't know.