Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
I don't think it was sour grapes at all. Most unbiased observers agree with Repole, including myself. Don't get me wrong. I think the best horse won. But it's the principle of the whole thing.
|
Well if you make this about principle, Repole doesn't have a leg to stand on (I don't agree that most people who understand things like rank horses and rabbits would agree with Repole). It's ironic that he has the nerve to make the claim. He was trying to set up the race for himself. It takes a lot of nerve to argue that someone else got to it before you. And Noble Indy wasn't going fast enough to get that lead. He just wasn't. They argue things don't make sense that do, trying to create a sense of impropriety where none exists. Things that are observable. If you're talking how RH was behaving, Jay Privman saw it and he's not the only one I've heard bring the rankness up. As for why he was up there in the first place, are you gonna argue that Baffert horses are not typically forwardly placed versus back in the pack? That it's not better to use tactical speed in the Belmont Stakes? RH's position and ride made sense. Castellano claims Noble Indy hit the gate among other things. I didn't go back and look at it, but if Repole expected him to go up there and wear Justify out for Vino Rosso while being sacrificed, how's he getting around that ethical issue?
People are mad their horses lost, they shouldn't have expected to win, and it's tacky as hell to make it be the first thing out of their mouths when we just had a worthy TC winner. Maybe Repole and Coburn need to go have a beer and commiserate.