Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
With all due respect, you make some pretty questionable points. Where did Steve come even close to saying the number of horses a horse faced in earlier races makes it OK for it to face less horses in later races?
|
IMO, he appeared to make that connection when he concluded his post with:
"Justify has already beaten 23 different horses in 2 legs and if he were to best probable newcomers Blended Citizen, Gronkowski, Restoring Hope and Bandua in the Belmont, the number swells to 27.
"So GTFO with the 'reduced competition' nonsense."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
Then you conclude your post with a total skewing of what Walden said....he said you CAN'T manufacture a TC, yet you left CAN'T out of your quote. Sort of interesting....no?
|
BTWind, I had already quoted Walden in full, and I had no intention of "skewing" the meaning when I wrote that final sentence.
How did you interpret what Walden wrote? Given the way it followed, "It's different when you've won two out of three than when you've won one out of three,", which seemed to be explaining why they're tempted to NOT run Audible, I interpreted "can't manufacture a TC" to mean 'you shouldn't try to manufacture a TC'. But I could certainly understand you're hearing it differently.
I'm also interested in how you feel about the central question. Do you have any misgivings at all about ownership conglomerates holding out horses merely to make the the TC more likely for the Derby/Preakness winner?