For the morons (most of them) who write about horseracing...

Cannon Shell · #1 06-09-2007, 06:43 PM

Was that Belmont good enough for you? Or was it just RUINED because those poor sports kept their Derby winner home.

Just wait Todd...you are the good guys now but just wait until you dont run the filly in the Travers or BC Classic....then you will be a bad guy too! And racing will once again be destroyed.

#2 06-09-2007, 06:44 PM

Thought I heard Tabor say Alabama then BC Classic.

Danzig · #3 06-09-2007, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spendabuck85

Thought I heard Tabor say Alabama then BC Classic.

she's going in the classic?

see, i'd rather keep her against three year olds now, and then run in the distaff....but that's just me.

ArlJim78 · #4 06-09-2007, 06:51 PM

the writers always know whats best for the sport, that's a fact.
They even know which owners are sporting and which are not sporting.

Cannon Shell · #5 06-09-2007, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

the writers always know whats best for the sport, that's a fact.
They even know which owners are sporting and which are not sporting.

For every Haskin or Steve Crist there are 100 morons, most who only cover the Triple Crown and never watch another race again the rest of the Year.

justindew · #6 06-09-2007, 06:55 PM

Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention, but I don't remember hearing that many people criticize Nafzger for not running. What I DID hear, and wrote myself, was that it was too bad that Street Sense's connections didn't think he could run in the Belmont and still win the Travers. From my standpoint, that decision said more about the breed, and Street Sense himself, than the connections.

But, again, maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention to the writers.

Cannon Shell · #7 06-09-2007, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justindew

Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention, but I don't remember hearing that many people criticize Nafzger for not running. What I DID hear, and wrote myself, was that it was too bad that Street Sense's connections didn't think he could run in the Belmont and still win the Travers. From my standpoint, that decision said more about the breed, and Street Sense himself, than the connections.

But, again, maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention to the writers.

Go to Equidaily and get a taste...

of course many of them wont write about horseracing until next May

somerfrost · #8 06-09-2007, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spendabuck85

Thought I heard Tabor say Alabama then BC Classic.

Facing Invasor in the BCC is a huge task...I'd want to try older horses first (minus him) in a race like the JCGC or Foster. I don't see a huge advantage to running in the Alabama but then...I was sure wrong about the Belmont.

fpsoxfan · #9 06-09-2007, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Was that Belmont good enough for you? Or was it just RUINED because those poor sports kept their Derby winner home.

Just wait Todd...you are the good guys now but just wait until you dont run the filly in the Travers or BC Classic....then you will be a bad guy too! And racing will once again be destroyed.

Once again Chuck...Very well said. Let the racing blowhards just fight it out amongst themselves.

#10 06-09-2007, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Go to Equidaily and get a taste...

of course many of them wont write about horseracing until next May

Horseracing is not the only sport where good writing is spread thin. People who actually know the sport and can write are hard to come by. You basically got a bunch of guys that can put things on the level of a casual fan and then move on to baseball and then keep up with college FB recruiting and then...

And really, how much need is there for good writers to cover horse racing? The real fan base is so small... The more people get into a sport, the more likely we are going to find writers who cant get away with not knowing the sport. These guys dont know history, dont know training, dont know betting, so many things... Racing is a fairly complex sport. Something like baseball. Its hard to pay attention full-time. I think this is where the internet can play a very large role.

So your next article on handicapping trainers is due Wed. I guess Belmont, Churchill, and Hollywood would cover it.

Samarta · #11 06-09-2007, 08:16 PM

Gotta love Tabor's comment about one of the reasons they ran her was because he thought that's what the public would want....don't know how sincere it was, but it sure sounded good....

Riot · #12 06-11-2007, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgardn

And really, how much need is there for good writers to cover horse racing? The real fan base is so small... The more people get into a sport, the more likely we are going to find writers who cant get away with not knowing the sport.

I was thinking on this, however, and thought that if one put a novice racing or gambling fan onto ATRAB ... they will end up a fan for life. The names in the sport will have faces, personalities. When I was younger, that is why I drifted away for a few years, all the info I could find was fairly coldly statistical about races, horses, trainers.

Put a face, a story, a personality on the athletes, the trainers. Good writers nowadays feed you the "being there" emotions as the writers and newsreels of old did. It sweeps you up and captures your imagination.

King Glorious · #13 06-11-2007, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samarta

Gotta love Tabor's comment about one of the reasons they ran her was because he thought that's what the public would want....don't know how sincere it was, but it sure sounded good....

I don't believe it. It's been reported for the longest that he's been saying this is a truly special filly and if he was running her where the public wanted, he would have run her in the Derby. Fact is that he was skipping the SA Derby with her because he was planning Ravel for that race. Then he skipped the Derby with her because they had CQ. He was only protecting his colts' interest, which I can understand, but the only reason he ran her here was because they finally realized that CQ is not up to beating the best of the division and if he wanted to win one, he needed to run her. That's how I see it. If he was convinced CQ could win the Belmont, Rags would not have been there.

MisterB · #14 06-11-2007, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I don't believe it. It's been reported for the longest that he's been saying this is a truly special filly and if he was running her where the public wanted, he would have run her in the Derby. Fact is that he was skipping the SA Derby with her because he was planning Ravel for that race. Then he skipped the Derby with her because they had CQ. He was only protecting his colts' interest, which I can understand, but the only reason he ran her here was because they finally realized that CQ is not up to beating the best of the division and if he wanted to win one, he needed to run her. That's how I see it. If he was convinced CQ could win the Belmont, Rags would not have been there.

Agreed

sumitas · #15 06-11-2007, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justindew

Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention, but I don't remember hearing that many people criticize Nafzger for not running. What I DID hear, and wrote myself, was that it was too bad that Street Sense's connections didn't think he could run in the Belmont and still win the Travers. From my standpoint, that decision said more about the breed, and Street Sense himself, than the connections.

But, again, maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention to the writers.

only one horse in history has ever won the tc and the travers. who is the last horse to even run in all 3 tc races and the travers ? was it Point Given ? he was a super horse.