Quote:
Originally Posted by Dahoss
You are smarter than this, I know it. And it's not after the fact. I said it right after the JCGC and before the Classic.
|
After the JCGC is after the fact. That's as after the fact as it gets.
You said it because the horse ran worse than you expected and you expect him to bounce back and run better in the next race.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dahoss
It's weird, you use Beyers when they suit your arguement, but not when they don't
|
The Beyers improved between the two races because his circumstances improved. Same exact thing with JCGC 3rd place finisher Fly Down.
The Beyer declined with Haynesfield because of circumstance.
Trips and circumstances dictate outcomes.
Basically - I believe Blame improved because his setup did. I believe Fly Down improve because his setup did. I believe Haynesfield declined sharply because of the difference of his two trips.
You seem to be saying that Blame improved because his trainer purposefully kept him short for the JCGC .. and Fly Down improved because Zito also purposefully kept him short and couldn't care less if he won the JCGC .. and Haynesfield won the JCGC because it was his Super Bowl .. and he declined sharply in the BC Classic solely because he won the Super Bowl last time and the Classic was just his Pro Bowl game or letdown game and he was over the top.