Blame saved the historic integrity of the sport

[CSC]

Originally Posted by cakes44

What the heck was wrong with her trip? If I had $$ on her I would have been thrilled with that ride right up to the wire.

There was nothing wrong with it, she was farther back then usual and she was slightly steadied when she had to avoid QR when he threw in the towel, the pace was honest, everyone talks about a fast pace but what did anyone expect, the 3 plugs setting the pace to steal the race...the fact is Blame had a better trip, if she gets a perfect trip she wins, but obviously she was not good enough to overcome it, that's as objective as one can be whether you are impartial, a hater or a fan of her. I think we are unanimous she ran a great race.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by CSC

if she gets a perfect trip she wins

First of all, her trip was as close to perfect as a horse like her is going to get. Secondly, she had every chance to run him down and couldn't do it. No ifs ands or buts this time.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

First of all, her trip was as close to perfect as a horse like her is going to get. Secondly, she had every chance to run him down and couldn't do it. No ifs ands or buts this time.

I like the usage of like her, I think I said she wasn't good enough to overcome it so we agree. And I think you mentioned she ran a good/great race, so all is well with me and you.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by CSC

I like the usage of like her, I think I said she wasn't good enough to overcome it so we agree. And I think you mentioned she ran a good/great race, so all is well with me and you.

Something tells me you wouldn't be trying to be so diplomatic and genial had she won the race. I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that she had something 'to overcome'. She couldn't have been beaten more fairly.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Something tells me you wouldn't be trying to be so diplomatic and genial had she won the race. I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that she had something 'to overcome'. She couldn't have been beaten more fairly.

Churchill Downs is blame's home track and favored surface. That's part of the game though. The set up was certainly fair and the way the surface was prepared (it seemed that they went lengths to ensure the rail was dead) certainly made it as fair as it could possibly be.

However, if you are saying that she "couldnt have been beaten more fairly" a neutral track would have done the trick and perhaps a dirt prep for Z. Either way, the connections can only blame themselves.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Churchill Downs is blame's home track and favored surface. That's part of the game though. The set up was certainly fair and the way the surface was prepared (it seemed that they went lengths to ensure the rail was dead) certainly made it as fair as it could possibly be.

However, if you are saying that she "couldnt have been beaten more fairly" a neutral track would have done the trick and perhaps a dirt prep for Z. Either way, the connections can only blame themselves.

Blame runs well everywhere. If he's better at Churchill, it's marginally. His best race this year came at Saratoga. I think the idea that he had 'home field advantage' is retarded. She handled the track fine. She had every opportunity to run him down, but Rinterval he ain't.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Blame runs well everywhere. If he's better at Churchill, it's marginally. His best race this year came at Saratoga. I think the idea that he had 'home field advantage' is retarded. She handled the track fine. She had every opportunity to run him down, but Rinterval he ain't.

Blame has run 5 times over the surface in his 13 race career. Yesterday was his best race in my opinion. Its safe to say that Churchill downs is his home track for no other reason than he has run more there than anywhere else. Why is this not logical?

His Jockey said it took her a few steps to get use to the track and he said it last night when I was talking to him in front of Jeff Ruby's.

Do I think that there are any valid excuses? NO. I think Blame won fair and square. I just dispute the notion that having multiple runs over a track while and opponent has never run on said track should be considered an advantage. Of course it is. And if you don't incorporate "horse for course" in your handicapping i would be surprised.

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Blame runs well everywhere. If he's better at Churchill, it's marginally. His best race this year came at Saratoga. I think the idea that he had 'home field advantage' is retarded. She handled the track fine. She had every opportunity to run him down, but Rinterval he ain't.

He did not run well at Belmont. A race that was supposed to be his big coming out party, getting to go 10f for the first time.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Something tells me you wouldn't be trying to be so diplomatic and genial had she won the race. I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that she had something 'to overcome'. She couldn't have been beaten more fairly.

Did I say she was beaten unfairly? She ran a great race and a perfect trip as the one Blame got yesterday probably wins it. I'll stress this point again, since you will probably point out this is sour grapes, she wasn't good enough to get away with anything less than a perfect trip yesterday with the trip Blame got, whereas in the past she had a larger margin for error. You don't have to be impartial, a hater or fan of hers to know this, like I said yesterday, running well and proving the critics wrong means more to me than her winning the race. Now if you want to dispute her running well, then we can hash it out, if not then we are fine .