Beyer Checks In on Godolphin

Originally Posted by 2MinsToPost

I will sound crude and different here, but is their money not the same as others? It's green right? Is it money that belongs to shareholders or savings and loan customers? Is it drug money? Hey, welcome to the sport, after all, money talks and bullshiat walks right? I don't know, I don't follow what goes on over their in their country, so I can't speak politics on this. All I know is that if they were not involved in horse racing period, then maybe the landscape would be diferent? Question that begs to be asked, would it be better or worse, the state of racing?

All one has to do is go to their local track on Kentucky Derby day and look at all those unfamilar faces. Those faces that you will not see their during the Summit of Speed or the day after Thanksgiving (easily one of my favorite days to be at the track). Everyone knows, outside of us Horseplayers, that Derby is a social party. For us, it is a great day to watch and wager on those horses we have followed for months. So BillyBean wins the Derby. You go to the track for the Preakness. Look at the faces, ah, some are back. BillyBean finishes 4th. You are at the track for The Belmont, you look around. Same crowd as any Saturday in January or October, the players. For those outside of Horseplayers, it's all about latching on to that special event, time pulling for that cute animal to win all 3. Breeder's Cup, whats that?

I'm dizzy.

[sham]

Take it to the extreme. What if one day all 20 entrants in the KY Derby are owned by the Sheiks? That's the day I will just turn off the TV.

An Andy Beyer post that is negative in nature....thats a new one

[blackthroatedwind]

Any columnist that is not illiciting strong responses, either or both positive and negative, is not doing his or her job.

[repent]

Originally Posted by sham

Take it to the extreme. What if one day all 20 entrants in the KY Derby are owned by the Sheiks? That's the day I will just turn off the TV.

I dont care who owns them as long as I can bet on them.

i know this,
when handicapping the owner line is one of the last things I look at, and its really just more about curiousity.


Repent

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by repent

I dont care who owns them as long as I can bet on them.

i know this,
when handicapping the owner line is one of the last things I look at, and its really just more about curiousity.


Repent

I actually do pay some attention when it comes to first time starters. I'm not sure it helps a great deal but it feels like with some of the bigger trainers ( say Pletcher for example ) there are definitely owners that feel more likely to pop first out. It's hardly an exact science but I think if you paid a little more attention you might develop a bit of a feel.

[repent]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I actually do pay some attention when it comes to first time starters. I'm not sure it helps a great deal but it feels like with some of the bigger trainers ( say Pletcher for example ) there are definitely owners that feel more likely to pop first out. It's hardly an exact science but I think if you paid a little more attention you might develop a bit of a feel.

ok, fair enough.
i look, its just not something I weigh too heavily unless there is a significant trend I have noticed in trainer/owner combo.
thanks for the advice.


Repent

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by repent

ok, fair enough.
i look, its just not something I weigh too heavily unless there is a significant trend I have noticed in trainer/owner combo.
thanks for the advice.


Repent

I agree. It's impossible, assuming no " information ", to weigh it very heavily. I guess it's sort of a final decision maker.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

I'm dizzy.

And witty. LMAO

In a comparison on a much lower level of the game, do we all miss Michael Gill from racing ? He still has a few horses with gammy, but he tried to monopolize the claiming game and most race fans disliked him . Tracks also disliked him for his aggressive claiming tactics among other things. Delaware Park would not give him stalls and he bought his own training center nearby.He would dominate some tracks claiming divisions by buying up so many that there was little competition. Owners/trainers kept their horses in the barn until the gill show moved on to another track. Was what he was doing legal, sure, was it good for the game, I don't think so. The same could be said for what the sheiks are doing. I'm glad that Beyer penned this column.
BTW, this past sunday the NY Times had a new sports magazine included. The name of the magazine is PLAY . ( Bill Parcells is pictured on the cover.) On page 16 is an article, GALLOPING TO GREATNESS . It is the story of Bernardini. Its a sparse article listing what's so good about Bernie with a large photo of him taking up half the page. Just suprised to see it in the NYT.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by point given

BTW, this past sunday the NY Times had a new sports magazine included. The name of the magazine is PLAY . ( Bill Parcells is pictured on the cover.) On page 16 is an article, GALLOPING TO GREATNESS . It is the story of Bernardini. Its a sparse article listing what's so good about Bernie with a large photo of him taking up half the page. Just suprised to see it in the NYT.

Yesterday they ran a big article on the sheiks' rise to prominance in American racing. This article opened on page A1 before continuing in the sports section.

--Dunbar

[SentToStud]

So Beyer makes a not so thinly veiled reference to the Maktoums as foolish and vulgar. Foolish? OK, maybe. But how/why is he compelled to refer to them as vulgar?

They can do what they want with their horses.

Sangster/Mangier/OBrien did the same thing in the 70's when they bought everything remotely tied to Northern Dancer. They'd race their horses until they won a classic or other important Group I then retire them to breed.

Sound familiar?

If Gates or Buffett suddenly decided to put a billion dollars into the American breeding industry, they'd be called a lot of things.... Sporting, Foolish, Yep. Stupid. Sure, though quietly I'd guess. Vulgar? Nah, save that, as does Beyer and countless others, for the Arabs.

Shame on Beyer. He should be an effective enough journalist by now to get his point across without referring to the Maktums as vulgar.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

So Beyer makes a not so thinly veiled reference to the Maktoums as foolish and vulgar. Foolish? OK, maybe. But how/why is he compelled to refer to them as vulgar?

They can do what they want with their horses.

Sangster/Mangier/OBrien did the same thing in the 70's when they bought everything remotely tied to Northern Dancer. They'd race their horses until they won a classic or other important Group I then retire them to breed.

Sound familiar?

If Gates or Buffett suddenly decided to put a billion dollars into the American breeding industry, they'd be called a lot of things.... Sporting, Foolish, Yep. Stupid. Sure, though quietly I'd guess. Vulgar? Nah, save that, as does Beyer and countless others, for the Arabs.

Shame on Beyer. He should be an effective enough journalist by now to get his point across without referring to the Maktums as vulgar.

May I suggest looking up " vulgar " in the dictionary. One use of the word suggests pretentious or, more aptly, ostentatious. Because you have a limited understanding of the meaning of the word does not give you the right to make your usual accusations.

Believe it or not, everything isn't couched with racism.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

May I suggest looking up " vulgar " in the dictionary. One use of the word suggests pretentious or, more aptly, ostentatious. Because you have a limited understanding of the meaning of the word does not give you the right to make your usual accusations.

Believe it or not, everything isn't couched with racism.

Again, you must be right, as usual. Should know that by now, you make a point of telling us often enough and everyone else is just (fill in your favorite adjective/pronoun).... Really, not everyone other than yourself is as naive, limited, or (again, fill in as you wish, but of course some mental capacity reference is always fun!!) as you'd like to think.

You profess so much and yet resort to this same trash anytime anyone takes a view any different than any you care to see.

So, perhaps we won't be having any holiday dinners together. I'll get over it.

And, PLEEEEZE, don't bother trotting out your Racing/Pick6/Zito/Beyer/NYRA/Respected Handicapper/Dictionary Expert (new!!) Cirriculum Vitae!! it's not necessary. We all surely know it very well now.

Take it in the spirit offered.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Again, you must be right, as usual. Should know that by now, you make a point of telling us often enough and everyone else is just (fill in your favorite adjective/pronoun).... Really, not everyone other than yourself is as naive, limited, or (again, fill in as you wish, but of course some mental capacity reference is always fun!!) as you'd like to think.

You profess so much and yet resort to this same trash anytime anyone takes a view any different than any you care to see.

So, perhaps we won't be having any holiday dinners together. I'll get over it.

And, PLEEEEZE, don't bother trotting out your Racing/Pick6/Zito/Beyer/NYRA/Respected Handicapper/Dictionary Expert (new!!) Cirriculum Vitae!! it's not necessary. We all surely know it very well now.

Take it in the spirit offered.

So, your defense of accusing someone of racism because, in this case, you don't know the true meaning of a word is to....what....trash me?

That makes sense and dramatically increases your credibility.

Nice try.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

So, your defense of accusing someone of racism because, in this case, you don't know the true meaning of a word is to....what....trash me?

That makes sense and dramatically increases your credibility.

Nice try.

Please, I'm not trying anything. Really, now. But, nice try.

The vulgar reference is lousy writing, no matter who's friendly with the guy . By the way, just which of the listed definitions of the word would you think he was going for (of course, that assume you can read his mind as well as mine which, of course, we have no reason to doubt)?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Please, I'm not trying anything. Really, now. But, nice try.

The vulgar reference is lousy writing, no matter who's friendly with the guy . By the way, just which of the listed definitions of the word would you think he was going for (of course, that assume you can read his mind as well as mine which, of course, we have no reason to doubt)?

You are trying something. Instead of seeing at least the possibility that you misunderstood his use of the word " vulgar " you just trashed me.

You most certainly are trying something. Don't think you can post what you did and then play the injured party.

You don't like the article, or his writing, fine...but the constant unfounded accusations of racism are tiresome....at best.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

So, your defense of accusing someone of racism because, in this case, you don't know the true meaning of a word is to....what....trash me?

That makes sense and dramatically increases your credibility.

Nice try.

on second thought, F it. The last time we did this, I moved it to PM and, despite you saying you would, you never got back to me. So what's the point?