Thank You Mine That Bird

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

When they neared the quarter pole it looked like Pioneerof the Nile was going to blow open the race.

All kidding aside, this was the moment where had he been any better than a decent/good horse he would have asserted himself.

Instead, he battled Papa Clem and Musket Man in a thrilling duel to see who would be a distant second.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

When they neared the quarter pole it looked like Pioneerof the Nile was going to blow open the race and blow up the DerbyTrail.com server.

At he 1/4 pole John White yelled "honey we won't need the viagara tonight"

[Slewbopper]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

If it wasn't for Mine That Bird's inscutable effort today, we would have seen three relative mediocrities hit the wire together in one of the slowest KY Derbies in modern history. Now, instead of endlessly hearing about how wonderful a horse Pioneer of the Nile is, and one that only synthetic haters failed to see the obvious greatness of, we can all scratch our heads as to how this otherwise " slow " horse could destroy today's field.

Why can't you admit that Pioneer ran a damn good race and was beaten by what most believed to be a hopeless longshot? He was the second best horse in the race, hardly the throw out you had been dissing all week.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Slewbopper

Why can't you admit that Pioneer ran a damn good race and was beaten by what most believed to be a hopeless longshot? He was the second best horse in the race, hardly the throw out you had been dissing all week.

Because it's not true?

[santana]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Because it's not true?

Although you certainly have a great opinion, most of the time....it seems as if you may be incorrect, but never wrong..

[CSC]

Originally Posted by santana

Although you certainly have a great opinion, most of the time....it seems as if you may be incorrect, but never wrong..

He does have a good opinion like many others here do also, it doesn't mean we cannot disagree. If we all agreed all races would feature 1:9 shots and several @ 99-1.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Slewbopper

Why can't you admit that Pioneer ran a damn good race.

He finished in a 3 way photo of honest running mediocraties.

POTN ended up being my 3rd selection in the paper here - mostly because he's honest and figured to possibly be almost as good on dirt as his mediocre synthetic form - even though he ran 2nd in the Derby I see nothing about his race that was "damn good"

Dunkirk and Freisan Fire - two horses I've spent a lot of time knocking the lst few weeks both ran too bad to be true - their races didn't prove anything.

[HaloWishingwell]

The race was a toss. The conditions were like no other that theses inexperienced three year olds ever faced. Besides the distance the track was a mess. The only so called horse with known off track ability was FRIESAN FIRE and he got questionable training from Jones. The rest of the field ran their normal race or subpar performance based on the conditions. MINE THAT BIRD apparently was the lone exception. He moved up enough to improve on his numbers while the rest suffered. As for PIONEEROF THE NILE. The race didnt answer anything about his dirt ability besides that he tries regardless of conditions. Say what you want he still beat the rest of the field. I could have lived with him winning. The time would have been slow, the figures low but at least on past performances he would have been more deserving. He just wouldn't have been annointed as the second coming and just like MINE THAT BIRD wouldn't have scared anyone off for the Preakness.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

He finished in a 3 way photo of honest running mediocraties.

POTN ended up being my 3rd selection in the paper here - mostly because he's honest and figured to possibly be almost as good on dirt as his mediocre synthetic form - even though he ran 2nd in the Derby I see nothing about his race that was "damn good"

Dunkirk and Freisan Fire - two horses I've spent a lot of time knocking the lst few weeks both ran too bad to be true - their races didn't prove anything.

I'd like to know what the definition of damn good is ? Rachel Alexander's performance in the Oaks? If so that is an unfair comparison wouldn't you agree? No horse horse was going to look good after that. I'm not here to pick sides whether the pro POTN crowd was correct or the anti POTN crowd was correct. There seems to be alot of semantics flowing around, POTN didn't flop as many thought he would, nor did he run like a triple crown champion as others might want us to believe. The truth as always lies somewhere in between.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

He basically ran to his moderate but successful synthetic form.

The question of how well he would run on dirt was answered ... and the answer was just about as good as he runs on synthetic.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Actually it was mud not dirt.

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by CSC

I'd like to know what the definition of damn good is ? Rachel Alexander's performance in the Oaks? If so that is an unfair comparison wouldn't you agree? No horse horse was going to look good after that. I'm not here to pick sides whether the pro POTN crowd was correct or the anti POTN crowd was correct. There seems to be alot of semantics flowing around, POTN didn't flop as many thought he would, nor did he run like a triple crown champion as others might want us to believe. The truth as always lies somewhere in between.

If I had $1 for every time someone said her name wrong maybe I could get back to even for the weekend. . .

[CSC]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

If I had $1 for every time someone said her name wrong maybe I could get back to even for the weekend. . .

I know me bad, and to think my little niece shares her name.

[Gander]

PON ran a good race. He beat everyone else in the field and would have won had it not been for a seemingly unexplainable turn of foot from a horse who improved more from his last couple than most people have ever seen any horse improve.

Why is it Dunkirk and Friesan Fires get free passes for running like crap and a horse like PON actually competes and is in the race call, but yet is quickly dissed as running to his complete and utter medicority? And to say Quality Road or I want Revenge would have won this race if they made the gate is quite a stretch, dont you think? On what basis would they have automatically won this race? Both have been very good in their last pair, but overwhelmingly good enough to be declared winners of the hardest race to win? I am a huge Quality Road fan, but lets be real. What made every horse in the race look like a drunken sailor coming down the stretch would not have affected Quality Road or I want Revenge in the same way?

Who's running in the Preakness besides the obvious first 2 finishers?

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

If I had $1 for every time someone said her name wrong maybe I could get back to even for the weekend. . .

I don't know about you, but for me, that would mean a ton of people...

[HaloWishingwell]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

If I had $1 for every time someone said her name wrong maybe I could get back to even for the weekend. . .

Maybe they changed her name to part girl part boy since they're not convinced she is filly the way she runs and looks

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by CSC

I'd like to know what the definition of damn good is ? Rachel Alexander's performance in the Oaks? If so that is an unfair comparison wouldn't you agree? No horse horse was going to look good after that. I'm not here to pick sides whether the pro POTN crowd was correct or the anti POTN crowd was correct. There seems to be alot of semantics flowing around, POTN didn't flop as many thought he would, nor did he run like a triple crown champion as others might want us to believe. The truth as always lies somewhere in between.

Depends on your definitions and assumptions.

1) If you assume that QR and IWR would've finished ahead of PON had they run, then

2) it would come down to your definition of what tossing PON out of the exotics would mean

So it does come down to semantics and assumptions

but, all it all, the rigorous SPIN by the PON detractors (best defense is a good offense) kind of points to their losing this one.

Why anyone would think that PON is
a) exceptionally good
or
b) a plug

is beyond me.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Depends on your definitions and assumptions.

1) If you assume that QR and IWR would've finished ahead of PON had they run, then

2) it would come down to your definition of what tossing PON out of the exotics would mean

So it does come down to semantics and assumptions

but, all it all, the rigorous SPIN by the PON detractors (best defense is a good offense) kind of points to their losing this one.

Why anyone would think that PON is
a) exceptionally good
or
b) a plug

is beyond me.

I seem to remember all this POTN conversation started when IWR won the Gotham, then The Wood, and when Papa Clem won the Arkansas Derby. Essentially the crux of the discussion to bring it back to some semblance of logic here was could he transfer his synth form to dirt, and probably in this case improve as IWR and or PC did. I don't think anyone here said he was very good, great, whatever word you choose. Though no one should be judged on solely 1 race, I think we can conclude he is not simply a synth and or turf horse, that we know based on 1 isolated race.