Quote:
Originally Posted by CRAPSHOOT  I just have one question for you dog..."How many European horses are syndicated for stud purposes for over $50 million?"...yes they may be able to run righthanded but are they worth $50 Million!...I'll bet most of them aren't worth the insurance money to cover the $50 Million!
Follow the money, dog...there's your answer!
Many consider "Bullet" Bob Hayes as the fastest man in the world...he sucked at jumping hurdles....does that take away from the fact that he is the fastest man in the world...does that mean that he is not great?
There are many debates on who is the fastest man...but I don't see too many people getting bent out of shape on who is the fastest hurdler!
Fast is the fastest speed not who can also jump with speed, or run the fastest backwards...who cares?!
A Porsche is a fast automobile, but I have no idea how fast it goes in reverse...Indy 500 cars doesn't even drive in reverse, they have to be pushed in reverse...does that mean that they are not fast cars?
What's the most important in horse racing...well just compare the size of the crowds and the TV and news coverage! |
Following the money is a totally spurious view. Those areas of the world not redulant with money are not going to spend it.
The comparison with human athletes is also spurious. Humans are two legged, horses are four legged. That means that one simple test is not adequate for horses though it maybe for humans. For a start horses can be divided into those that naturally lead with one or other of their forelegs and those that are equally at home leading with both. Providing a test which favours only one category is therefore not an adequate test. Your races are all left handed, you may have a faster horse in your own country which naturally leads with it's right leg, that horse is severely disadvantaged by a left hnded race, so you may have an even greater horse in your own backyard and never find it.
The comments about TV coverage are equally spurious, you have a much bigger audience than we have. The reason you lot don't watch other peoples racing has nothing to do with quality but everything to do your inherent and quite deliberate ignorance of what happens beyond your own shores (as in when the Iraq war started your own internal surveys showed that most of you had no idea where Iraq is).
The comments about cars are also spurious, a race car only has one property, speed. A horse has many properties, to be considered great it should be the best in all of those properties.
And you are all still being stupid. I am not saying this horse of yours is not great. I am not saying you have not had great horses over there. I am simply saying that the tests you give them do not justify the subsequent hype, even though that hype might actually be justified. Give the horses adequate tests of all their abilities and then there can be no argument.
Let's compare your Triple Crown with ours. They prove different things. Yours are run over a limited range of distances ours are as follows...
1) The Guineas, run over a straight but undulating mile, it tests speed and to some extent balance
2) The Derby, a mile and 4 fourlongs over a course similar to the Santa Anita European track, but much more severe, this tests speed, it tests stamina more but mainly it tests balance and coordination
3) The St Leger, a mile and six furlongs , undulations, long straights and a long galloping curve which is a true test of stamina, but also tests balance
In between the latter two, most Derby winners will also take in the King George, also a mile and 4 furlongs, but right handed, which tests the ability to lead with the other leg.
What would you say about a horse that passes all these tests? It's a fair question, answer it.
So, how many of your horses could manage to win all of those? There is plenty of prize money and you guys are rich enough to afford the transport, but your horses never attempt any of that. Why? Send some horses over and actually prove they are capable of more than you test them for. It never happens because they would get stuffed out of sight, especially as they would have to run without any medication. And why do we send so few horses to your triple crown? Well apart from a few power owners (in monetary terms) we can't afford the travelling and those power owners already have horses over your side anyway. The other reason is we think our own Classics provide a tougher test than yours do.
And please don't go to the spurious argument about the Breeders Cup. Our season is not geared to that so any horses that do come over have usually raced far more than yours by that time so it is no wonder they are over the top. To us the Breeders Cup is an after thought, so the preparation is not geared to it. I don't think you understand how bloody miraculous it is with that said that any of our horses have ever won, the whole preparation regime is against them. If our horses were specifically prepared for it like yours are you may have a point, but they are not.
BB 
