Trainers, by the way they condition their horses, have unintentionally made sweeping the Triple Crown so easy that some convoluted thinkers are certain to suggest a tweak of the requirements that will make the feat more difficult. Three races in five days is no longer possible for even the best conditioned runners, causing the competition to become so watered down that almost any Kentucky Derby winner, which hasn’t been ground up like hash while attempting to secure his triumph at Churchill Downs, has a decent opportunity at succeeding.
There are Triple Crowns in other sports and their winners don’t emerge often, either. The most famous is Major League Baseball’s. A player wears MLB’s Triple Crown when he leads a league in home runs, batting average and runs batted in. Carl Yastrzemski of the Boston Red Sox was the most recent to complete the task in 1967. Affirmed was horse racing’s last Triple Crown winner in 1978.
Baseball has had only two more Triple Crown champions than horse racing. But winning baseball’s Triple Crown has occurred 15 times – Rogers Hornsby of the St. Louis Cardinals and Ted Williams of the Boston Red Sox each accomplished the rare feat twice. If baseball named only Triple Crown winners as a result of their performance across both leagues, there’d be only five players to qualify – the most recent was the New York Yankees’ Mickey Mantle in 1956. Regardless, unlike horse racing, there has been no movement for and little discussion of changing the requirements.
In any case, who in horse racing really cares if there’s ever another Triple Crown champion? Because three champions created excitement for horse racing back in the 1970s doesn’t mean that one could today, given the shift in the culture. Granted, Big Brown had crowds abuzz in 2009 – so did Smarty Jones and Funny Cide in prior years. But these times are different.
Winning a Triple Crown has value only in residual terms. If a horse would win the Triple Crown and then never race again or retire prematurely, there’d be little benefit derived from the development. In addition, the sport offers other means to make heroes. For a stretch of 18 months, Zenyatta captured as much of the public’s imagination as possible. Before her, Rachel Alexandra, in beating the boys in the Preakness, captured hearts. Before her, there was Barbaro.
Never crowning a Triple Crown champion again wouldn’t be a disaster. As a stand-alone event, the Kentucky Derby would be unaffected. As long as there’s beer served, the Preakness will continue to draw crowds, regardless of the Derby winner’s presence. True, the allure of the Belmont Stakes would be dimmed; a swing of 50,000 fans is determined on if the Triple Crown’s on the line. But is de-valuing a 1-1/2 mile stakes that is run at a distance which very few American-trained horses can handle such a bad thing?
Dialed In appears the most likely of this year’s crop to become a Triple Crown champion. His breeding suggests that he has the stamina to stay on in the Belmont when others wilt. Because Nick Zito has raced him lightly, he should have what it takes for the crunch of the schedule. More significantly, the Kentucky Derby Trail has taken its toll already on most horses that were considered atop this generation.
As for those left in the running, Uncle Mo, for example, appears iffy. After winning the Breeders’ Cup Juvenile and entering the Wood Memorial unbeaten, he was viewed as a super horse. Now, there’s talk that he’s sick, he has marks on his leather that indicate surgeries, and he won’t even see the roses, let alone wear them. Should Uncle Mo triumph in Louisville, however, he’d probably triumph in Baltimore, given the competition he’ll run against. Zito will save his horse for New York.
Americans prefer to win and when they can’t, they figure out ways that enable them. Doctors invented gastric bypass surgery to assist people who can’t stop themselves from eating. That’s the crux of the argument for messing with the Triple Crown. On the other hand, imagine Kirstie Alley panting her way through the last refrains of the song that she’s dancing to as you conjure up reasons to bet on any horse with a Triple Crown shot. If the former Weight Watchers spokesperson could run, she could run away with the mirror ball trophy.
The industry has bred hickory out of thoroughbreds the same way baseball has bred the seventh through ninth innings out of pitchers. Ferguson Jenkins, Harvey Haddix and Warren Spahn would be anomalies today, as would $2000 claiming horses that ran every week to provide trainers with per diem income and owners with thrills on a steady basis.
A week ago, horse owner Cot Campbell announced he’d stop honoring unsung heroes with a Dominion Award. “There’s no complicated reason,” the graceful scion of Dogwood Stable said about ending the program. “We think it’s all right to quit doing it,” he said, with refreshing transparency.
Ending the Triple Crown on the low note of never seeing another horse earn one is an okay idea, also – preferred, in every sense, to seeing the standard made harder.
Vic Zast invites yo to read his blogs about driving to the Arctic at http://www.ourlongestdrive.com, and to join him on Facebook and read his tweets at Twitter.
25 Apr 2011 at 06:42 am | #
I wish to paraphrase the second to last paragraph: A week ago, turf writers announced they would stop honoring the Triple Crown entrants. “There’s no complicated reason,” a graceful turf writer said about ending his constant coverage. “We think it’s all right to quit doing it,” he said with refreshing transparency.
You will find those $2000 claiming races far more interesting and easier on your wallet; and thank goodness for them, as they are the reason OTBs, racebooks, and phone wagering exists. The clarion call today is for less racing. Think Thoroughbred racing would become more popular if racetracks operated only on weekends? Of course you do, as you believe racing is a sport, as it fades to oblivion.
25 Apr 2011 at 07:23 am | #
Mr. Zast, can you see what you can do to bring back “Sidewalks of New York”? There are always those who want to pervert perfection. Change for the sake of change; who cares about improvement. While we are at it, let’s hire a commercial artist to “touch up” the Mona Lisa; give her a nose ring.
TTT
25 Apr 2011 at 01:37 pm | #
I don’t quite agree that changing the rules to space out the races would make it more difficult to win the Triple Crown. I DO AGREE that the races should NOT be changed. Horses could never again be compared to the champions of the past.
The “hickory” has not been bred out of thoroughbreds. Our TBs do quite well in Europe in long, rigorous races.
What needs to be looked at is the change in training methods. They are drastically different now and the trainers from quarter horses have changed things. If we want another Triple Crown Winner, horses need to be trained as they were in the past. They need a stamina building program in their 2nd year, worked more frequently at longer distances, and raced more often.
Sending a talented horse out with no stamina built up, lightly raced, who then blows all he has to win the big race is not a recipe for winning the 3 races, instead the horse is far more likely to suffer a career ending injury the 3rd year of their life.
25 Apr 2011 at 07:29 pm | #
Vic,
I second your motion to leave well enough alone.
Top Teddy,
I also second your motion to bring back “sidewalks”. I believe it was 1997 when NYNY debuted. A karma change that was not needed.
26 Apr 2011 at 01:26 am | #
THE ONLY CHANGE???...LIMIT THE DERBY FIELD TO 15 HORSES AS THE PRESENT TRACK WAS NOT DESIGNED TO HANDLE 20 STARTERS...NOT SAFE???...NOT FAIR???...OTHER THAN THAT...LET IT RIP!!!...2012 LOOKS LIKE A RINGER???...ty…
26 Apr 2011 at 04:15 am | #
Vic’s comparison of racing’s Triple Crown to MLB was interesting, particularly when he factored in the very few who would have won baseball’s over both leagues.
He left out that Thoroughbreds only get one bite at the apple, when they are 3yos. Major leaguers have several chances over the course of their career. That makes the paucity of baseball Triple Crown winners ever more elite as compared to racing.
Double Jay said, “I DO AGREE that the races should NOT be changed. Horses could never again be compared to the champions of the past.”
That sounds good, until compared with the facts. The Triple Crown has changed over the years, with alterations of the time between races, and even one year when the Preakness was run before the Derby. The notion the current pattern has always been that way is not correct.
Finally, analysis of the last 7 Kentucky Derbys has produced the following facts. Of the 137 horses which started in those events, fully 20 of them (14.5%) had 2 or fewer starts after racing in the Derby. An astonishing 6 never raced again.
That suggests the early May date and the overflow field sizes are destructive to young Thoroughbreds. By way of comparison, every horse which started in the 2007-09 Travers Stakes continued to race and as a group they won 33 races.
You can find the documentation for these stats at this link: http://goo.gl/qjLHv
26 Apr 2011 at 05:43 am | #
I wrote defending Todd Pletcher’s alleged “kid glove” treatment of Uncle Mo a while back, as follows:
“The question is, if you owned a horse who showed obvious promise of having the ability to become a Triple Crown winner, arguably the most promise in quite a few years, would you want that horse to begin to peak at Derby time, or before, with a grueling 3-race agenda within 5 weeks?”
Nick Kling’s reply was:
“A 3-race schedule is grueling? For what, hamsters?”
Glad to see you’ve come around to my way of thinking Nick.
The early May running and the field size of 20 does not suggest these factors are destructive to young thoroughbreds; poppycock! Running 3 races in such a close proximity I’m sure takes its toll. Once again, we return to the frenzy, and overtraining of these animals, which probably is the greatest contributing factor to your statistics, along with the fact that many probably retire for breeding purposes.
Remember Nick, as I’ve taught you grasshopper, Pletcher beats Baffert on the conditioning factor.
TTT
26 Apr 2011 at 05:59 am | #
Ted,
Your memory is a little shaky. Your “grueling 3-race agenda” comment was made regarding the prep season leading up to the Derby, not the 3 races of the Triple Crown itself. You were giving your approval to Pletcher’s Timely Writer/Wood Memorial parlay to get Uncle Mo to May 7. Go back to the original post. As Casey Stengel said, “You can look it up.”
If you read the most recent column linked here, as well as the original, which I believe you read once before and which is linked in the current column, you will find the facts. They are that Derby entrants which had 0, 1, or 2 starts after the race did not “retire for breeding purposes” only, they were forced to retire because of injury or because they had gone so far off form that the only hope of recovering their form was to lay them off for a long time.
Given the comparison to the Travers, which is made in the article, the inescapable conclusion is that forcing young horses to race 10 furlongs in a 20 horse field in early May is far more likely to harm the horse than racing 10 furlongs in late August in an average 9 horse field. Remember, many of the Derby starters are barely 3yo or have not even made it to 3yo.
As Wayne Lukas famously said, “People have opinions. Horses have the facts.”
The statistical facts from those horses are clear and undisputed by anyone who can add 2 + 2. A high percentage of Derby starters never recover from racing in the event.
26 Apr 2011 at 06:31 am | #
Nick, the only thing shaky is your logic; you err greatly in your interpretation of what I wrote, or you are being disingenuous. Go back and read it slowly, perhaps you will be able to comprehend it; my meaning was crystal clear. The grueling 5 weeks I stated was from the Derby to Belmont; OBVIOUSLY! Perhaps you can do the math. It is disingenuous to create a strawman for your own purposes.
Your snapshot analysis of 7 Kentucky Derby races, and spouting off of meaningless statistics, bringing you to erroneous conclusions, is bewildering. There is no evidence that having 20 horses in a starting gate is injurious to horses, or, that running 10 furlongs is detrimental. Rather, the status and breeding implications of winning the Kentucky Derby creates a frenzy of overtraining these animals, with no thought of the future.
Remember Mr. Nick, and I’ll have it put on a T-shirt for you, Pletcher beats Baffert on the conditioning factor.
TTT
26 Apr 2011 at 07:24 am | #
Ted,
Your “Pletcher beats Baffert on the conditioning factor” comment is ironic and absurd, considering there were three consecutive years when Todd had the last-place finisher in the Derby: Keyed Entry (2006), Cowtown Cat (2007), and Monba (2008). That’s more of Lukas’s “horses have the facts” evidence.
It’s also ironic you defend the status quo, then go on to say, “the status and breeding implications of winning the Kentucky Derby creates a frenzy of overtraining these animals, with no thought of the future.”
That’s the whole point. Pushing these immature horses to make the first Saturday in May creates an environment whereby those which are borderline on talent and race-ready fitness are pushed over the limit.
Few would argue, certainly not I, that the best horses should not race in the Derby. That’s the other point you don’t seem to be getting. The qualified horses should race.
Those that have been rushed, have failed to perform well in their dirt starts, or are sprinters which failed to stay 9f in a prep race, are the ones vulnerable to the demands of the Derby.
It is no accident most of the horses which came out of the race unlikely to perform well again were non-contending longshots ala the three last-place finishers mentioned above.
26 Apr 2011 at 08:02 am | #
Obviously, Nick, a 3-year old born on December 31st should not compete in the Kentucky Derby. Who would advocate that? Obviously, Nick, horses mature differently, even early foals. I read your D. Wayne Lukas quote about horses and people; here is mine: “The “Kentucky Derby” does not destroy horses! 10 furlongs in early May does not destroy horses! 20 horses in the gate does not destroy horses! People destroy horses!” And yes, I do defend the status quo Nick, and there is absolutely nothing ironic about it, or contradictory. The Triple Crown is a grueling test, which is the reason so few have accomplished it. But given the proper training, with horses that are physically capable of competing in each event, there is no reasonn why a horse cannot compete in all 3 events without sustaining injury. Your obsession with “saving a horse for the Travers is obviously due to your geographic bias. All roads do not lead to Saratoga. Sorry, Nick, first Saturday in May forever, 2 weeks later, Old Hilltop, then 3 weeks later Big Sandy. You want to change something, rehabilitate the people putting the horses on the track.
TTT
26 Apr 2011 at 08:11 am | #
“… who in horse racing really cares if there’s ever another Triple Crown champion?”
Someone should care, VZ, since a 3yo Triple Crown champion—especially one that raced competitively beyond its sophomore year and was campaigned across the nation—would help the game tremendously in terms of increased media exposure and attendance. Having one is so important; in fact, that there should be incentives in place to support it, and obstacles removed that would prevent it, without diluting its significance.
Triple Crown leg venues and spacing are not the problem. Rather it is the lack of accomplishment among Derby starters that results in more TC pretenders than contenders. I doubt we’ll see another TC champ as long as the Derby field size exceeds 14 and eligibility based on earnings makes win-and-you’re-in events out of races with insufficient quality and/or competition.
If we want sound, consistent animals with stamina competing in these races, the industry must 1) breed them, 2) promote foundation-building, and 3) establish eligibility criteria that PREFER contestants whose campaigns include as many graded wins and placing as possible at levels as high as possible which are achieved as a 3YO.
I don’t deny that such criteria would preclude successful 2yos from cruising rather than competing their way to the Derby, and would probably exclude surprising mud larks. However, one-hit wonders aren’t likely to win all three legs either. Let them fulfill their potential elsewhere; possibly defeating a champion later on if indeed that is their destiny.
In the meantime, let the 14 most accomplished and consistent performers contest the series with tiered bonuses incentivizing in-the-money finishes in all legs. Defections in subsequent legs should be replaced by point-system-ranked performers as well.
26 Apr 2011 at 08:13 am | #
Ted,
If I sort through your polemic it sounds like we agree. Qualified horses should race in the Derby and continue on within the Triple Crown if they remain sound.
If they are unqualified or unsound, then they shouldn’t run in the Derby.
What’s so hard about that?
26 Apr 2011 at 08:49 am | #
Indulto, it is an interesting thought about not counting monies won at 2, this might induce people to start a horse’s career at 3, giving the horse extra time to mature, and would inevitably allow us to see more of the animals at 3 (and beyond due to fewer injuries), with fuller fields in the graded stakes.
With respect to 20 horses in the Derby, I’m all for reducing the number of runners to give the best horse a real chance of winning, just do not agree that 20 horses in the gate causes injury.
TTT
26 Apr 2011 at 09:51 am | #
Actually, TTT, I’m opposed to counting money earned, period.
Thre are several point systems that could be used to rank cumulative placing in graded stakes at various levels and distances. I would extend the weighting of a race by grade and order of finish to include age at which competed. I’d use total horses beaten as a tie-breaker.
26 Apr 2011 at 10:25 am | #
Indulto, so the 2-year old races would count, but not as heavily as the 3-year old races? This would ensure that a horse that say ran 2nd in the Breeders’ Cup at 2 with that huge purse, would still have to make a good showing at 3, or would not be eligible; makes sense.
26 Apr 2011 at 01:26 pm | #
Hey guys, there is racing going on today - honest! Think Carmouche can bring in the late double at Philly (races 9 and 10)? The ninth race is a beauty, far better than any race at Churchill on the first Saturday in May.
Ya all are doing your part by contributing to handle today, right?
26 Apr 2011 at 04:01 pm | #
“The “Kentucky Derby” does not destroy horses! 10 furlongs in early May does not destroy horses! 20 horses in the gate does not destroy horses! People destroy horses!” And yes, I do defend the status quo Nick, and there is absolutely nothing ironic about it, or contradictory. The Triple Crown is a grueling test, which is the reason so few have accomplished it. But given the proper training, with horses that are physically capable of competing in each event, there is no reasonn why a horse cannot compete in all 3 events without sustaining injury.” by Turf Teddy comment #12. I couldn’t be in more agreement with you.
It is the training, the conditioning methods that have changed in the past 40-50 years, maybe less in some cases. Here is a quick fact that I can refer to. This is from a KY Derby Fact & Trivia book put together by Darren Rogers, Publicity Director at Churchill Downs, quoted by Steve Haskin on “And They’re Off”: In the 1940’s and the 1950’s, of the 20 Derby Winners, 12 of them had there final Prep Race 4 DAYS before the KY Derby. AND many of them worked 1/2 mile on the Thursday before the race.
There have been no changes in length or spacing of the TC since 1931, a long tradition, so yes I don’t see if changes are made in spacing there can be comparisons made to Citation, Whirlaway, Secretariat. Look back at the training methods of Ben & Jimmy Jones & others. They built up the stamina, put the bottom in their horses starting in their 2 year old seasons. Then they raced them frequently as long as they were sound in their 3rd year up until the Derby.
They did not go into the KY Derby with a horse who was not in condition to run it. They were not rested to prepare, only if they were ill or hurt. That is what I meant about horses giving all they had in the big race & then being hurt. They had not been conditioned/raced enough to win the race and go on in good health to the other TC races.
Citation was raced 9 times as a 2 year old. As a 3 yr old he raced 7 times prior to winning the KY Derby. He won the Preakness wire to wire and had a pre-Belmont work out by winning the Jersey Stakes. He also won the Jockey Club Gold Cup, 2 miles after that among others. He raced 20 times as a 3 yr old, 19 wins, one 2nd when he lost his regular rider.
As present day trainers who really condition their horses, I cite Aidan O’Brien who works his horses in training at racing levels and Carl Nafzger who trained Unbridled. In the Paulick report on 10/13/2010 he said “Real Triple Crown Horses thrive (on the spacing of the races). I made a mistake between the Preakness and the Belmont with Unbridled: I ran a short horse in the Belmont. He was thriving, and I said I’ve got to take it easy on him.” He failed to continue to push him when he was thriving and he lost the Belmont. http://www.paulickreport.com/features/the-breeders-cup-forum/the-breeders-cup-forum-two-time-derby-winner-carl-nafzger/
He routinely breezed Unbridled 1/2 mile the day before each start. He purposely kept quiet about this to avoid speculation in the press. Many trainers think a 4F work 10 days before the race is enough.
That is why I believe it is the people, not the horses breeding or a genetics change. The standard of the Triple Crown should remain the same but there needs to be a look back at the past (and I don’t mean 10 years ago) and see how it compares to what is being done today. Then we will find out why we haven’t had a TC winner in so long.
26 Apr 2011 at 06:21 pm | #
Double Jay,
20-horse fields do not destroy horses, only the chances of one-horse winning all three legs. As an obvious student of the game, perhaps you can tell us what the first leg field size was each year there was a TC winner, and what they were when two 2 of 3 legs were won by the same horse?
26 Apr 2011 at 07:28 pm | #
Indulto,
I think we are in agreement, saying the same thing but in different words.
“If we want sound, consistent animals with stamina competing in these races, the industry must 1) breed them, 2) promote foundation-building, and 3) establish eligibility criteria that PREFER contestants whose campaigns include as many graded wins and placing as possible at levels as high as possible which are achieved as a 3YO.”
Gee I don’t remember saying there were 20+ horses back when there were TC winners. I won’t bother to look it up. I’m sure you can supply the answer. You are just trying to pick away at my point. I am not defending the large fields as you suggest. I know there were not these huge fields. When did it start? the 80s?
I don’t like the 20 horse field because it makes the “trip” more important than the horse’s talent, post position weighs in too much. I don’t think it “kills the horses.” Maybe it kills the likelyhood of the best horse winning the race.
If they want 20 horses to competete & change it & find out who is really the best horse:
Run the Derby in 2 heats of 10 horses in the same day. The next day run the top 3 horses, or top 5 from both races for the Run For The Roses. Just an entertaining idea from a friend, an 80 year life long racing fan. I don’t see that happening! The huge size of the field is just part of the equasion that has changed to the detriment of the sport.
27 Apr 2011 at 03:18 am | #
ONE MO TIME...THE DAMN TRACK WAS KNOT DESIGNED TO RACE TWENTY HORSES @ ONE TIME...GET IT???...ty…
27 Apr 2011 at 06:01 am | #
Bellwether,
Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse Me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
27 Apr 2011 at 08:33 am | #
Double Jay,
I was confused by the additional double quote marks in comment #19 and didn’t realize you were quoting TTT quoting Lukas.
NK,
I finally got to read “Save them for The Travers” and your prior piece that inspired it. Outstanding work! Nothing says it better than the following eloquent excerpt from the latter:
“The solution is for owners and trainers to start only qualified horses. For horses short on talent, stamina, and luck, the Derby has become the first slaughter day in May.”
27 Apr 2011 at 09:14 am | #
Indulto, my apologies if I made it unclear; Nick had quoted Lucas regarding horses and people, and the comment you referred to was mine.
TTT
27 Apr 2011 at 12:52 pm | #
Indulto,
Thanks. Occasionally the acorn finds the squirrel.
27 Apr 2011 at 01:42 pm | #
Yup, the Kentucky Derby is Thoroughbred racing’s crown jewel; it is the subject at the water cooler in every business coast-to-coast. People can’t wait to loss their money on the Derby, which involves Pletcher and the usual suspects.
I’m sure that this year’s Derby is going to turn around the continuing decline of racing’s popularity. One race, lasting two plus minutes, while over 55,000 races are run throughout the whole year, 99% ignored by turf writers.
And the beat goes on ....
27 Apr 2011 at 01:57 pm | #
Wendell,
We’re not ignoring the 55,000 races, just you.
27 Apr 2011 at 02:22 pm | #
TTT,
Whose original words are contained in the following?
“The “Kentucky Derby” does not destroy horses! 10 furlongs in early May does not destroy horses! 20 horses in the gate does not destroy horses! People destroy horses!”
If they are yours and not Lukas’s, then you are indeed the source of my confusion and the target of my contention.
DJ,
The list of Derby winners and the size of their fields can be found here:
http://www.drf.com/news/kentucky-derby-winners
27 Apr 2011 at 11:00 pm | #
wmc,
For once I’m compelled to disagree with NK. Indeed, H. Rider Haggard might have described you as “He Who Cannot Be Ignored.” Hopefully as a newly-discovered connoisseur of (W)ater (C)cooler discussions, you will accept the following tribute to your persistence:
There’s nothing’s quite as narrow
As the focus of Commenter Corrow
Nothing seems to bring him sorrow
Like the talk of stakes tomorrow
Though he may appear a sparrow
Compared to eagles such as Thoreau
I’d bet all that I could borrow
That his isolation is more thorough
With words that pierce like an arrow
Into his targeted turf writer’s marrow
The monotonic Commander Corrow
Will HRI threads continue to harrow
28 Apr 2011 at 12:28 am | #
Indulto,
Thanks for the link to all the facts at DRF. What suprised me was that the number of horses that raced was all over the place! The VERY early years they were small but in 1923-21 raced, 1924-19, 1925-20, 1926-13, 1927-15. The numbers of horses are high one year and low the next, continuing through the 90’s. There doesn’t appear to be any rhyme or reason to it.
1993-19 Sea Hero, 1994-14 Go For Gin, 1995-19 Thunder Gulch, 1996-19 Grindstone, 1997-13 Silver Charm.
Then 2005-2010 all 20 horses except 2009 with 19, due to a scratch.
So what is the deal with all these different field sizes over so many years?
28 Apr 2011 at 06:04 am | #
Indulto: Thank you. I shall place your little rhyme on the wall.
A daughter of mine, along with husband and children, is moving this summer to Seattle from Ct. and her plan is to coax me into moving also.
Also, I am looking into booking on a freighter that travels a good part of the world. If the batteries or the computer itself fails, HRI could be in for a period of relief from my cynic comments.
28 Apr 2011 at 07:00 am | #
Indulto, yes, those were my words. Again, sorry for the confusion, communicating through words on paper is an art I am still trying to master. Reading Vic Zast’s columns has helped in my quest, as I continue to have to look up the big words, which enhances my 3rd-grade education. With respect to the people who comment on HRI, now that the personal attacks have been eliminated, I enjoy reading the beliefs of most of the persons who post here, even when I am wrongfully accused of being a polemicist for simply having a diametrically opposed viewpoint. Thought that was the reason for these comment sections, isn’t it? Attack the idea, tear it apart, rip it’s heart out, but have respect for the person.
wmcorrow, have a blue plate special for you at Pimlico today in the 3rd; hope the purse level is low enough for your standards. 10-Matter of Money wires the field, with 6-Leather Gloves completing the exacta. Put a deuce on it for me, will ya?
TTT
28 Apr 2011 at 08:08 am | #
wmc,
I too am tied to family or else I would be inclined to leave California with its dysfunctional CHRB and TOC far behind. In my case I’d have to make sure I could handle the 26 mile trip to Catalina before setting off on a world cruise.
Not sure I understood the passage “… plan is to coax me into moving also.” It’s the back and forth on the internet that’s keeping ME out of assisted living so far. Inspiration like yours would be sorely missed.
28 Apr 2011 at 08:25 am | #
TTT,
My wife insists my sense of humor never left the third grade. Perhaps that’s why I find your posts so entertaining. Yours is not the only vocabulary being expanded by our host, but as a horseplayer it’s a bit like running a fraternity gauntlet of wet towels. OuchOuchOuch!
28 Apr 2011 at 08:39 am | #
Ted,
As they say in court, you opened up this line with your comment #33, so I just thought I’d add this.
From Wikipedia: “A polemic is a form of dispute, wherein the main effort (is) aimed at establishing the superiority of (your) own points of view regarding an issue.”
28 Apr 2011 at 10:03 am | #
TTT: I will not be going to the OTB today; a rare happening. Will put a few bucks on your exacta at Pimlico for me and you. If it comes in, I will have forgotten to wager $2 for you - you know the story.
29 Apr 2011 at 05:14 am | #
GOOD STUFF #13...ty…