- This topic has 79 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Sorry if this subject has already been covered, but I can’t see it anywhere as the forum has a lot of topics about GW at the moment. First of all, I’d like to offer my commiserations regarding the untimely death of this animal.
However, the racing world moves on, as it always does when tragedy strikes. So my question is, did Aiden O’Brien and his team get it right by running Dylan Thomas and George Washington. Can they say they were justified in doing so?
In another thread, I stated that it is a certainty that Dylan Thomas would be a non runner. I stated this 24 hours before the race because I could see the state of the turf and could imagine how worse it would become.
OK, I was wrong about my statement because the horse did run….. but did Aiden O’Brien get it wrong by running the horse in the race? Every man and his dog was dismissing the chances of Dylan Thomas before the race, simply because of the conditions – yet amazing, I think the horses started 4/5 on the American Tote, while it was as big as 13/8 back in England.
The horse simply couldn’t win. I know thats easy for me to say now, but it couldn’t.
Then there was George Washington himself. The horse simply couldn’t win that race, his form over the distance was way below that of the leading American’s, and in those conditions it was impossible for him to win.
Noboday can be blamed for what happened to GW, but can any blame be attached to the stable for asking too much of both GW and DT – I certainly think so.
Mike
So, Dylan Thomas "couldn’t win" and neither could George Washington.
You state as fact what is clearly opinion. Both horses didn’t in fact win, as we know, but that’s not the same thing as "couldn’t".
Connections were entitled to run both horses. Indeed, they are to be commended for running racehorses in races. It’s what they’re bred to do. The fact that it turned out badly on this occasion doesn’t detract from that.
Why does what connections do with their horses bother people so much
As long as the horses are not mistreated and are run on their merits, then let em get on with it
It’s what makes the sport interesting, both as a spectacle and from a punting angle
I wouldn’t say that AOB got it wrong with Dylan Thomas as having prepared the horse for the race and travelled such a long distance then they probably thought that they might as well take their chance despite the conditions going against him. I was amazed that he started at such short odds though.
I was never convinced that GW would be at his best on the dirt but that’s just a matter of opinion.The horse simply couldn’t win. I know thats easy for me to say now, but it couldn’t.
Then there was George Washington himself. The horse simply couldn’t win that race, his form over the distance was way below that of the leading American’s, and in those conditions it was impossible for him to win.
“Impossible”, huh?
I can only assume that you took every penny you could lay your hands on (including maxxing out all your credit cards) and laid DT on the exchanges.
Then, once you got your returns from that, you took everything and laid GW with it.
That’s what you did, right?
If not, you’re just a bullsh!tter.
Steve
Luckily I did lay Dylan Thomas on Saturday afternoon after I saw the state of the turf on Friday night. I thought he wouldn’t win; but I didn’t dare lay him for anymore than my usual amount because he was still the best horse in the race by far.
The reason why it wasn’t wrong to run Dylan Thomas is because if the ground had been firmer – he could have outclassed the lot of them; as it was, the ground was soft and he didn’t run upto his best. Has this diminished his repuation in anyway? No.. which proves that they may as well have ran him as there wasn’t anything to lose. The worst possible outcome has happened (defeat) and it hasn’t made a jot of difference.
As for George: that matter is too complicated… in a nutshell, I think soft ground was inconvienient for Dylan Thomas (but not particularly dangerous) whereas sloppy mud was dangerous for George Washington because its so different to what he’s used to (and that’s how I felt before he ran).
something that I have wondered about and that is, if George Washington had still been a 3 year old with [supposedly] his stud career ahead of him would they, given the same circumstances last night, have still ran him?
Wow,
Sorry for starting the thread and having an opinion. Three very hostile responses (the person who gave a very dignified response knows who he is).
Can I ask a question?
Do I have to state in every thread that I type that it is ‘my opinion’? Or can I take it, that people should recognise that what I type is just my opinion.
So my next question would be;
Am I entitled to an opinion?
Ok, so if you answer yes to the above, then I will summarise my original thread in a slightly different way that might not induce such hotile replies?
IN MY OPINION George Washington and Dylan Thomas couldn’t win the races they were entered in come race time because of the conditions. A high percentage of the media said that Dylan Thomas and George Washing couldn’t win, so guess what? I wasn’t alone in having this opinion.
And Stevedg, for your info, I don’t lay horses, never have done and never will do – so no, I didn’t do what you thought I had done, and I am not a bullsh!tter so don’t you ever dare call me that again if you would be so kind.
But once again, sorry for provoking so many hostile responses. I don’t have issues with connections running their horses where they see fit, I didn’t lay the horses to lose, I simple posed what I thought was a perfectly viable question.
Have a good week, becuase the replies I have received here have put me off this site for the near future.
Mike
ps: I wrote this message after the first 4 replies to my original question. Obviously in the time it has took me to reply, other people have added to the thread, so my anger is in no way aimed at those reples below stevedg (though I haven’t read them yet)
Dont worry about it Mikky – just treat it as ‘lively debate’ – thats what ive been doing today!
Anyway, its better than being a Billy No Mates and getting zilch response eh?!
something that I have wondered about and that is, if George Washington had still been a 3 year old with [supposedly] his stud career ahead of him would they, given the same circumstances last night, have still ran him?
Well they ran him in it last year on a track where, in the previous dirt race, two Grade 1 winners had been seriously injured (one needed to be euthanized there and then).
In my opinion you either run Dylan in the Arc or the John Deere, not both.
But not High Chaparral, presumably.
MM – you would have gained a lot more credibility if you had aired your opinion that neither GW or DT could win prior to their races.
It all just reads like aftertiming to me…
And Stevedg, for your info, I don’t lay horses, never have done and never will do – so no, I didn’t do what you thought I had done, and I am not a bullsh!tter so don’t you ever dare call me that again if you would be so kind.
You couldn’t lose, but you didn’t put the bet on?
So, you just don’t like making money?
Sniff, sniff … what’s that smell? Bullsh!tter!
Steve
MM – hopefully this will qualify as dignified.
Let’s be clear about this: the connections of GW cannot be held in any way responsible for what happened to the horse. It was one of those unfortunate things which happen that cannot reasonably be foreseen. GW was in no more ‘danger’ than any other horse that ran last night. Because the horses chance (and DT’s chance) were diminished by ground conditions doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have run.
Think about the logic of what you are saying MM. Are you suggesting that horses who don’t have much chance shouldn’t run? Why? They’re in no greater danger than those who do have a chance. A horse’s chance of being injured is not inversely related to it’s winning chance. In fact, the opposite is probably true (excepting dodgy jumpers of course).
Quote – I think the horses started 4/5 on the American Tote, while it was as big as 13/8 back in England.
13/8 MM – hardly a no-hoper. Even allowing for it’s diminished chance it’d have taken a brave man or a fool to lay him at, say, 10/1 or greater. DT was racing on a surface softer than he’d have liked. The same was true in the Arc. Would you have had it that he didn’t run there?
High Chapparal was a relatively fresh horse.
One way of looking at it. Another way is that instead of being fit and healthy and running once a month, he spent the summer of 2002 desperately sick (Ballydoyle had a virus) and the spring/summer of 2003 nursing a shoulder injury.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.