Well, I’m sorry you’re disappointed. I know the feeling.
I don’t know Dutrow, but I’d be willing to bet that he hated the idea of running this horse 3 times in five weeks, especially with the quarter.
Now, we’ll see if he makes the Travers. Could happen. Has something to prove.
I’m sure most good horsemen don’t like the idea of three highly stressful races against changing competition within 5 weeks, but consider how much attrition there was this year, and is most years, between horses that ran in the first, but not the second,the second but not the first, and the third, but not the first and second, like Da’Tara/ And it’s those fresh horses that come out of nowhere to have the best day of their lives, and thwart the would-be champion. So maybe the only equal playing field would be in the Triple Crown races themselves were governed by some different hard and fast rules, like : only X number of horses in the Derby can drop out and not race in the Preakness, only X number of horses in the Preakness can drop out and not race in the Belmont. But those rules make even less sense than the loose ones that govern the Triple Crown now. WHat is going on now is more like this: a heavyweight fight where the first five rounds are Ali vs. Frazier, then Frazier sits out the next five rounds, and it’s Ali vs. Liston, then Liston sits out the final five rounds and Ali tired after ten rounds against two formidable opponents , has to take on George Foreman. All the opponents are fresh facing him and he’s at a permanent disadvantage because of it. Having said that, yeah, I look forward to seeing this horse redeem himself and making his Belmont loss look like the fluke it probably was. Not our decision, but how many horses in the “modern period” go on to have a career spanning , say , 30 races, like Spectacular Bid, which include the three huge Triple Crown races? I expect there will more ink given to this issue in the next week or two, than we’ve ever seen before/
Having said all I just said, I just read for the first time this entire thread which dates from after the Preakness, with your ongoing insistence that the quarter crack could wind up meaning a lot, and shouldn’t be papered over. I never saw any of that ( I think the Belmont thread was a different thread that disappeared) , so I was not aware of your POV on this and how sure you were BB would fail. Wish I had read it before last night.
My super bets would have been different. As it turned out , ONE “favorite” —D. of COrk-—PLUS the three longest prices in the 9 horse field, made up the super, and it returned nearly 50 grand. So there was money to be made in this race, with BB out of it.