thanks for this. Sincerely appreciate the thoughts.
The problem is, I am more confused that ever. The first two responsders say definitively no that he didn\'t bear in and out and the last two said yes but it doesn\'t matter.
I certainly understand that there can be different reasons for bear in and bear outs and it doesn\'t always mean that a horse is injured, exhausted, etc BUT if the bear in and out in the Preakness stretch run is just his normal antics, then how come he didn\'t do that in Derby? He wasn\'t really asked for alot in either stretch run as Kent D. only hit him twice in the Derby and then just showed him the stick the rest of the way so if it was just him goofing off in the Preakness, I would have thought he would have done the same in the Derby.
Seems to me there\'s some chance that between the regression in the numbers and the antics in the stretch that we are already seeing signs that these efforts are taking alot out of him.
I promise it will be the final time I will say this until just before the race because I feel like I am already beating a dead horse (poor choice of words, sorry) but he doesn\'t have as much wiggle room in the Belmont as he did in the Preakness because the horses in the Belmont are (numerically) alot better than anything he faced in the Preakness and he will be running his 3 race in 5 weeks while all of the others will be fresher.
Seems to me the signs for further regression are there and that creates a big opportunity.
That\'s it from me, I am starting to annoy myself with all of this so I can\'t imagine how everyone else must feel
