« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

Author Topic: Did Exaggerator not like Belmont Surface?  (Read 1665 times)

bobphilo

  • Posts: 708
    • View Profile
Re: Did Exaggerator not like Belmont Surface?
« Reply #45 on: June 14, 2016, 02:38:15 PM »
Tavasco, Apparently some people are not hearing it and keep implying I\'m saying something I\'m not.
Logged

TGJB

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10868
    • View Profile
Re: Did Exaggerator not like Belmont Surface?
« Reply #46 on: June 14, 2016, 02:44:56 PM »
Then saying it again won\'t make a difference.
Logged
TGJB

richiebee

  • Posts: 3465
    • View Profile
Re: Did Exaggerator not like Belmont Surface?
« Reply #47 on: June 14, 2016, 02:57:43 PM »
BOB:

ENOUGH ALREADY with the still photo, especially when a VIDEOTAPE of the entire
race, which can be slowed to various speeds, is apparently available.

It was the Zapruder FILM, not the Zapruder photo.
Logged

sekrah

  • Posts: 1802
    • View Profile
Re: Did Exaggerator not like Belmont Surface?
« Reply #48 on: June 14, 2016, 04:54:57 PM »
A horse that skated over every muddy, sloppy, and fast surface he\'s ever encountered, suddenly \"sank\" in Big Sandy.

No.
Logged

bobphilo

  • Posts: 708
    • View Profile
Re: Did Exaggerator not like Belmont Surface?
« Reply #49 on: June 14, 2016, 05:25:09 PM »
Yes
Logged

bobphilo

  • Posts: 708
    • View Profile
Re: Did Exaggerator not like Belmont Surface?
« Reply #50 on: June 14, 2016, 05:35:04 PM »
As my \"lecture\", as you so disdainfully call it, was not clear enough for you let me put it in simpler terms that anyone with half a brain can understand. I was responding to the nonsense claim that the Belmont pace was slow based on the pace of shorter 1-turn races. Not comparable.
Logged

TGJB

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10868
    • View Profile
Re: Did Exaggerator not like Belmont Surface?
« Reply #51 on: June 14, 2016, 06:26:37 PM »
That was the last one.
Logged
TGJB
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
« previous next »