Xanadu,thanks for the reply old mate,always good to hear from you.As for stewards being "culpable"as you so succintly put it,well that's another topic of discussion.I don't really want to open a can of worms here,but how many times can you look at a race and eliminate certain runners from contention because it is only going around to get race fitness?Prime example:Bart Cummings has stated how many miles he has to get into a stayers legs in preparation for a Melbourne Cup.So for instance,if Rogan Josh began it's preparation for a Cup stint in a 1000metre sprint,what chance would give it of winning?None.But do the stewards tell Bart it can't go around because it is not fit?No.I gues it's just part of the racing game,and being able to assess the ones that can't win that enables us to keep our nose in front.I'm not saying that Northerly wasn't fit,what I am saying is that I don't think he was 100% fit,as he is being aimed at far richer plums than the race he contested on Saturday.I'm also sure that wilet mentor would have told Paddy Payne not to knock him about too much if he didn't think he could win at the 500 metre mark.As for taking shorts,I see your point in the way you approach it with your own assessments,but I myself will NEVER bet odds on.My own cutoff point is 6/4.
Cheers mate,talk to ya soon
P.S.
Have you been "dutching" the leading stables runners as I suggested?I got Laguna Lake atgood odds,did you have anything on it?