Talk:Easy Goer

Bee sting

"Like humans, some horses are acutely allergic to bee stings and experience other allergies." Ki Longfellow put that in in Nov 2006. Makes it sound like Easy Goer died from a bee sting, rather than anaphylactic shock. MMetro (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Please refrain from using rosy terms (i.e. "resounding" and "astonishing"), subjective reasoning, and poor punctuation. The article has been re-organized for easier reading, and with an objective perspective of the subject and factual accounting of events. The subject's accomplishments do not need additional embellishment, and add no value to the article.

All statements currently present in the article conform to facts describing the subject. All "rosy" terms and subjective reasoning have been removed from the article, and have no place in Wikipedia. If you wish to make any changes to this article, please change the article, and refrain from reverting to an article that does not conform to Wikipedia format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Continued placement of inappropriate text may result in locking of this article.

The edit war has been reported at the two appropriate places. I do have to say that the IP's comments above are correct. That language has no place in Wikipedia articles. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with removing "well-placed early" statement. I agree that could be construed as subjective for someone convinced that his placement early in the race was not always "well-placed". He was 2 lengths ahead of Sunday Silence at the half mile, that is indeed a fact. If his position at the 3/4 mile (early in the race, no?) was not well placed, I don't know what is. But I am ok with removing that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsmart10 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit warring going on here is out of control; I've locked the article for 24 hours, hopefully that will give people time to hash out a consensus here before getting out of hand on the article itself. (I chose protection instead of blocks because of the number of accounts involved. It looks likely that several of these accounts are sockpuppets, but I can't tell which just yet.)

For what it's worth, I agree with the people above that one version was full of junk writing ("astonishing and resounding", for example), which has no place in this encyclopedia. Everyone please review (at least skim) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms before messing with this wording. We can't even start discussing facts and content issues if the article itself is unreadable because it's full of junk writing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The following terms existed in the previous version and are inappropriate, and have been replaced with factual statements:

-"astonishing and resounding 8 lengths" replaced with "8 lengths". No additional embellishment of 8 lengths is necessary; this is a wide margin of victory for ANY horse and that margin speaks for itself.

-"was extremely close to breaking track records" replaced with "within 2/5 and 4/5 of a second of stakes records." "Extremely close" is subjective: was it 1/5 of a second, was it 2/5? The revised text takes care of that.

-"Sunday Silence came into the Classic well rested" replaced with "Sunday Silence, with only two races since the Belmont, his most recent effort a win against 3-year-olds in the Super Derby". The first statement is subjective, and is replaced with a factual presentation of events.

-"to the fresher Sunday Silence" removed. Rosy term "fresher" subjective and inappropriate. Statement of campaign accurately describes Sunday Silence's condition prior to this race.

Several factual statements depicting the rivalry were removed from the current version. The state of the rivalry as described in the current version becomes lost.Maxsmart10 (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's start from the beginning: The margin of victory was a very large margin, an adjective to describe it is warranted. There is a hypocracy there because later in the article, the term "remarkable" was used to describe the fact that Easy Goer never lost by more than a 2 and a half length margin.

8 lengths is 8 lengths. No subjective terms such as "resounding" or "surprising" is necessary. The number speaks for itself. And the other usage of "remarkable" should also be removed; the accomplishment of never losing by more than 2 1/2 lengths in a 20 race career against top competition is self evident.Maxsmart10 (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Fact: the Breeders' Cup Juvenile was on a muddy race track, that is a FACT

And this fact remains in the article.Maxsmart10 (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Fact: Adding names of the horses whom Easy Goer narowly missed track records are FACTS( Secretariat, Seattle Slew, Devil's Bag, General Assembly, Honest Pleasure and Dr. Fager), they ALL provide information in the context of the track records and fastest running times.

Secretariat and Dr. Fager remain in the article, as they hold the world records for the distances Easy Goer ran and approached. Seattle Slew does not hold a world record, nor do the other horses noted. Does one want to list each horse Easy Goer defeated because these would be simply "facts"? The article cannot be of unlimited length. Again, the use of "narrowly" is a subjective term and does not belong in the article. (is 4/5 of a second "narrow"?)Maxsmart10 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Fact: Easy Goer was one of the few modern three year olds to accomplish beating older horses THREE times as a 3yo, that is a FACT, not a "rosy" term.

Again, this fact remains in the article.Maxsmart10 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

HYPOCRACY and repetitive: YOU Mention that Sunday Silence won Horse of the Year THREE times in the article, THREE times. That's repetitive. This is an article on EASY GOER, not Sunday Silence.

The HOY link is at the beginning of the article, and at the end. It is placed in context to describe the magnitude of the rivalry between these horses, the achievement of Sunday Silence in defeating Easy Goer 3 of 4 races, and the resulting HOY award. Any follower of American thoroughbred racing would acknowledge the importance of the rivalry between these two champion horses.Maxsmart10 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

FACT: Easy Goer was NOT "well-placed early, in fact the total opposite. Easy Goer broke in the air and dwelt at the start of the race, and was SECOND TO LAST in the early part of the race. Fact.

Again, I noted that "well-placed early" term can be removed if one objects that he was not always "well-placed" early in the race. Easy Goer indeed broke poorly, but regained position quickly and found himself in contention at the 3/4. Don't believe me? Watch the youtube video of the race. The race is 1 3/16 miles; a poor break does not mean that the horse cannot be "well-placed early".

An alternate description which fairly describes the race:

After the Derby, both horses returned to action in the second jewel of the Triple Crown, the Preakness Stakes. Easy Goer broke poorly, but improved his position to be within 2 lengths of Sunday Silence at the 3/4 mile pole. Easy Goer continued to gain ground and had a 2 length lead over his rival with a half mile remaining. But Sunday Silence challenged and earned the win by a nose following a thrilling head-to-head duel for the final quarter mile, reminiscent of the great Affirmed/Alydar rivalry. Jockey Day was criticized for reining Easy Goer's head sideways to the right in the stretch. Maxsmart10 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

FACT: Easy Goer won 5 consecutive Grade I races, 3 of those wins against older horses, coming into the Breeders' Cup Classic, and ran in the longer 1 1/2miles Jockey Club Gold Cup before the shorter 1 1/4miles Classic. Sunday Silence ran in ONE race in 3 months, and 2 races in 5 months leading into the Breeders' Cup, those are FACTS.

Again, these facts remain in the article.Maxsmart10 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

FACT: Easy Goer was eleven lengths back in the early part of the Classic. And Sunday Silence was not under a hand ride, Chris McCarron was showing the horse the whip with his left hand repeatedly, that is not winning "handily".

The article does not state "handily". McCarron saw that Easy Goer was not going to pass his horse in the last 40 yards ("the end"), and urged him WITHOUT WHIP. This is indeed a hand ride.Maxsmart10 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

FACT: Progeny information for Easy Goer's offspring are providing information and facts. Putting the Grade I races his offspring won are FACTS and necessary. In the Sunday Silence article, what races S.S> offspring WON are all over the place. FACTS.

Agreed, these facts should remain in the article.Maxsmart10 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

FACT: YOu even ERASED the updated information on the references to be updated to Easy Goer's articles in the NY Times(it was an update). A person updated the information on the references, and YOU erased that. My goodness. I have provided YOU with FACTS. And YOU even use "ROSY" adjectives on the Sunday Silence articles, that is 110% HYPOCRACY on your part. Ok, "rosy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lion226 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Any relevant facts that contribute to the article should remain. I have posted nothing in Sunday Silence article. I only restored Sunday Silence article when it became obvious that someone was vandalizing that article due to this article being revised.Maxsmart10 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I had forgotten to sign it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lion226 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree one hundred percent lion226. You provided 10 facts that need to be on the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Textwiki132 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, facts that contribute to the value of the article should remain. Peacock terms and subjective reasoning have been removed.Maxsmart10 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You pick the word "remarkable" to describe the eight length margin of victory, just like you used the word "remarkable" in the Sunday Silence article.

I did nothing of the sort. Remarkable is a peacock term that has no place in this encyclopedia.68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

the BCup Juvenile was on a Muddy Track, that's a fact.

And that fact remains in the article.68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The names of Secretariat and Dr. Fager are used in running times, so it's fine to use Seattle Slew, Devil's Bag,Honest Pleasure, Tri Jet, etc. as well.

Noting Tri Jet and omitting other horses such as Vitriolic serve little purpose to the value of this article. Would the reader attribute more to Easy Goer if known that he ran behind Tri Jet? The answer is no, so this fact does nothing to add value to the article.68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is "remarkable" that Easy Goer defeated older horses three times as a three year old.

The magnitude and difficulty of this achievement is self-evident. No peacock terms are necessary.68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This hypocrite mentions that Sun. Silence won horse of the yr. THREE times, thats riculous repetition is correct. 

Please refer to suggestion below, so that link is shown only once.68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In the Preakness, Easy Goer was definitely NOT well placed early, completely the opposite, Easy Goer broke dead last when he broke in the air, total nonsense their.

Already discussed here and inclusion of his poor start is included.68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's very important to tell the FACTS of what happened in those five long months between the Belmont Stakes and Breeders Cup Classic, and Easy Goer won 5 straight Grade 1 races, while Sund. Silence had run only 1 race in 90 days, and two races in five months. That tells the facts of what happened in those five long months.

Dates of Sunday Silence' races will be included, as noted below. The reader will know exactly when these races were run.68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Telling what Easy Goer's offspring won and what races they won, are facts, and important. And they are on the Sun.Silence article as well. I cannot believe maxsmart even erased the updated references. What a joke.

These should be included:68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Textwiki132 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC) 

Additionaly, I see that you are NOW fixing the Sunday Silence article.

Correct. I was not the author for that article. It should be fixed, and peacock terms and subjective reasoning should be removed there as well.68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, take a look at the article, YOU provide information on Sunday Silence that IS NOT even in the Sunday Silence article, thats a joke.

Which means what, it should not be included here? The facts presented here depict a fair accounting of the events.68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The official DRF chart states that Sunday Silence won driving in the Classic, with strong handling by the rider.

You said it. HANDLING. NO WHIP.68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This info. is not even in the Sunday Silence article. This ARTICLE is on EASY GOER, NOT Sunday Silence, I think you have to remember that.

If you are looking to provide bias here in favor of Easy Goer, then you need to post that somewhere else. The article should be unbaised, which it now is.68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Just COMPARE the two articles and YOU will see th HYPOCRACY. Once again, this is an article on Easy Goer, not Sunday Silence.

See above.68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

People want to read about Easy Goer in this article. If they want to read about Sunday Silence, they then have to go the Sunday Silence article. 

People want factual accounting of events, and a fair description, not biased accounts, peacock terms, and subjective reasoning that corrupts the purpose of the article.68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

MORE HYPOCRACY, you state wrong things about Easy Goer's trip in the Preakness. well then you have to state the way that Sunday Silence won the Derby weaving all over the place having contact with multiple horses, thats HYPOCRACY, but its not necessary because this is an EASY GOER article, NOT a sunday silence article, remember that!

Does Sunday Silence "weaving all over the place" warrant attention away from each of these horses' achievements? Does it add any value to the article that Sunday Silence was "weaving all over the place?" And what exactly does that mean, "weaving all over the place?" More peacock terms and subjective reasoning. If you can describe using facts, and it adds something to the article, then please add it.68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lion226 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC) 

Does the name "Tri Jet" contribute to the value of the article? Most followers of horse racing would not even recognize this name, and placement of this horse in the article actually diminishes the accomplishments of Easy Goer. It is obvious that Dr. Fager should be noted, as his 1 mile record has held up for over 40 years. Secretariat's name is also acknowledged. The fact Easy Goer is mentioned in the same sentence with these all-time greats (rated #2 and #6, respectively) should warrant consideration of the article leaning towards Easy Goer. And why would one omit other horses that ran faster in these races, such as Vitriolic? Bias of omission, perhaps? Do other articles note the names of horses who have run faster in selected stakes races, even those which are obscure such as Tri Jet? Please refer to above responses for other issues noted.Maxsmart10 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

All of a sudden, an adjective(whatever adjective it is) cannot be used to describe a large margin of victory in the 2nd fastest running of the race behind ONLY Secretariat?? That is nonsense, the fact is that Easy Goer's Belmont Stakes performance is one of the greatest performances in the history of the sport. There are other adjectives used on this page, as well as Sunday Silence's page! These users have provided many many facts to provide the readers of this article. It's only ok to mention Dr. Fager and Secretariat's running times in comparison, and not ok to mention to Tri Jet and the others? That is fine, it gives the reader more perspective. The article is clearly favoring Sunday Silence with a repeating his H.O.Y. three times, repetition is an understatement on that isssue. The reader absolutely needs to know what happened in the five months after the Belmont Stakes into the Breeders' Cup. He was clearly not well placed early in the preakness with his bad start. The facts are, Easy Goer was carried eight wide down the backstretch of the Preakness by Sunday Silence's jockey Pat Valenzuela, that is a fact. But at any rate, Easy Goer had a horrible start and was not well placed early, that is hypocritical and wrong anyway, and not a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezgoerflew (talk • contribs) 07:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, 8 lengths is 8 lengths. No rosy/peacock terms are necessary. Several horses have run within 1 second of 2:26 in the Belmont Stakes. Easy Goer's 2:26 final time described as "one of the greatest" again is a rosy/peacock term which is not necessary and does not factually describe the race. Regarding Sunday Silence's campaign prior to the Breeders' Cup, it is clearly stated in the article Sunday Silence only had two races since the Belmont leading to the Breeders Cup, one of which was the Super Derby against 3-year-old competition This fairly describes his campaign leading up to the race. Please refer to above response regarding Easy Goer's Preakness performance.Maxsmart10 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

More hypocracy here. He states the Kentucky Derby is known as the "Run for the Roses"!! The Belmont Stakes is known as the "Test of the Champion"!! Those are FACTS. It's even in the article on the Belmont Stakes on wikipedia. Hypocracy and repeating is also prevalent. He mentions Sunday Silence as horse of the year 3 times, thats beyond repetition in an EASY GOER article. Should the article state that Easy Goer was Champion two year old THREE TIMES???? Should the article state that Easy Goer ran the fastest three year old mile in history THREE times? Thats repetition. This person even has the nerve to state "Easy Goer was well placed early" in the Preakness??? He also has the nerve to DELETE the information on Easy Goer's progeny and what Grade 1 races the offpsring won. It's only ok to put that information in the Sunday Silence article??? Hypocrite and bias!! That's what that it. Besides, these are facts about the offspring and what races they won, it is important. To top that all off, this user maxsmart, has the nerve to delete updated information on the references and the link to the updated corresponding NY Times articles?? What is going on here? This is a joke, hypocracy and bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.74.254 (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Belmont Stakes is also known as "Run for the Carnations", as indicated in Wikipedia article. Does that add value here? How about this:

The two would meet again in the final jewel of the Triple Crown, the Belmont Stakes. Sunday Silence went off odds-on favorite, backed by his two wins against Easy Goer, and attempting to earn American racing's most elusive achievement, the Triple Crown. This time, Easy Goer was at his best and defeated his rival in the Run for the Carnations|Test of the Champion by 8 lengths, in final time of 2:26. Easy Goer's final time was the second best performance in the history of the race. Only the great Secretariat, with his world record dirt track performance of 2:24, ever raced faster for the event.Maxsmart10 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the placement of HOY link twice for Sunday Silence has caused contention, I recommend that this link remain in the first paragraph, and be removed from the last paragraph of the rivalry section. Since victory in Breeders' Cup over Easy Goer earned Sunday Silence 3YO Eclipse Award, and this link appears nowhere else in the article, this link should remain in the final paragraph of the rivalry section. All other repetitive links should also be removed, for example repetitive stakes names in Racing Career section.Maxsmart10 (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

HYPOCRACY AT ITS BEST...In the Sunday Silence article, you use a "ROSY" term using the word remarkable. The word remarkable is used within this article to describe some of Easy Goer's accomplishments. And I CHECKED some other articles as well. The terms "amazing" is used to describe Afleet Alex's 7 length win in the Belmont in a far slower time, thats a joke. The term "amazing" was used in the Risen Star article in a slower Belmont time, winning by 6 more lengths, LOL. The term "demolished" is used in the Counquistador Cielo article. This is HYPOCRACY!So i guess, it Easy Goer won the Belmont by a remarkable 8 lengths in a remarkable time , the 2nd fastest in histry.

Go ahead and remove those "rosy" terms. They are not appropriate and should not be a part of this encyclopedia68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The Belmont Stakes is KNOWN as the "Test of the Champion", thats a FACT, thats in the Belmont Stakes article.

I already proposed a paragraph that uses either this term or "Run for the Carnations." Either should be acceptable.68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is on Easy goer, people can click the link to read the Sunday Silence article. 

And you are saying facts should be replaced with subjective reasoning and peacock terms? Overlapping factual accounting of events is common in an encyclopedia, and this is no exception.68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

ANOTHER JOKE from this guy. THe preakness, Easy Goer dwelt and broke in the air and broke last and was not well placed. In fact, you mention Youtube, Trevor Denman states that in his call.

Again, 2 lengths back at the 3/4, 2 length lead at half mile. Refer to reworded text above which includes these facts including his poor break.68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Futhermore, on Youtube in the Pat Day & Easy Goer interview video, Pat Day stated that he waas carried 8 wide by Valenzuela, and then Pat Day stated that he made the worst mistake of his career allowing Easy Goer to take the lead that early in the race, Pat Day stated the horse was not well placed.

If you want to cite Day that he put forth a bad ride, fine with me.68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

IN the Classic, McCarron was not hand riding, he was showing the horse the whip with his left hand, and had been told by Whittingham to not "hit him with the whip" at all cost, the trainer didn't want a repeat of what the horse did in the Swaps Stakes,Kentucky Derby and other races as well when he was all over the place weaving back and forth.

Hand ride is no whip. Watch the finish; McCarron HAND RIDE. It is obvious and should be cited here.68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding names of horses in races that Easy Goer ran the 2nd,3rd or 4th fastest time in the history of the race is very important, some of those races are 140 years old, 100 years old, 60 years old, etc. This guy erased what Easy Goer's progeny had won, the races they won, thats important.

Tri Jet is not an "important" horse in historical context. Secretariat and Dr. Fager are. The article cannot be unlimited and not all facts contribute to the context of the article. Leaving out Tri Jet does not reduce the value of the article. Other articles do not state all of the horses one has outraced, and this article should be no exception.68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

He erased the updated references to the NY Times link.

References are fine and should be replaced.68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lion226 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this is an EASY GOER article, NOT a S.S. article. people will have to go to the S.S. article to read about him. There is info. on S.S in the Easy Goer article that is NOT even in the S.S. article, HYPOCRACY.

No, this article represents a part of an encyclopedia where a reader can obtain a factual accounting of subjects in the context of a well-organized document free of peacock terms, subjective reasoning, and poor punctuation.68.181.197.1 (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lion226 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC) 

The suggestions to replace references and progeny information that were erroneously removed will be included in the article. The suggested re-wording (above) of the contested depictions of events will be included instead. Dates to allow the reader to discern when Sunday Silence's races were run prior to Breeders Cup will be included.Maxsmart10 (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WHat a JOKE and hypocrite..NO where on the Sunday Silence article does it state that EASY GOER WAS CHAMPION 2YO, NOWHERE, a bunch of hypocrites. and they use rosy terms on the Sunday Silence page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.74.254 (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Undid revision due to subjective and repetitive and "rosy" terminology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.74.124 (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Changes

Peteski, I have no problems with "muddy". I was less happy with some of the other language used. For instance the paragraph that started "Champion Easy Goer..." Of course he won an Eclipse Award, but so did SS and lots of other horses. Anyway, I've added a couple more citation needed tags. Some of the older tags have been there for a long time. Remember that unreferenced material is always liable to be removed.  Tigerboy1966  08:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If you remove the "Champion Easy Goer" line then I will have to remove the "against the champion " in the same sentence...I am sorry, I did, and other people have put the numerous references at the bottom of the article. I am not sure how to actually put citations within the article, but I can get quotes or citations for you if you want. Also, is it against wikipedia policy to use youtube videos(for example, Pat Day interview video on Youtube) for citations or references??? I have seen some videos from youtube as citations or references.Peteski132 (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. Here's how you put in-line citations into the article.

Let's take an article I recently wrote on the American/British racehorse Rule of Law (horse). If you look at the three-year-old season section you will see that I write that he dominated the field in the Great Voltigeur Stakes. Directly after the word "dominated", I added an in-line citation. I found the quote on the Daily Telegraph website. I copied and pasted the URL into the text, placing <+ref> before it and </+ref> after it (ignore the + signs: I had to put them in otherwise the page would think it was a reference). This means that the reference will show up as an in-line citation, with the details appearing in the references section at the end of the article. At the moment, the reference doesn't look great: the next step will be to format it properly: for this I would use a tool called "Reflinks".

Youtube videos are not a great source, mainly because a lot of them have copyright issues. Try doing a google search. For instance, I found this story in the New York Times [1]. You could use this to support the fact that EG won the Belmont very impressively and that he was regarded as "the next Secretariat" at the start of the year. If you dig around you can find lots of reliable sources which will add to the article. The best way to learn how to do it is to have a go and see what happens. If you need any help give me a shout.

Hope this helps.  Tigerboy1966  12:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Big Red

Good work on finding sources. I have had to take one out however: [2]. The author of the blog describes EG as a "big red train", but doesn't support the statement that "he was "nicknamed Big Red by his jockey, fans and media".  Tigerboy1966  07:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Its ok. I will remove it, its no problem and not really a big deal, we are talking about nicknames anyways. Actually, I heard Pat Day, his jockey, call him "Big Red" in the Youtube interview video-"Pat Day-Easy Goer", but you said I can't use that as a reference. And of course the media did as well with the "big red train and big red" quotes. If I find more articles on it, I guess I'll add it. Just between you and I, if you can, go on youtube and watch the aforementioned video, so you know I didnt add that without hearing it. Thanks.Peteski132 (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Just watched it: a very interesting and informative interview. Pat Day does indeed call EG "Big Red" twice: at around 3:55 and again at 7:56. I'm sure he knew that this phrase is VERY significant in American racing. The problem with youtube as I said, is that the people who post the material, in this case "Partymanners2" usually aren't the copyright holders. There's a good chance that if you dug deep you could find a legal on-line source which says that Day used the phrase. Good Luck. For formatting links the reflinks tool is here [3]: I have it on my favourites bar. Make sure you choose the "interactive option" and check the "All unformatted links" option. If you use Chrome, you have to click "show preview" before "save changes" otherwise it wont save.  Tigerboy1966  20:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Easy Goer & Alydar

"Easy Goer's 1989 3-year-old campaign is considered by some to be the greatest in American racing history without yielding any year-end championship awards" I think that you would have to say who these "some" were. And those some would have to be reliable, independent sources. The cited source sort of draws attention to the other obvious candidate, EG's sire Alydar.  Tigerboy1966  21:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I added 2 more in line citations for his campaign, one of these is Steve Crist, former racing writer for the NY Times, and current chairman of the Daily Racing Form.Peteski132 (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Editing back and forth

The introduction to the article is a preview and highlights of what is to come in the article. There will be some things repeated for further explanations on facts later on. In the 3 year old season section of the article, each individual race can have explanations on facts about each race. Then later in the paragraph, there are facts and explanations on the CUMULATIVE facts about the historical nature of the campaign and races cumulatively. Peteski132 (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

On second look, I thought you had erased the facts and explanations, but I see you just separated into separate paragraphs and left the facts. So I will leave it as the way you organized it.Peteski132 (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment: You need to write a story, not merely parrot a racing chart. Things like whether the track was slow or "dull" only matter if it somehow was a major factor in the result of the race or the challenge the horse faced. Equally true is if the track was fast, or wet, or whatever. Things like a hand ride (as opposed to strong urging) are relevant either as to the horse's overall characteristic style - thus stated once - or if the action was something unusual in a single race - but to say it seven times is just bad writing style. I stand corrected on the Wood Memorial, but that's a great example of why your boring, dry "facts" without any context constitute poor writing, no one knows why they should care. IDEA: You may want to add a racing chart of all the statistics to the article, as I did for Mucho Macho Man. You could also add a pedigree chart, an example is also in the MMM article I just linked. Should be easy enough to copy and paste the syntax and then swap out the facts from the other article and insert the ones for Easy Goer. Montanabw^(talk) 20:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Parking source

Might be a good source for something but it didn't verify the statement it was attached to in the article: *Christine, Bill (August 3, 1989). "King Glorious to Skip Travers, and Easy Goer". The Los Angeles Times.

This is a FACT. How is this an OBVIOUS FACT? The FACT is that Easy Goer ran 15 of 20 career races in New York. I would say that is a 'majority' of his races. The FACT also is that New York prohibited all medications and drugs back in 1988 - 1990 - when EG ran. New York was the ONLY state in the USA that banned all drugs and medications back then. ALL other states allowed them. This article talks specifically about "New York's no-medication rules', and "New York's prohibition of Lasix, etc.' The Lasix and Bute issue was a HUGE, HUGE issue back then. The article even states this in regards to Alysheba. It was such a huge issue back then with many top horses, including horses like Blushing John, Lost Code, Desert Wine, Snow Chief, Wild Again, Tank's Prospect, Skywalker, King Glorious, Spend a Buck, Capote, Sunny's Halo, The Wicked North, Suave Prospect, Tejano Run, Lil E. Tee, Summer Squall, Best Pal, etc. This is the veritable truth. I will cite more sources. I just inserted various sources for this. Yes they repeat these same facts, but I guess some need many sources. Peteski132 (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Please calm down. The source does not verify that Easy Goer "never ran on drugs" it only verifies that Lasix was banned in New York. It's WP:SYNTH to go too far beyond your sources. Plus how was Easy Goer any different from any other New York runner in this respect? Find a source that says, "Easy Goer never ran on drugs" and your problem is solved. I was alive in 1989, I remember the fights over use of Lasix; in states where it was legal, there were still more restrictions on it (at least in theory) than there are today. Ditto withdrawal times for Bute. My point is that it's even worse now. I'm listing the sources and explaining their problems. Montanabw^(talk) 19:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

1. Crist, Steven (June 29, 1990). "Horse Racing: Notebook; Handicappers to Gain A Line on Medication". The New York Times. This discusses adding notation on medication to the Daily Racing Form and mentions that EG was going to race; it says nothing about whether EG was off meds or not. It does note NY has tougher med rules.
2. [4]: Need an additional source for Bute, this article only mentions Lasix.
3. [5] pretty much the same article as the other one, and only mentions Lasix.

• In short, you imply that EG ran drug-free and maybe he did, but it also appears that the only reason for this was that he ran most of his big races in New York and it also doesn't verify or deny that he may have run on meds elsewhere. Don't stretch the facts, verify them. Montanabw^(talk) 19:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Plus, according to this, Easy Goer ran on Bute in the Derby. (and, Sunday Silence ran clean) I'm pitching the whole thing as having failed verification. Here are the rest of the sources. Montanabw^(talk) 19:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

http://www.si.com/vault/1989/05/29/119968/nose-to-nose-in-a-jewel-of-a-duel-at-the-preakness-sunday-silence-beat-easy-goer-by-a-snout Verifies Bute and Lasix both common in KY and CA.

• Now, having done some research for you, we can probably verify that EG did not run on Lasix in the Derby. I know that SS's loss to EG was widely attributed to not being allowed to use Lasix, though humidity also was claimed to be a factor. this source states that SS never ran on meds, though other sources claim he did (all I have is that Derby chart on either horse). But we need clear, definitive statements. Montanabw^(talk) 19:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I am calm. This article and source (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/03/sports/breeders-cup-strongest-races-may-be-wet.html) does prove that BOTH drugs (lasix and bute) were "BANNED in New York." Here is another article and source (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/31/sports/on-horse-racing-lasix-factor-marks-the-road-to-belmont.html ) proving that both were banned in NY. Here is another article and source (http://articles.latimes.com/1995-05-26/sports/sp-6184_1_belmont-stakes ) showing when many years later (1995), while New York had prohibited ALL (includes ALL medications, not JUST lasix and Bute) race-day medications with its no-medication rule, they were the last major racing jurisdiction to allow only Lasix. Here is another article and source (http://articles.philly.com/1986-05-03/sports/26050741_1_lasix-icy-groom-therapeutic-medication ) stating, "New York permits no prerace medication." The article was talking about BOTH bute and lasix. But no medication to me means none at all - not just bute and lasix. Here is another article and source (http://www.si.com/vault/1993/11/01/129693/the-breaking-point-a-rising-toll-of-racetrack-breakdowns-has-shaken-public-confidence-and-put-the-thoroughbred-industry-at-a-crossroads ) during that time stating, "Only New York, among ALL the nation's racing jurisdictions, forbids the use of bute or Lasix on horses while racing. Elsewhere, these medications are so routinely administered, etc." These are numerous reliable sources we can use to prove these veritable facts.

Where did I ever state (or implied or stretched facts) that EG "NEVER" ran on medications??? "Majority of his races" and "Never" or "ALL" are different. I stated the facts that EG did not - and could not - run on ANY medications (bute, lasix etc) in the 'majority' (15 of 20 races) because ALL meds (bute, lasix etc) were banned in New York - where he ran the majority of his career races. I also did NOT even mention (or imply anything about SS's use or lack of use) SS at all in regards to meds and drugs. If someone wants to put that verified info in SS's article - go right ahead. It is conflicting reports on SS, as here is an article and source (https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1982&dat=19900611&id=uTlGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yCINAAAAIBAJ&pg=2501,950897&hl=en ) which states SS did run on Lasix. There was more a controversy around SS's controversial veterinarian's record - Dr. Alex Harthill. I did read in Ray Paulick's book on SS that SS was treated with various painkillers and anti inflammatories in the Preakness for his bruised foot - but not sure what drugs they were (I think antiphlogistine, not bute); and a book not on the web is not a source anyways. All the articles I listed - both now and prior - should prove that the veritable truth was that New York was the only state that banned ALL meds (bute, lasix & everything else), and EG ran the majority (15 of 20) of his races in NY. I will cite more if needed. Did he only run without drugs because he ran mostly in New York? This article and source below should prove and clear up everything, as it states: a) "In New York, where Easy Goer had run SEVEN times up that point in his career (almost half - 7 of his 15 total races In NY), horses are NOT permitted to run while on ANY medication - including bute and lasix and anything else. ANY medications means any and all. How could this (as well as the above article source) not prove without a doubt that the veritable truth was Easy Goer didn't run with any meds (lasix or bute etc etc) in at least 15 (in NY)of his 20 career races? Do you think that there is any remote possibility that they (NY) changed the rules and allowed any drugs in EG's 8 later races (1989-90) in NY; while sticking to the rules and not allowing them in these seven prior races (1988- 89)? NY's drug rules didn't change til over 5 years later as sourced above, 1995 - when they only permitted Lasix. The article also states, "Easy Goer won't (didn't) run on bute in the Preakness in Maryland where it was allowed. b) McGaughey also stated in this article that, "These were the ONLY two times he ran on bute." The article proves to me that, Easy Goer ran medication free in 17 of his 20 races (15 in NY, 1 in Maryland, and 1 in Florida), and most likely 18 of 20 (the only other race was in the future BCC in FL) races; and he ran only with bute in his 2 races in Kentucky. If he had only run on bute in the 2 races in KY up to that point - as the article states; then we know that he did not run on it in Florida as well, in the March 1989 Swale Stakes. The trainer, Mcgaughey stated that, "Easy Goer ONLY ran on bute in the two races in Kentucky - and never anywhere else"; that includes Florida (he had already run 1 of his 2 races in FL in the Swale Stakes in March 1989), NY (already ran 7 of 15 races in NY) and Maryland obviously. The trainer McGaughey stated, "Easy Goer doesn't (didn't) need the bute anyway, but he was given bute in the BC Juvenile in KY for a shin problem; and he was given bute in the K. Derby in KY because EG had a small crack that they were fighting in his left front heel which was serious enough to cause discomfort and possibly keep him from running; and also because the track was kind of hard, and he had been given it a few days before the race and would be listed as having used it anyways. Here is the previously mentioned source for all of this: Here are THREE more additional sources stating that EG's two races in KY were the ONLY races that he ran with bute - and another stating he didn't in Maryland or Florida (he already ran 1 race in FL prior). You can go with all four of them, though the sourced one already in the article - and listed above - at least gives the reasons (shin problem, cracked heel etc). 1) http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1989-05-20/sports/8905200509_1_easy-goer-colts-derby 2)http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/09/sports/on-horse-racing-derby-crowd-showed-dark-side.html 3) http://www.si.com/vault/1989/05/29/119968/nose-to-nose-in-a-jewel-of-a-duel-at-the-preakness-sunday-silence-beat-easy-goer-by-a-snout ...... I thought I worded this perfectly before through these verifiable sources that New York was the ONLY state in the USA that banned ALL medications (bute, lasix etc). Now we know that he ran the majority of his races - definitely 17 of his 20 career races without any medications - and most likely 18 (as noted above) of 20 races - as per the proof above, noting he ran 15 of 20 in NY, noting NY was the only state that banned all meds and drugs as per the proof sourced above; wasn't given any in Maryland (Preakness) and Florida (Swale Stakes, March 89) as per the proof sourced above; and only ran on bute twice in KY for the reasons quoted above. Perhaps it would be better to state these facts this way? Peteski132 (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Whew! That was a read! Here's the point: He was a horse of his times and while if you want to note for the record that he ran 15 of 20 races in NY, but also noting that medication was banned for all horses in NY at the time, and he was only known to have been given medication in two of his other races, on of which was the Derby, (in briefer form than above, of course), that's fine, but don't synthesize -- you can't say he was an amazing miracle horse unless you have an outside source that draws that conclusion (that's what WP:SYNTH is about) -- I see it as a nod to the trainer more than anything special about the horse; Shug still has a good record even by today's standards for not overdoing it with the meds. So while it's worth a mention, it's worth a mention in any successful NY-raced horse of the period. Montanabw^(talk) 07:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

'Amazing Miracle' horse? Where did I either state or imply that? When reading the endless (though at least interesting) articles on more current horses like American Pharoah and California Chrome, I thought editing/adding some pertinent, sourced, interesting, verifiable info for his article would be beneficial as well. Obviously, he was a great horse in general; but stating or implying that he was an 'amazing miracle' horse in regards to running mostly drug and med free races? No. Perhaps you think Runhappy is an amazing miracle horse now for being med free? Actually, my original statement was a very 'brief worth a mention' sentence or two, stating something like, "Easy Goer ran the majority of his races without the use of drugs, such as the diuretic Lasix or the anti inflammatory Butazolidin. New York was the only state in the USA during that era that banned all race-day medications." Sure, adding that fact he ran 15 of 20 in NY would be useful and perhaps required; plus adding the fact that he was only known to have been given medication in two of his other races also would be useful and perhaps required as well. I actually was reminded of this topic while glancing through some other wiki Thoroughbred articles which mentioned this topic, such as Runhappy, Hansel, Summer Squall, Alysheba, and Devil His Due. Devil His Due by the way has an unverified, unsourced statement stating, "One of Devil His Due's claims to fame is that in an era of vast Lasix and steroid use, he ran completely drug-free in 41 starts for a total of over 44 miles of racing." Though he ran many races in NY as well, I think he ran with Bute when he ran in California and Kentucky. After being reminded of this topic, I thought it would be useful for his article. As far as this being worth a mention, and myself actually mentioning this in other successful NY raced horses during that era, and Sunday Silence himself for that matter; I would like to, but as you know, it takes lots of time to get sources, etc for ONE or two articles, much less many. I wish I had some more time; so many Thoroughbred articles need assistance badly. As far as amazing or miracle? It's definitely notable for any top horse; not an amazing miracle or anything like that. My opinion - which obviously I would only say on a talk page - is that back then with New York being the only drug free and medication free state, their no-medication no-drug rules during that era kept the outcomes crystal clear - or at least, much clearer than the others; and their refusal to allow drugs was a key factor in keeping New York's major races the true tests of champions in that era. This is only an opinion though. It would have been nicer if at least the other major racing states did the same; or at least the major Grade I races were. But those days are long gone here in the USA. Peteski132 (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You exceeded the source material and engaged in too much synthesis. That's the issue, that's the only issue, really. If you want to write a more neutral commentary that we've sort of worked out above, and don't overdo it (per WP:UNDUE), it is interesting. I made an assumption that you are a partisan in the endless Easy-Goer-versus-Sunday-Silence-who-is-more-perfect drama. If I was wrong in that assumption, I apologize for the "Amazing Miracle Horse" comment. I actually happen to agree with you that no-drug rules were probably a better way to go than the mess we have today (The rest of the world seems to keep on racing without drugging, I wish we would). If you want to fix other articles, go for it. If you want to make this article top-notch, try taking this one to GA-class or FAC. Montanabw^(talk) 10:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Going to reformat this page

So I see all the past discussion here, but end of the day this page is impossible to read and actually get good information out of. Thinking of just putting all those accomplishments in its own section (like where it says Easy Goer is one of X horses to do Y).

Probably won't delete much of the copy unless I need to with the format since that was contentious in the past, but its a brutal page to read right now. AfleetAlexsBalance (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Just kidding, a lot actually needs to be removed. Whoever wrote this article is obsessed with times. AfleetAlexsBalance (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Edited it the best I could, just finished it all. There are a ton of quotes though that I might take out. Its not that they don't belong, its just odd that there's so many. AfleetAlexsBalance (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)