The horse was an underdog. It knows suffering. If it were human, he'd be a Democrat.

What a great story.

The horse was an underdog. It knows suffering. If it were human, he'd be a Democrat.

No, Democrats don't work that hard. Democrats win by hot air. Republicans don't seem to be winning at all these days. Given that he was an underdog, the horse must be an independent.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zz.....

Making the Derby political is truly asinine. Nice job, guys.

On topic, it was a helluva race. Rodeo cowboys, one with a broken leg, drive their mostly untested horse 1500 miles from New Mexico to win it all. Jockey Calvin Borel, another regular guy, wins both the Kentucky Oaks (Friday) and the Derby, and his unbridled joy is contagious.

And over the course of two days of racing, a quarter million people dress up nice and show up at Churchill Downs to have a good time, despite the economy, questionable weather, and swine flu. It was a fun distraction from the headlines.

I wonder how much money BL2 lost on that race.

"I wonder how much money BL2 lost on that race."

Posted by Lisa at 2009-05-03 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag: funny!!

Maybe he won't be able to pay his library dues for a few months.

Posted by Zatoichi

Hi Zat!

Hey Lisa!

Say, would that cover of Field & Stream be the swimsuit issue?

"Say, would that cover of Field & Stream be the swimsuit issue?"

LOL

That's a visual I don't even want, Zat!

Ate the trout last night though..mmmm...mmmm..good!

One of the most spectacular races I've ever seen. This horse was dead last going around the first turn. Amazing.

LETUS

That sure was an unbelievable race. Never seen anything like it. I mean, on the back stretch he was 4 or 5 lengths back from the entire pack. Amazing.

Of COURSE the 50-1 horse wins!
Go figure!
You want to know WHY the 50-1 horse won the Derby???

Because I didn't BET this time around!

Bad Tom! Stupid Tom!

It's like when I didn't bet on the Belmont in 2002. Who won?
Sarava, at 70-1.

Always bet the longshot.

#14 | Posted by TheTom

LOL

Funny, in a sad way.

Horses eat a lot and shit a lot. So much for the average (most) horses.

The losers are on tonight's menu!!

Contrary to reports, the horse was not purchased for 9500 bucks. That was the first time she changed hands. Was purchased by a syndicate for 400,000 the third time she changed hands.

The trainer had a real chip on his shoulder and game off like a total dick on TV. As he gave complete credit to the horse's doctor, we wondered if the horse was juiced!

Honestly from the overview you can see he ran at a completely faster pace then the rest of the field. AND if he couldn't squeeze by on the rail, TWICE, he would not have won. It was an incredible race....

I heard the winning jockey say that his horse was the only one that kicked it into high gear. From watching the race, it was evident. It would be a shame if the horse doesn't compete in the next leg of the triple crown, which I heard may be the case.

Did you guys catch the payout on the Superfecta? A $2 bet on the top 4 finishers - $557,000.

DavetheWave - was the trainer a total dick? Maybe. Or just a bit unsophisticated, not used to the attention, and unsure how to deal with it.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Jockey Borel's filly on Friday, Rachel Alexandra, won by almost 21 lengths, which is apparently a record, although the officials seem unsure (!) Two days, two incredible finishes.

This was one of the best sports stories in history. Not only was this horse a 50-1 underdog, the horse only cost $9,500 and was competing against horses that cost millions of dollars.

The horse's owners will now go on to make millions in stud fees. The whole story is straight out of a Hollywood movie.

The horse was an underdog. It knows suffering. If it were human, he'd be a Democrat.

#1 | Posted by Ron_Karate

This horse won through hard work and training and did not need affirmative action to succeed. It didn't rely on the government for help. It did not blame it's socio-economic status (being a $9,500 horse racing against horses that cost millions of dollars) for its station in life and using it as an excuse not to succeed.

This horse had the heart of a Republican. Duh!

Horses are by nature apolitical. They will vote for anyone that brings in the oats.

The horse's owners will now go on to make millions in stud fees. The whole story is straight out of a Hollywood movie.

#20 | Posted by utastaff

Mine that bird was a gelding not a stallion so there will be no stud jobs for the poor guy. So the winner doesn't get the girl.

Hm. A mudder. Cloning. Send him to South Korea.

Hm. A mudder.

Wot did ya expect?

His fodder was a mudder and his mudder was a mudder.

/Extra Spudpoints to anyone who remembers who Spud ripped that one off of.

Be Well.

Did his Fodder get scratched in the derby?

Did you guys catch the payout on the Superfecta? A $2 bet on the top 4 finishers - $557,000.

Why don't I ever get a "dream" beforehand with a vision of this happening!

Just think, if you had bet $1000 on the Superfecta you would have won $278,500,000.

Here is a tax question. Say You won big in Kentucky Derby and You was physically there in Kentucky when You won the loot. Do You still have to pay Your states income taxes on it or could You declare it as income earned from the State of Kentucky?? How would that play out??

Larry

Zat

2009 Kentucky Derby Replay
www.youtube.com

Making your Mint Julep
www.youtube.com

#13 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-05-03 02:35 PM

Thanks for both the videos.

I misssed the race so your video of the Kentucky Derby replay was the first time I saw it.

All I can say is WOW!

Oh, and the recipe for the Mint Juleps was nice too.

I've never tried a Mint Julep before but plan to change that real soon.

Larry

Here is a tax question. Say You won big in Kentucky Derby and You was physically there in Kentucky when You won the loot. Do You still have to pay Your states income taxes on it or could You declare it as income earned from the State of Kentucky?? How would that play out??

I think -- not positive -- that each state has it's own laws regarding the amount of state income tax owned for gambling winnings -- whether it's betting on the horses, poker, or in Indian casinos, wherever. I don't really gamble (and when I did never won enough to pay taxes on it the times I did go to Vegas) so I couldn't tell you. Maybe TAXMAN or someone else on here might have the answer for you?

owned = owed

So if gambling winnings are taxable income, are gambling losses deductible expenditures?
Not!

Reporter:
"So, Mr. 2nd-Place Horse, what are your feelings about that race?"

2nd-Place Horse, knitting his brow, rubbing his chin, cogitating a while:
"Hmm...no sir, I didn't like it."

So if gambling winnings are taxable income, are gambling losses deductible expenditures?
Not!

Actually, they are li'l jeffy -- up to the amount of the winnings. Since almost everyone has a net loss when gambling, they cannot report them.

Regarding the tax question, I did a little research on that myself, because the question came up on another matter. The federal gets its cut (naturally), and your state of residence gets a cut (assuming you don't live in one of the nine states that have no state-level income tax). If you have a local (city or county level) tax, they may get a cut as well (though in the area I currently live in does not levy taxes on gambling earnings).

As for the race itself, I gotta say "meh". Holds about as much interest for me as NASCAR.

And gambling losses can be uses as deductions (and this is the important part) if you itemize. More often than not, from what I understand, it isn't worthwhile to itemize.

Goatman has it right.

This assumes that MY information is correct.

A friend of mine had several thousand dollars in gambling winnings (Las Vegas)last year.

He had over twice that in documented losses during the same year.

He was not required to pay taxes on his winnings but could not deduct any losses above the amount that he won.

By the way, ALL gambling losses were considered including lossing Michigan Lottery tickets.

Sorry, didn't see that, and yes, you can only deduct up to the amount you won. If you didn't do any winning, losses don't matter (thus, even less incentive to itemize).