Thought this filly was close to a mortal lock in the Ashland. Also thought she ran despicable in the race. First reaction was filly just can\'t get the two turns. Still inclined to believe that.
Anybody else got an alternate theory? (if there was an excuse for last time, she is easily the fastest filly in the Oaks and won\'t be favored)
Rob
Rob,
Cat Sophia had no excuse off a perfect trip and set up in the Ashland,doubtful she is a two turn 9f filly.
The fact that she was out of the Oaks until Songbird got sick,not a sign of confidence by connections.Why would she beat Rachel\'s Valentina next out or even Carina Mia, now with a prep?
Mike
Mike,
Thanks. Figured the same, but for some reason was feeling a compulsion to reconsider.
Mostly because I don\'t like the other horses in the Oaks. Would take a gamble on Carina Mia, but looks like she won\'t get to run based on earnings. Never been much of a Rachel\'s Valentina fan but have to admit she was best in the Ashland, albeit race sort of collapsed.
I guess Land & Sea can win, but don\'t love betting horses that drop back to last or thereabouts and have to circle.
Lewis Bay was nice last time and has two 1 1/8 wins, but was \"slow\" until the last race and that was a wet track she skipped over (one of those tiny horses that doesn\'t sink into the slop)
Not a lot to choose from. (alternatively speaking, could say the race is wide open?)
Rob
Rob,
From an Oaks/Derby double standpoint, the defection of Songbird a plus(prefer she was ok though)Not a horizontal fan too much but even that is a better gamble now with Songbird out.
Lewis Dinner has always been a bit ratty but she will stay well,not impossible I n this field. Agree with Land and Sea.Rachel Valentina totally one to beat off Ashland imo especially if Carina doesn\'t run,loose?
Better race if defections allow Carina Mia in.
Mike
Are more than 14 expected to enter? I think Carina gets in. That said, her rep is entirely based on one race last Fall. She returns late this year and needed to run like RV to prove at least to me that the reputation is deserved. And that she\'s 100% fit. She didn\'t. She\'s a toss for me.
RV and Land Over Sea have run best against Songbird and away from her. Those are the two to beat in my opinion. i can make no excuse for Sophia and think their first plan seemed much more sensible.
I agree with you on Sophia but lean to disagree on Carina. Bill Mott is not your typical dirt trainer and is always inclined to give horses races before the next setup race. Maybe they are behind plan with her but she some big numbers last year.
Sophia is perplexing. Fastest going in. Last was almost no excuse. Now she goes further? And those large early winter numbers are looming as her biggest asset and negative.....
Depending on the price (suspect no better than 3rd favorite and maybe higher), I am willing to forgive CS for her last. In watching all the Kee dirt races this spring, I have seen plenty of horses not run their race.
While I agree that CS is better one turn than two, she is plenty fast. As Rob started this string, she is the fastest horse in the race and not favored.
Cat Sophia may not be fastest at 9f if the Ashland is an indicator.Still have to consider why CS was rather quickly taken off Oaks trail pre Songbird defection.
Carina Mia just worked 5f in 58.63 at CD for Oaks.
Mike,
I am VERY concerned that Cathryn Sophia just can\'t get two turns.
I am not concerned at all about the trainer ducking Songbird. While trainer intent/confidence/lack there of, is always interesting, Songbird was considered 1-5 and an 800 pound gorilla in the Oaks. Reconsidering the race after the monster defected only makes sense.
That said, as you pointed out, zero excuse for the Ashland. My bias numbers have the day neutral-ish. She moved around RV like she was standing still turning for home and then flattened like a pancake. Looks to be a classic case of not getting the distance. That said, some will say the ground she lost on the turn hurt her. Not buying that, at least as a mulligan. Wondering that if she does go, if she should be a \"send\". Put her on top and let them catch her. Would not want her to be trying to run down RV.
Rob
Rob,
Yikes,go back and look at the charts. With the exception of a layover 3-5 shot in race 2, speed was nfg all day.I have Loaban as a play, in the right spot, off a brave try against that track.
Also like Rachel V and Carina M off that day.Cat Sophia may have stepped on her breeding/conformation for two turns going 9f.Oaks a Grade 1,huge for broodmare value so why not try.
Mike
Rob,
I made a post back in early March regarding my thoughts on Sophia and her getting two turns. I still stand by that post. I will be betting against her in the Oaks, and I also bet against her in the Ashland. My problem was I bet against her in the Pick 5 by using Mia and Rachel\'s V, going deep in the next 3 races and then singling Brody on the end. Would have hit for a nice payday had the 1 horse not just barely got up in the Ashland, but \"dem\'s da breaks\" as they say.
MJ,
Re-read your post and it seems like you were likely spot on.
That said, it seems like many correct opinions in this game, it will go unrewarded. Tossing her at 1-2 last time was a great betting opportunity.
\"Betting against her\" in the Oaks, where she will be 6-1 or so, won\'t provide you with any value, no matter how far you toss her vertically (out of the super?). I say \"no value\", but I guess you can create a bit of value if you leaver her out of the key spots in the Super.
Good luck
Mike,
Thanks for the headsup. I looked at the wrong day. My bias numbers show a closer\'s track. For some reason, I had the Ashland being run on a different day in my head than the Bluegrass. (Age?)
I rarely go back and look at charts these days to assess bias. Getting lazy. You pay for premium speed figures and premium bias numbers and you tend to rely on them unless they give you a reason to go back and reassess.
Rob
Ring-- Two comments.
1-- You do a lot of visual handicapping (\"racetrack fast\", \"ran despicable\" etc.).
2-- You are treating them like they\'re cars, that their form is a constant. That how they ran on a given day is who they ARE, not what they did that day.
I know you\'ve been using sheets a long time. But what you\'re talking about is contrary to the basic tenets here-- that performance can be measured (as opposed to characterized), and that form is not a constant. That\'s why we put the figures on a graph.
TGJB,
Thanks for the comment.
1. I got your message last week - no name calling (of horses - slugs, can of XXXX, etc..)
2. What I said is not in conflict with \"modern sheets\" tenets, just in conflict with stuff that is 20 years old. I realize I am treading in deeper waters here as you run the company and they are your customers, but \"tenets\" have evolved. I would agree certainly that form is a cycle and this plays well when you watch horses spend 3 or 4 months racing every 3 to 4 weeks at 6 furlongs on the dirt and you look at their numbers on a graph and make form assumptions. But when a SIGNIFICANT constant changes, like track surface, route/sprint, extreme bias, etc, then looking at the form on a graph is EXTREMELY less important to at least some of your customers, if not many. (just look at comments by Miff and Mjellish on the topic of Cathryn Sophia, as they are two of your longtime customers). You want to look at Cathryn Sophia\'s sheet and see the bad performance last time and call it a bounce off some fast races and just leave it there as a change in her form cycle, then you can do that. But others, having seen her breeding, having seen her physical looks, and having suspected she can\'t route as well, then see her back up routing, we are likely going to consider it unrelated to her form cycle and more related to her ability to get a route of ground. Shoot, the whole reason I started this thread was because I was looking for some sheets read to explain the back up so I could convince myself she was playable in the Oaks at a better price. But instead of getting that, what I got was two of your Senior members spitting back what you are calling \"visual handicapping\" to me. They weren\'t my words (although I agree with them).
Some of us don\'t use your product (or your competitor\'s) as dogmatically as we did 15 years ago. You may not call that a good thing, but it is evolution of the handicapping game.
Rob
I don\'t disagree with a lot of what you said about CS and figuring out what variables matter there is a real big part of handicapping the Oaks. I do disagree with the idea that her running badly that day automatically means she can\'t get the distance, that there is necessarily cause and effect.
I don\'t hold with much of what you heard across the street, their absolutism is silly. I don\'t toss out all non-sheet handicapping ideas, I don\'t mind them being discussed here as long as they don\'t dominate the conversation or are complete nonsense (\"class\"). And there are some (Maggie) who clearly have an eye and can see things I can\'t, I want to know what they say.
But the two things that matter here are that performance can be measured (at least in terms of certain metrics which are indisputable, like distance traveled), and form is not a constant. A horse is not a 6. A performance is a 6.
JB,
Think the Ashland clearly opens the discussions of CS\'s ability to get two turns and 9f as fast as she was able to do going one turn up to mile.Not saying conclusively she won\'t but certainly have a lean against based on that very ordinary performance for her.She had a perfect set up and failed.
Mike
I agree it opens up the discussion, or continues it.
Blazing work for Carina today - .58 and 4/5 at Churchill. Next best was a minute flat. For comparison, Creator at 1:02 2/5. Her gallop out likely bested Gun Runner\'s very good 1:12 1/5.
Would love to see her get in. She has a fast figure last year that gives her enough number power with any development, figures to be tighter based on Mott\'s tendencies with layoff horses and adds to the early pace (removes chance of RV getting a simple lead)
Rob