I\'m usually skeptical of trainers blaming the surface for their horses\' poor performances but Keith D may have a point here. Looking at the photos of EX in the stretch it appears that his forelegs are sinking deeper into the Belmont surface than the other horses. He has a smaller hoof than most which usually indicates a preference for off tracks but might make him sink deeper into Big Sandy.
Just a theory. Any thoughts from the panel?
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/features/2016-belmont-stakes-race-sequence-212357
I hope he doesn\'t actually believe what he said or else it\'s absurdity from a clueless trainer.
Didn\'t hear one complaint about him getting over the surface during his workout on the 7th. \"Good energy, lots of fluidity, all systems go\" - Kent last week.
Horse very predictably retreated after running three 0.75s in 6 weeks.
I\'m not claiming this was the only reason for his poor performance. TC fatigue is also a likely factor. However, just because he had a good work at 6F doesn\'t mean he could duplicate it at 12. Could be the effect of a tiring track accumulates over a long distance. A wide trip and and being taken out of his preferred running style could also be factors.
The only excuses that don\'t make sense are Kent\'s where he blames everything except his ride. Hate to say this but maybe he was thinking better when he was drinking.
I don\'t see any shred of evidence the track surface had anything to do with his failure yesterday.
I see plenty of reasons to believe that he would have had the same performance on any surface.
This is a horse that ran tops or pairs on 8 different surfaces prior to Saturday\'s race.
Del Mar fast
Saratoga fast
Keeneland muddy
Delta Downs muddy
Santa Anita fast
Santa Anita sloppy
Churchill Downs fast
Pimlico sloppy
Suddenly this is a horse picky about surface? Yeah, I doubt that. Curlin - the one who the pedigree hawks rightfully point to for Exaggerator\'s sloppy track success - didn\'t have any problems at Belmont. He went 2-2-0 in four G1 races there.
Bob,
Awful ride by Kent D, track anything but tiring +180,EXaggerator completely empty for whatever reason.Exag is however 2-8 on dry surfaces 3-4 wet.
Mike
Maybe not, but what did you think of the photos were he seemed to be sinking deeper into the track than the other horses? Not denying the effects of his previous races but not every poor performance has only one explanation.
He was a spent horse from the TC trail and had nothing left. All horses that are shot and not in top form will sink deeper into the track.
Mike,
Track was not tiring in general. It just seemed from the photos that he wasn\'t handling it as well as the others.
Kent\'s explanation made no sense. He claims they were crawling early which shows he doesn\'t understand that what is a slow pace in a shorter race is solid in a 12 furlong marathon. Asmussen was right on the money when he started celebrating when he saw the early fractions set the race up perfectly for his closer, Creator.
Bob,
Despite Sekrah\'s over the top assertions in his response, truth be told it is hard to say.
There are some pretty smart and astute observers that made the comment BEFORE the Belmont, that Exaggerator wasn\'t going to like the track:
1. Brad Thomas - to my mind easily the sharpest of the public \"track handicappers\". He talked about Exaggerator\'s stride, running action and running style before the race and how he thought he wouldn\'t handle Belmont.
2. Multiple workout people didn\'t like the workout. Yes, it wasn\'t unanimous and some said he looked fine, but Welsch and others had their doubts.
Like you, I hate when trainers talk about excuses after the fact, and the bad performance by Exaggerator certainly looked like \"bounce\" and \"too many good figures in a short period of time\". And perhaps it was just that, but I would not bet Exaggerator back on that surface from what I saw.
As for wet track vs dry track, while more of Exaggerators wins were on a wet track, he had fine figures on a dry track as well. And the performance WAS SO AWFUL and unlike anything he has done before, can\'t say it was because the track wasn\'t wet IMO.
Jim
How does fatigue make a horse sink deeper? Actually a fresher horse going faster would hit the track harder and sink deeper if anything. Besides, horses who were more exhausted than him were not sinking as deep.
Because as they tire their action gets slower, therefore they are in contact with the dirt longer than if they were fresh and fit. Watch Quarter horse races. Horses that were super fast last time out will suddenly get stuck in the same track next time out when they aren\'t as physically sharp.
Bob,
The numbers pretty clearly say Kent was right and Asmussen was wrong. The pace was not fast at all.
2016 24 48.2 1:13.1 2:28.2
2015 24 48.4 1:13.2 2:26.3
2014 24 48.2 1:12.4 2:28.2
2013 23 46.3 1:10.4 2:30.3
Sort of throw out American Pharaoh who was cut above and the you look at:
This year Out in 1:13.1 home in 1:15.1
2014 Out in 1:12.4 home in 1:15.3
2013 Out in 1:10.4 home in 1:19.4
The pace was slow to par. The track was fast. Exaggerator being a few lengths off the lead was NOT because Kent rode him poorly. (not that being 4 wide early was smart, but the pace was very mediocre and you had to think dropping back 15 lengths like the Preakness would be a bad idea.)
People love to kill Desormeaux. Anybody that watched Saturday and thinks Exaggerator was in the Superfecta with any kind of ride should quit the game because they don\'t understand it. Exaggerator was almost as empty as Big Brown was. (yes, I still run into people that say Kent botched that ride too, which is even sillier)
Now, you want to say he moved early on Real Quiet. I don\'t know. Certainly a possibility. But that took a hall of fame ride and one of the best I have ever seen in a big spot by Stevens, to run him down by a dirty nostril, so can\'t kill him for that one either.
Jim
Maybe a few too many wines at dinner but to suggest one can \"see\" how deeply a horse is going while powering thru a dirt or any surface is something I\'ve never heard in 50 years.
Anyone have an example of a horse running 5+ slow on a specific dirt course after have no problem over many other tracks?
To chalk up his performance Saturday to the course is quite insane.
Sekrah,
Is it your reading or comprehension that has regressed in the last two years?
Pretty sure I didn\'t say the performance was purely related to the track surface.
As for your question. Of course. Literally 100\'s of examples. Every year. Horses for courses, and other horses that don\'t run well at certain courses. Lava Man never ran a number outside california on dirt. Skip away couldn\'t get a number at Churchill. Many others.
Glad to see your eye has gotten keener. You can see quarter horses sinking into the track like quicksand. Hmm.....
Jim
Jim,
The handful of races you cite is way too small a sample to establish a pace par. If anything you\'ll note that the faster the early pace was the slower the final time. Hardly a good argument that a quick early pace is the best way to run the race.
As a deep closer Creator would have been doomed if the pace were slow
Except for Destin, who ran a terrific race, everyone who was near Gettysburg\'s solid pace died in the stretch as the closers capitalized. A sure sign the pace was tiring.
Asmussen was right to celebrate the early pace as it helped his deep closer win the race and the result bore this out.
Real Quiet was staggering home like a drunk in the Belmont stretch. A sure indicator that he suffered from a very inefficient dumb ride.
Bob,
Do you have reputable pace figures for Saturday?
I do. The pace was not fast. Believe what you want, the pace was par to slow. Look at the charts Saturday if you don\'t have pace figures.
Creator winning the race is not any kind of proof of anything regarding the pace. The only thing it did was prove that Irad can put a good ride on a big stage and that the overall race was slow.
As for the comment about Kent. Dumb.
Jim
Governor Malibu ran close to the pace and was ready to make a big run before being stopped.
Horses for the course, sure. Horses that will consistently run 4+ points worse on one dirt track over another? You\'re living in a dream world based on very few data points bud.
The only conclusion one could possibly make about Lava Man, is that he didn\'t ship well. I remember people jumping to the conclusion that he didn\'t like Del Mar poly because of one race. Until he came back to win that same race the following year, 2 points faster.
Skip Away couldn\'t get a number at Churchill Downs? LOL He ran two races there in a 38 race career and that\'s the conclusion you got? Nevermind he did run a 110 Beyer in the final race of his career. His other race at CD (the Derby), followed a massive top just a few weeks earlier in the Bluegrass.
For there being 100s of examples, you chose two really awful ones to try to make your case.
Yes. Governor Malibu, Destin, Stradivari all close the pace. All ran OK.
The reason a couple of the \"pace makers\" finished up the track were that one was in poor form and entered as a rabbit and the other was an incredibly slow maiden breaker that didn\'t belong in the race. Drawing conclusions off those two isn\'t good handicapping/post race analysis.
Jim
Jim,
You know better than using pace figures for 1-turn races at shorter distances to determine a pace par for the longer 2-turn marathon Belmont distance. As this was the only race on dirt at the distance you have to see how the pace affected the horses in this race and horses running on the pace did worse than the closers.
Another method I often use is based on the physiological principle that the best way to run a race is to distribute energy evenly, especially at longer distances.
One compares the pace call to the final time to see how efficiently a horse is running. Now a deviation of about a second is no big deal but anymore is a very fast pace and the longer the race the more serious the consequences.
Given the final time the pace call shows the Belmont was run inefficiently by front runners, as the results show. The fact that the race was run inefficiently in the past has no relevance.
Just to clarify, are you calling me dumb because I called Kent\'s ride dumb. If so, please skip the personal insults.
Bob,
I didn\'t call you dumb. If you took it that way, I apologize. What I said was that you saying that Real Quiet staggering home was proof that Kent gave the horse a dumb ride was dumb. And I stand by that. That statement, in the best case, is just wrong. Horses stagger home or bear in / bear out when either they are tired or injured. Real Quiet was tired. As I said in the original thread, it is certainly extremely debatable whether or not Kent gave Real Quiet a good ride. But when a horse of roughly equal talent beats his horse by a nostril after getting what many people consider one of the best all time rides in a big spot, it is just wrong to say it was a dumb ride.
As for your pace comments about the best way to run a race, it holds more water with turf races. We don\'t reverse split or even split dirt races in the U.S. . They do it from time to time on the turf, but not dirt. The reason I gave you the splits of other Belmonts was to show you that. The distribution of time early to late in this year\'s Belmont was much more even than in other Belmonts. As for not being able to make pace figures without other races at the same distance on the same day, the top figure makers adjust for this, in the same way TGJB or BEyer does this. And I repeat - this year\'s Belmont didn\'t have a fast pace. While you might find it interesting to try and point that Gettysburg and Seeking the Soul collapsing pointing to a fast pace, that just doesn\'t hold much water. Both were 55-1 and were rabbits. Destin, Governor Malibu and Stradivari all ran near the pace and ran fine. If you wanted to analyze the pace without using available data and prefer to look at results, your call. But there is a reason people buy pace figures. And even if I take your lead and try to analyze the pace via the results, the analysis would conclude the pace was fair. The top 5 finishers were a normal mix of pace pressers, mid pack horses and closers.
Moving on.
Jim
makes you long for the chuckles days, not as bad as the Sherman links, but on its way
\"As this was the only race on dirt at the distance \"
What about race 4?
Jimbo wrote: \"Do you have reputable pace figures for Saturday?
I do. The pace was not fast.\"
Which ones are you looking at?
Strange \"rabbit\" that only goes 24/48.2 raw on a very quick surface.
I agree, Miff. That was no rabbit. But you can have a relatively fast pace without a rabbit. Anyway, I was hoping you\'d quote some pace figures so I don\'t have to.
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Strange \"rabbit\" that only goes 24/48.2 raw on a
> very quick surface.
Mike, you are forgetting that we are talking about the pace for a 12 furlong marathon. A lot of people, like Kent, don\'t seem to understand that this is not a shorter race. One size fits all regardless of distance is not accurate pace analysis.
Rich,
Honestly tend to evaluate pace by myself in NY/Cali but do respect/use CJ and Moss, not a Bris fan.Paco Lopez(Gettysburg) was trying to win imo.Dont know what his instructions were. You know, historically, true rabbits are sent hard and go as fast and as long as they are able to, then ease.Paco hardly went out sending with intent to go fast all the way.
A simple conversion of track speed for the day makes the splits look like 25/49.2 hardly fast but not real slow for the 12f distance(data base on the distance at Belmont very small) Also, while the track may have been fast but honest, no wires all day on dirt.Think Connect,Fish House Road, Destin(lesser extent)ran better than their figs indicate,pace adjusted.
Mike
Miff: Again, I totally agree with you on there being no rabbit. A rabbit does not care how long the race is. That is what makes him a rabbit. The Belmont had no rabbit.
Moss has the race shape: average early, fast mid, average late.
CJ has the pace as fast.
Bob,
Of course but track speed is highly relevant with pace or whole figs. Very little current data is available on 12f pace figs and simply because of the distance, jocks are most likely putting the brakes on early.Saturdays raw surface was plus+ many lengths.
Pace figs at 12f rarely pass a smell test as jockey intent is not quantifiable.This Belmont\'s pace was more to the honest/slower side in my notes.The whole race I deem common,the winner still a slug.
Mike
Rich,
I saw both,and felt CJ\'s comments did not match the 140? early(from memory)Regardless,we can get too anal about such issues.In this case,the likelihood of using the race/pace to predict the next performance of these horses,is semi delusional.
Mike
Jimbo had posted the following:
\"Look at pace figures for the Belmont, it was a VERY slow pace.\"
And both Jimbo and Bobphilo made several posts on this subject while unaware that there were two 12F dirt races at Belmont on Saturday.
Rich,
I was well aware of the other 12 furlong race. I bet the race and watched it. (and handicapped it on this board, the day before)
I am not going to advertise another product here, but I get pace figures for all the races on the NY circuit.
The Moss stuff is easy to pull off the internet.
I have two figures, one average and one below par.
We have already gone on about the pace of this race enough. You really want to call Saturday a fast pace and explain the result that way, feel free to do it. it\'s a free country.
As for bob\'s posts. I am giving up. Kent, a hall of fame jockey, doesn\'t understand that the pace for a 1 1/2 mile race is different, nor do the guys that make figures on the track. How can I argue with that?
I think the race Saturday is one of the easiest to assess after the fact that you will EVER see in a Triple Crown race. The favorite fired too many fast ones in a short period of time and didn\'t fire Saturday. The awful result may have been exacerbated by a dislike for the track, but that certainly wasn\'t the reason he lost. The pace gave all horses in the race a shot to win. A closer won, stalkers finished in the 2nd and 4th slots and another closer was 3rd. The track was very fast on Saturday and the presence of a rabbit had about zero impact on the race, as he wasn\'t a rabbit. No major jockey screwups worth complaining about. Sure, Kent had the favorite 4 wide for no reason, but he was so empty it didn\'t matter. One could argue Javier moved a bit soon to press down the backside, but as somebody who badly needed Destin, I can\'t say it was a bad move. Irad gave a brilliant ride.
time to move on.
Jim
Jimbo:
Read the response you made to Bobphilo when he said that there was only one 12F dirt race on Saturday.
As for the unnamed pace figures that support your case, I am not sure how to cross-examine a star witness who has a brown paper bag over his head.
\"I have two figures, one average and one below par.\"
Actually, you have three. Two of them have names.
Just 2 races are hardly a large enough sample to calculate a pace par.
Think Rich may be suggesting that if you look at the pace for both races,the Belmont pace does not come up slow.If that\'s all you\'re looking at,you can get to the Belmont pace being quasi-fast.
I don\'t know why so many people are misunderstanding my and Jim\'s posts to mean that Ex\'s seeming to sink deeper into the surface than the other horses means we are chalking up his defeat to this one factor.
I have stated clearly that fatigue from previous races, pace and a poor ride were important factors. I was merely pointing out that the photos showed the possibility that Ex did not like the track based on what what the photos showed and was pursuing the possibility that this may have been a factor from a novel point of view.
Rich Curtis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Moss has the race shape: average early, fast mid,
> average late.
>
> CJ has the pace as fast.
Interesting that nobody has the pace as slow or \"crawling\" as Kent claims. That\'s what I was objecting too.
The \"he didnt like the track\" argument is very weak. Exagg handled 7 different surfaces/tracks with aplomb.His Belmont X was the classic, over the top, cumulative effect,if there ever was one.
Bobphilo wrote:
\"Just 2 races are hardly a large enough sample to calculate a pace par.\"
That was not my point, Bobphilo. This was:
You were giving this lecture:
\"You know better than using pace figures for 1-turn races at shorter distances to determine a pace par for the longer 2-turn marathon Belmont distance. As this was the only race on dirt at the distance you have to see how the pace affected the horses in this race and horses running on the pace did worse than the closers.\"
OK, why did you write this? What was your point?
There was one the day before too.
Big Sandy is unique. The photos show he was sinking deeper into the track than the other horses.
I don\'t know how many times I have to say this. I have NEVER downplayed the fact that he very well may have bounced. It\'s possible to bounce and dislike the track too. The 2 are not mutually exclusive.
Bob - Not meaning to be rude.
You don\'t have to say it ever again.
Please
Funny.
Tavasco, Apparently some people are not hearing it and keep implying I\'m saying something I\'m not.
Then saying it again won\'t make a difference.
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.
A horse that skated over every muddy, sloppy, and fast surface he\'s ever encountered, suddenly \"sank\" in Big Sandy.
No.
Yes
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.
That was the last one.