JB (and Cozzene)
A couple of closing points on this race. JB, please don\'t retrofit the result of the race into a T-Graph justification. I saw your comment (after the race) about the distance not being a problem. It is,was and always will be with Lionheart. In none of his races this year, has he looked the part of a horse that wants 1 1/4 miles. He was caught late in all his derby preps, albeit in fast races. He ran on well over a sloppy track in the derby that carried speed, then ran his \"true\" distance races (IMO) in the Preakness and today in the Travers. They couldn\'t have went slower in the race today early and still Purge and Lionheart backed up badly.
The original point I tried to make is that I honestly think that the Analysis product specifically overlooks many handicapping angles that should be used in conjunction with the T-Graph figures themselves. And I also wanted to encourage some intellectual debate from horseplayers about two parts of the \"T-Graph\" thesis that I have trouble with. Those parts being that pace is meaningless (except for allowing the frontrunner to save ground) and also to a lesser extent that \"class\" is meaningless. I can understand the \"class\" statement to a degree, but have great trouble with the \"pace\" part.
In the end, my goal (and everybody else\'s probably) is to figure out how to use the T-Graph figures best to enhance my handicapping and betting results. I tried the analysis product, in conjunction with the sheets themselves, so I could understand the logic that a T-Graph expert uses, but the analysis product doesn\'t work for me.
I am well aware that picking one race right (The Travers) doesn\'t prove anything. I only bothered with the posting because I thought it was an excellent race to refute some of the problems I have with using T-Graph figures. I posted that the two fastest horses were not going to finish in the money and Birdstone (a slower horse) would win. I explained the logic (\"traditional handicapping\" as musingly pointed out by Cozzene).
Now, that doesn\'t mean I am not convinced that T-Graph figures are helpful. I wouldn\'t bother posting on this board if I thought it was useless. But even the biggest of experts (and I don\'t mean that sarcastically JB), should be open to questions about their thesis and opinions.
thanks,
Jim
Birdstone still seems slow after the final time of 202 and change, I guess some credit has to be given for getting the job done.
Duh! Jimbo is right. Trip handicapping is a useful tool in colllecting money- did anyone respond to my posting concerning the parallel to last year\'s Travers, NO.
Thank you jimbo66. Your analysis was on the money (this is not a paid advertisement and I totally approve it).
Gentlemen
My first experience at the racetrack was in 1973.
Between 1973 and 1997 I read every book I could about betting on Thorobreds.
Unfortunately, I was also in the red every year. Sometimes I made a big score, but usually I lost. If Cozzene or one of his children were running I had a good day. Tikkanen on BC day was one of my best hits of all time.
However every thing changed in 1998 I discovered speed figures. I have not had a losing year since.
Pace as a indicator of energy expelled can\'t be. It is impossible to quantify.
Angles which angle? It is easy after the race. Very hard when you are forced to choose between angles before post.
Class; quantify it mathimatically.
Final time, ground loss, and weight are all objective. They can all be quantified mathimatically.
The advantage of accurate speed figures is that over time the faster horses will finish ahead of the slower horses. Betting the faster horses will over time show a profit.
Questions arise about betting strategies; about a year ago I asked some questions that I already knew the answers to; I wanted to see what the response was, suffice to say some people who post here really get it, they play tri\'s and super\'s where speed figures are most valuble and traditional methods most useless and leave the win position to the traditionalists.
If this helps great, if not thats OK.
Your Friend
Cozzene
Post Edited (08-29-04 08:50)
Cozzene,
What do you mean \"after the race\"? We discussed the Travers well before the race, days before. I am not \'redboarding\'. You said \"Jimbo the \'tradional handicapper\', the fastest horse win the race, period. Lionheart easily.
I said LH and Purge off the board, with Birdstone over The Cliff\'s Edge and Sir Shackleton.
Jimbo,
I would argue that \"class\" is an important factor and pace is a part of class. (notice my name lol)
I define \"class\" as all the intangible qualities of ability that do not show up in speed figures.
Two horses can run the exact same final time, but that does not mean they have the same amount of deterimination, courage, willingness, stamina/racing reserves, short burst acceleration, 1/4 or 1/2 mile speed, desire to compete, versatility, etc...
As you move up the ladder, not only are the horses faster, but they generally possess greater quantities of the above attributes.
That generally makes the races more demanding and competitive (pace being a part of that). Many horses run their fastest speed figures when those types of demands are not made of them. As horses move up the ladder, they are often exposed as not having enough of the intangible qualities required to duplicate the speed figures they earned at lower levels. Others reveal their surplus of those qualities and rise to the competition and run faster.
Sometimes, you can see class beforehand if you have decent visual skills and watch a lot of races.
I think it is silly to dismiss the quality of the field a figure was earned against.
Notice also, I am not saying to use the class designation. I am saying to actually look at the quality of the field and the competitiveness of the race.
Post Edited (08-29-04 17:42)
Retrofit-- I said BEFORE the race that the two ML favorites were vulnerable, with one coming off a huge effort, and the other coming off a pair of negatives, both on 20 days rest. Alan also asked me how many 3yo\'s have thrown 3 negatives in a row, and I can\'t think of a whole lot. And that\'s independent of rest.
What I said after the race is that there is no reason to say FROM THIS RACE that LH can\'t get the distance, not just because of the above, but because he stopped before he went a mile. THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK HE WOULD NOT ALSO HAVE DONE SO IF THE RACE WAS 1 1/8th.
I also said BEFORE the race that anyone who had a strong opinion was nuts, EVEN IF THEY CASHED. No matter what the result, there was going to be somebody posting here about how they were right. If you get on line to cash after any race, you will meet a lot of people who know the horse won for the reasons they bet it. The difference (as HP would say), is I\'m right, and they\'re wrong.
I ended up having a pretty good day. We gave out a pick 4 as 3x1x2x3, but 2 of the 3 in the first race scratched. The next 3 races provided the pick 3 ($300) on a $12 play. I didn\'t play pick 3\'s or pick 4\'s, but I hit the ROTW tri pretty hard playing it just like I wrote it and picked it (NTL on top, throw out the bad ones, use ST extra). I also hit the Pomeroy/Birdstone double pretty hard (2x3, doubling up with Pomeroy-- fastest horse, concealed, good line off 1 point top). Several TG players I know who played exotics in the King\'s Bishop hit the race, some very hard, since the favorites were very beatable, and Pomeroy was pretty clear.
I used 3 in the Travers-- LH, Bird, Sir Shac. Boxed them lightly, but mostly just sat rooting against TCE and Purge. I have to say, I would love to know what Eddington looked like on Ragozin, and why those guys liked him-- on TG he was the slowest horse in the race, and given his lack of forward movement was hard to play for a jump.
>What I said after the race is that there is no reason to say FROM THIS RACE that LH can\'t get the distance, not just because of the above, but because he stopped before he went a mile. THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK HE WOULD NOT ALSO HAVE DONE SO IF THE RACE WAS 1 1/8th.<
I agree. There is no reason to conclude he can\'t get 10F off this race.
There was every reason to conclude he couldn\'t get 10F off everything else in his record to date and this performance did nothing to change that.
There was also every reason to conclude he wasn\'t runing as well as many people thought coming into this race - including his last start against a relative non-entity where he was loose on the lead and failed to draw off.
This was the worst 5-2 shot in a major stake this year.
Post Edited (08-29-04 17:43)
The worst 5/2 shot in a major stake this year is Sarafan later today.
LOL. I\'ll take a look. Thanks.
I am just still pissed off that I hated LH and thought CE would get a suck up second at best and didn\'t cash. :-)
Post Edited (08-29-04 17:44)
LH broke a bone is his foot or something and is being retired.
well, there it is --- that horse broke his own foot rather than face the prospect of running 10f.
Class Handicapper,
Thanks for your answer. It helps and makes sense.
It is too bad LH is going to be retired. For one, I would have loved to see him in the Cigar Mile and next year in the Met Mile.
And I would have loved to bet against him if he actually came back and ran in the Classic.
I agree with you 100% on LH. I understand that the Travers didn\'t prove that LH didn\'t want the 1 1/4 (especially with him being hurt). I, like you, had ALREADY ASCERTAINED that before the Travers, based on all of his 3 year old races. The only race he showed any semblance of being a distance horse was the Derby. He got caught in both preps, ran awful in the Preakness and even in victory in the HAskell, didn\'t win like I thought he would and should (with RHT not firing)
But as with most horse racing debate, it will be \"un-answered\" for many. Cozzene and others (JB I guess too) will believe LH could have gotten the distance. Just like many Smarty fans really believe he was a GREAT horse and not just really good. I don\'t think he ran enough to be \"great\" but others will disagree.
We would all like to see Smarty and Lion, and all the rest next year, but this is the state of racing. Stronger, faster, but brittle racehorses mean fewer races, early retirement, or worse. This is why I am so keen on Birdstone in the Classic; he hasn\'t burned out yet, and the older horse crop is average.
TGAB,
Nice pick in the 7th at Saratoga, tossing the slow (phony wide) 4 horse@ 8 to 5.I missed the tri but hit the exacta pretty good.
Just so we\'re clear, I didn\'t toss him because he was \"phony wide\". I tossed him because at the weights there were several faster (especially the winner) even if you gave him credit for the ground loss, and there was no reason to expect him not to race outside again today.
JB, I well know your convictions re ground loss. I do not agree that horses that lose ground have been disadvantaged ALL the time. In his last race Philantropist,rallied wide over a tired bunch and did not finish up in race horse time,IMO,hence my reason for tossing him. Another angle I use often is tossing slow horses from Big Time connections that get overbet on reputation as opposed to being fast.
>Another angle I use often is tossing slow horses from Big Time connections that get overbet on reputation as opposed to being fast.<
That is one of my favorites also.
Another is \"big reputation\" horses when they return off a layoff (especially 2 YOs turning 3 or older horses that may be starting to wear down). Not all of them come back the same, but they often get overbet off their back record for awhile.
CH--
I agree.
Class is defined by what a horse like ROSES IN MAY did in this years\'s Whitney.
Perhaps PERFECT DRIFT got a better #, but you cannot quantify when a horse turns it\'s head to look a new challenger in the eye in deep stretch and,despite spending an entire race chasing a torrid pace, refuses to be passed...or a LADY TAK digging down for reserves that nature did not provide for her.
What class is not.....EDDINGTON shying away from BIRDSTONE as that one ranged along side on the far turn. If you don\'t believe me that EDDINGTON was intimidated, ask the jock.
For those of you out there that believe pace and class are less important than pure final time figures, or not important at all, I look forward to continuing to take your hard earned money.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
Lucy -
That one line may have made the rest of the garbage you\'ve posted here worth it. My compliments - for whatever they are worth.
Post Edited (09-01-04 12:49)
I don\'t know what the numbers say but Roses in May ran TEN times better than Perfect Drift in the Whitney. It was arguably the best performance by an older horse this year.
>I don\'t know what the numbers say but Roses in May ran TEN times better than Perfect Drift in the Whitney. It was arguably the best performance by an older horse this year.<
Exactly.
No matter how they perform subsequently, there is no doubt who ran better that day no matter what the figures say!
If Roses in May hits the board at 10 panels it\'ll be a miracle. None of Devil His Due off-spring have yet to do it.
Winning a race by a nose, in an ordinary time, does not equate to ten times better than Per Drift nor best effort by an older horse. Get a grip.
bdhsheets--
Check out the pace figures in the Whitney and then let me know if RIM ran an ordinary race.
Need a bookie???
Good Luck,
Joe B.
Whether R in M can get 10F is an entirely different issue.
On the day of the race Perfect Drift lost more ground than Roses in May and they finished noses apart. The figures say PD ran a better race.
IMO, with a more reasonable pace and trip scenario Roses in May would have won even if Perfect Drift got a rail trip. If Roses in May had gotten loose he would have drawn off and been eased late. The pace of that race was vicious and RIM battled furiously, put the other horses away (they died badly) and continued gamely when callenged by a solid Grade I horse. It was a spectacular performace.
I can\'t prove it, but I can\'t prove Wilt Chamberlain was a better basketball player than Willie Shoemaker either.
Post Edited (09-01-04 14:14)
I\'ve been trying to stay out of this because it\'s pointless-- in this game proof is hard to come by. Evidence is another matter-- and there\'s some evidence Chamberlain was a pretty good ballplayer. Less so for the Shoe.
RIM and PD had similar trips re ground loss-- PD lost a total of 1/2 length. More significantly, he spotted RIM 3 pounds-- worth about a length.
Do I think an extremely hot pace can be a factor? Yes. Do I think other horses might have spit it out after going that fast? Yes-- slower (final time) ones. Of the other 2 in that duel, one was much slower (the Texas horse), the other was Peace Rules, who I was betting to run poorly (interesting how Frankel horses haven\'t done well in G1\'s recently, and how he keeps finding reasons to not run Ghostzapper and others in them). Some of us hit that tri-- publicly-- with a 4 horse box, without factoring in pace.
Do I think a slower pace would have caused RIM to run a faster final time? No. Do I think it would have caused PD to run slower? No.
Can\'t resist. Cary Grant, in The Philadelphia Story: \"Class, my... eye\".
TGJB--
I agree that a slower pace may not have caused RIM to run a faster final time, but the ability to handle the internal fractions of a race and still run the same final time is what distinguishes claiming horses from allowance horses from Gr 3\'s to Gr 1\'s.
Do I think Peace Rules or Funny Cide are Gr 1 animals any more....NO. Do I think GHOSTZAPPER is a GR 1 animal at a route of ground....NO. No way he ever runs a 128 Beyer versus PD or RIM. Could MINESHAFT?....yes, he was legitimate GR I.
Good Luck,
joe B.
If Ghostzapper runs up the track in a grade one next time out, it will be for one of two reasons. Neither will have to do with class.
BDH Sheets-
Ordinary time??? Did you see the fractionals for the Whitney? The horses were gasping for air in the final furlong; :13 and change. Amazing Perfect Drift could not get by given the pace scenario. Just shows that in the Whitney, he was vastly inferior to RIM.
TGJB wrote - \"If Ghostzapper runs up the track in a grade one next time out, it will be for one of two reasons. Neither will have to do with class.\"...Why don\'t come out and say exactly what\'s on your mind...and stop running around the bushes regarding Bobby F.??...As for RIM, that was an impressive race in the Whitney...sort of reminds me of Southern Image, who is nothing but a fighter...will fight you going 2F or 10F...it does not matter...that is defined as Heart...it has nothing to do with #s or class...it just so happens that horses with that trait on the national scene happens to have solid #s as well....
>If Ghostzapper runs up the track in a grade one next time out, it will be for one of two reasons. Neither will have to do with class.<
This is silly.
No one ever said that because a horse runs a fast race in a lower class he can\'t move up and run well or win. They do it all the time. In fact, I would argue that some horses that are winning in lower classes will actually run faster if put in tougher situations because they have the reserve stamina and acceleration that hasn\'t been called upon at the lower levels.
What I am saying is that generally a horse can and often will maximize his speed figure under the less strenuous conditions he finds in lower level competition. Generally, we are talking about small variations because class moves up and down are not huge (they are usually sensible), but they are large enough to seperate contenders that otherwise seem almost identical on speed figures.
What I am describing is similar but not exact to what one would expect from a baseball player batting against \"AAA\" pitching vs. major league pitching.
His batting average is very meaningful, but it must be viewed in light of the competition. If he\'s batting 350 in AAA, I\'d be pretty sure he can be competitive in the majors, but I wouldn\'t expect him to bat 350 right off the bat.
I\'ll take a 350 major league hitter vs. the 350 AAA every day.
I\'ll also take the AAA player against a 300 major leaguer (or something like that - just trying to illustrate the point.
As far as Ghostzapper goes, he earned that figure on slop, against easy competition, and it was so fast it is unlikely to be duplicated because of mean reversion (or whatever you want to call it)
I am not a 200 bowler, but occasionally I put a few games like that together on a day when everything is working for me. (I assure you I am not bouncing) Ghostzapper is no 300 bowler.
Post Edited (09-02-04 15:24)
>Evidence is another matter<
There is plenty of evidence that the pace was fast enough to understate how well RIM ran.
1. The fractions were very fast.
2. After 25 years of watching horses run I can tell when they are running very hard and when they are running well within themselves and what happens as a result of each.
3. The overall race development
>Of the other 2 in that duel, one was much slower (the Texas horse),<
No doubt he was slower and that would partially account for why he stopped.
>the other was Peace Rules, who I was betting to run poorly <
I was willing to concede that Lion Heart\'s disaster did not prove that distance was factor even though I predicted he would spit it out when challenged by Purge. It could just as easily have been the pace.
>Do I think a slower pace would have caused RIM to run a faster final time? No.<
As far as I am concerned the evidence supporting the proposition that speed horses run faster figures when able to run on a loose lead in a comfortable (but not too slow) pace is overwhelming.
>Do I think it would have caused PD to run slower? No.<
It takes an extremely slow pace to have an easy to measure impact. However, that does not mean there are not effects between zero and \"easy to measure\". It\'s just fairly difficult to isolate them because there are so many factors impacting performance and because not all horses have the same levels of acceleration, stamina etc... So there is no formula for it.
I understand your stress on science and what can be measured accurately as opposed to the subjective opinions of various handicappers, but I think it is fairly obvious that RIM ran a lot better than PD.
Post Edited (09-02-04 15:29)
I got tired just reading those posts-- a full answer would take a long time. But two points briefly--
1-- You didn\'t understand the point of the quote you pulled. The point was about bouncing, and possibly the horse getting help in one race he could not in another, and saying his effort next time would not necessarily be indicative, regardless of who he ran against. If GZ had run that level of performance in the Whitney, RIM could have done whatever classy thing he wanted to, he would have got dusted. \"My experience of 25 years\" is not acceptable evidence (except to you, obviously)-- I\'ve been making a living in this game for longer than that, based on handicapping using the data (both for betting and buying and managing racehorses), and providing others with accurate data to do the same thing using the same theories. And that doesn\'t necessarily qualify as evidence to anyone but me, either.
2-- The correct analogy to the baseball example would be a horse WINNING 35% of his starts against allowance foes, and not being able to win that % in G1\'s, because of the level of the competition. But if a guy throws 95mph in triple A, he\'s probably gonna throw 95 in the majors. What that will get him depends on the competition. Hence the use of performance ratings, to cut across class designations.
Sorry TGJB, but GZ would not have dusted anyone.
He would not, in my opinion since that\'s all we have been throwing around here, been able to run a similar performance rating, Beyer/Bris #, etc.
The reason?? An inability to handle the internal fractions of the Whitney and still finish with the same energy he was able to finish with in The Iselin. That\'s with or without the benefit of any \"help.\"
So what you are saying is that PURGE\'s Jim Dandy would have won him the Whitney (assuming PURGE\'s 1 1/8 # was better than RIM)? Here\'s another opinion....Put PURGE\'s performance in the Whitney and as impessive as it was he would have been off the board.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
>2-- The correct analogy to the baseball example would be a horse WINNING 35% of his starts against allowance foes, and not being able to win that % in G1\'s, because of the level of the competition. But if a guy throws 95mph in triple A, he\'s probably gonna throw 95 in the majors. What that will get him depends on the competition. Hence the use of performance ratings, to cut across class designations.<
Your analogy is also correct, but we obviously diagree. I believe it goes beyond that.
Just as the final times of races get faster as you move up the class ladder, so does the pace. Within the fractions, so do the 1/16th mile bursts that determine whether you can get postion to win or not and how hard pressed you are to do it. The horses have more stamina, determination etc... That makes the races more demanding.
That is what people are generally referring to when when they use the term class - even if they don\'t realize it. It really has nothing to do with the designation of a race. It\'s related to the demands of the race over and above the final time.
You are probably right that Ghostzapper would have beaten RIM if they ran together (IMO he put in a superior performance), but I would be willing to bet almost anything that his speed figure would have been a little slower because he would have been used much harder at some point in that much tougher field to get position and eventually to get past RIM. That would have taken a small toll and slowed him down a bit.
We don\'t have to agree, I just want you to understand what I am saying as opposed to conventional class handicapping.
Post Edited (09-02-04 16:10)
This whole thread (and several recent related threads) is starting to sound a lot like a philosophical debate.
One camp echoes Peter Berstein\'s lament, \"Our lives teem with numbers, but numbers are only tools; they have no soul... The result is a culture that threatens to become so complex and frequently so arcane as to constitute a new religion.\"
While the other camp resonates with Lord Kelvin who once stated, \"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it into numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind: It may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.\"
Unfortunately, as R. J. Heuer of the CIA astutely observed, \"It is a common experience to discover that most available evidence really is not very helpful, as it can be reconciled with all the hypotheses\" and as Bart Kosko depressingly summarized, \"If you can prove a statement 100% true, it does not describe the world. If it describes the world, you cannot prove it.\"
So I think some of as are going to just have to \"agree to disagree\" on this topic and move on to more pragmatic tasks such as dodging yet another hurricane (hope Catalin and all the rest of you in Florida make it through the big storm with no major damage) or figuring out who will win tomorrow's feature...
Chris
\"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn\'t go away.\" Philip K. Dick
Ch--
Well said. Class is not just defined by determination near the wire, but also the ability to put in bursts of speed to avoid trouble, hit a moving hole, dart to the better part of the track, etc. As I mentioned in a previous post, it also involves not shying away, or becoming intimidated in between foes, or not extending when in close quarters on the rail.
Still don\'t agree with your GZ opinion. The horse is still unproven around 2 turns versus top level animals. The competition in the Iselin was a joke, however he did look very impressive.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
As someone once said, that\'s what makes horse racing.
Back when we were first starting, in the 80\'s, Brad Thomas (whom I have a lot of respect for) was also just starting, with a publication called The Fact Sheet, which dealt with a lot of things like bias/trip notes, and other esoterica. He didn\'t like sheet theory too much, and ran an ad in the DRF with a great quote from Dostoevsky\'s \"The Gambler\" (I think), about all the wonderful intangibles involved in gambling. I came back with an ad the following week with the Damon Runyon quote-- \"The race is not always to the swift, but it\'s the right way to bet\".
As I\'ve said before, I don\'t discount pace entirely. We have a Graph Racing filly in today\'s stake at Del Mar, and I would be happier if another front runner (or two) scratched. It might or might not make a difference, but like chicken soup, it couldn\'t hurt.
could you give Scott, Michael and Tannenbaum, Edward a message for me?
\'Fellas -- thoro-graph does consulting work, helping manage horses. It makes a difference.\'
kthx
Post Edited (09-03-04 02:26)
Dude! Excellent!
The filly was bought for 5 figures, she\'s won 3 times (no claimers), placed in 2 stakes, in the 10 starts since we bought her. She\'s already earned more than her purchase price, and as a stake placed sister to a stake winner has decent residual value.
Jake just called telling me to thank you for bringing this up, dude.
Did anyone score out tossing the slow 4-5 shot ANABElTAYLOR from Pletcher/Velasquez or the way overbet Exaggerate This also 4-5 from Pletcher/Velasquez. Both raced Thursday.Unbelieveable how much money people overbet on slow horses from power connections.
Given your heading, I think I know where you\'re going with this. \"Overbet power connections\" I buy. \"Slow\" I don\'t.
I thought Anabeltaylor was a real bet against based on the possibility that she would back up off her last top effort and others in the field were just as fast and may have been sitting on better races. I really liked Reynolds\' horse getting a little weight (finished second after a LOUSY trip) at 10-1. Can\'t say Anabeltaylor was \"slow.\" As usual, the public overbet the last race, which was fast enough to win.
As for Exaggerate This, I thought the horse was clearly a major contender and I would have been shocked if he went off higher than 9/5. No way I can describe this horse as \"slow\" relative to this field. See the \"Foot guy\" thread for more...
HP
Exaggerate was certainly overbet at 4-5, but I don\'t think he was \"slow\". Unless I am misreading the figures, he was the fastest horse on dirt and turf. I believe in the red board room that JB also selected him.
He was rank early, choked down and then flattened out. It happens. But I don\'t think he is the best case of \"overbet and SLOW\" powerful connections.
Guys, I have seen EVERY race of Anabeltaylor, she is very slow can\'t get an eight in 12 secs if her life depended on it. The other horse Exaggerate this was not slow just way overbet because of the connections.
Just for the record, how many \'slow\' overbet Pletcher/Velasquez horses won during the meet? Pointing out the losers without reference to winners under the same conditions may be problematic.
Don\'t know the answer to this, just asking.
A fair question. Answer, NONE,that I found.Super connections with overbet slowish horses that were losers were connected to Pletcher/ Velasquez, Mott/Bailey, Frankel/Bailey, and several MCGaughty royally bred horses which rarely win early and never seem to have any early speed.