Watching SNS & BD stagger through the stretch, I\'m convinced that at the intersection of \"Racehorses are getting faster\" & \"Neg #\'s prior to june 30 of 3yo year\" lies staggering implications for the triple crown.
Will it ever be won again? Of course. But all training ideas need to be rethought. The way it is now, winning the Derby almost precludes you from winning the Triple crown. Suddenly this begins to look like Europe & the 2000 Guineas, no?? 1 prep before the first classic.
Tmcdevitt,
I wouldn\'t go so far. Barbaro got hurt today, maybe the stress of the big number, maybe just one of those unfortunate things that happens in horse racing. Before today, 6 of the last 9 years the Derby winner won the preakness, many times easily. Real Quiet and Silver Charm got caught late in the stretch, putting up gallant fights. Smarty Jones, probably the best of the group, also got caught late, after fending off multiple challenges. Charismatic ran a decent race, coming 3rd. Funny Cide lost to a better horse, it wasn\'t the short rest. War Emblem stumbled at the start, which killed any chance a speed horse would have.
It takes a very special horse to win the triple crown.
There are possible (and I stress possible) inferences to be drawn from what went on in that race, including from the horrific injury-- not just the stress of big efforts, but of the ridiculous 2 week break that I\'ve been railing about for a long, long time.
Everybody keeps saying the game needs a star, and a TC winner would do it. What difference does it make, if the horse never shows up again?
Until people (particulary Beyer & Crist) begin to accept the concept that horses are getting faster, there is little hope for significant change. Pick a sport, any sport, and there is conclusive evidence that performances are improving over time. To suggest otherwise for Thoroughbred horseracing is lunacy.
At some point performance begins to run into physical limitation. It\'s conceivable (at least to me) that TG Neg #\'s and regression off of them offers the most conclusive evidence of this.
Shortly after Ruffian broke down they stuck a microphone in Leroy Jolley\'s face(Foolish Pleasure\'s trainer for those who don\'t know) and he said this, \"They don\'t play this game in short pants\".
That\'s not my point Jimbo. Real Quiet & Silver Charm never went negative through the TC. Funny Cide & War Emblem tok it into new territory and were both left wanting in the Belmont. SJ & Barbaro moved into uncharted territory. The point is that as 3yo\'s go negative earlier and earlier (Cal Bred\'s going negative at 2 turns in january!!!!), and the evidence mounts that going negative has serious physical implications, then coming up with a pattern that enables you to win the Derby, then the following two legs, becomes close to impossible.
As you move into the negative #\'s, the margin for error or difference in performance from race to race becomes non-existent.
Physical limitation? Does anyone in his right mind believe that the horses that run these fast numbers are doing it via hay, oats, water alone? Please! THEY\'RE ALL STEROIDED UP THE WAZOO! [On that note, Barry Bonds hit 714 today.] And the drugs have serious contraindications that change physiology, effect bone and promote the possibility of breakdowns. Just once, I\'d like someone from the established racing press to gather the lifelong detailed vet history of a few of these fast horses and correlate the month-by-month injections to the performance figures. Fat chance.
very well put. drugs makes the sport tarnished. all they have to do is bannish every trainer that gets caught, for life.
Bally Ache Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shortly after Ruffian broke down they stuck a
> microphone in Leroy Jolley\'s face(Foolish
> Pleasure\'s trainer for those who don\'t know) and
> he said this, \"They don\'t play this game in short
> pants\".
That may have been in response to the male/female dynamic that played a big part in that race.
I was at the A\'s/Giants game today and watched Bonds hit 714. Also watched the terrible injury at the Preakness on my little portable TV. I almost forgot Bonds hit it after watching the race.
The difference between juiced up athletes and juiced up horses is that horses don\'t have any say in the matter. Professional athletes willingly take these substances, and can also take themselves out of the game when they experience any discomfort. Bonds has terrible knees and plays on his own schedule.
Racehorses don\'t have that luxury. Something is making them run faster and there is ample evidence that drugs play a part in that. They can\'t say no to injections, race schedules, shipping, and anything else that impacts their health. They do what they were born to do, and when their bodies can\'t take the stress catastrophic injuries are sometimes the result. This will be a continual cycle until some type of public disclosure is made.
I always get a kick out of posts by JohnTChance, because his posts usually mention drugs of some type. But on days like today, those posts are a sober reminder that he may be on to something. I don\'t think we would be talking so much about time between races if drugs weren\'t so prevalent in the game.
Bernadini was off a 5 point top in last ,right on neg 1 pre july (he was neg a half)short rest and ran neg 3-ish.Now, what was that data supposed to show us?
I\'ll repeat, they are ALL different and the one stroke dogma paintbrush needs to be retired.
Mike
Miff,
Agreed. Bernardini seemed as likely to bounce as Barbaro, if you look at the figures. JB points out the bounce in his comments about Bernardini, although at the price he was usable, despite the likely bounce. He comes in off a 5 point new top, on three weeks rest, never having even been two turns, and then runs a 117 beyer, negative whatever Tgraph figure.
And now people on this board are talking about drugs again? Matz was everybody\'s poster child for great trainer, nice guy, etc.etc, before the Preakness. Now, drugs are the reason why Barbaro broke down?
Jim,
Everyone looks at these things differently.Many of the morning regulars at BELMONT bet Bernadini pretty good even though it got stone silent where I watched from. Even the winners were quiet.
Rags viewed the winner much the same as TG from what I was told by a raggie.
Mike
Miff,
Not true about the Raggie friend. I hate to admit it, but Len nailed the exacta ice cold on his board, the day before the race, albeit saying that it wasn\'t a great betting race.
Another regular poster on this board, who also uses the Rags figures, is apparently still counting his money.,. (not a redboard, as he emailed me his picks before the race).
I stuck with the \"bounce\" theory on Bernardini and bet out on SNS.
Another loser.....
Jim,
I\'m surprised to hear that. Raggie Rich said Len liked his \"never gone back\" line but would only consider using him small. Cold exacta, wow, very contrary to the standard Rags, TG dogma on spacing, tops and the rest, no?
Mike
Mike,
i share your view. my thoughts going in yesterday:
bernardini had three races in \'06. hard to believe either of the first two were taxing efforts for a horse this fast. last was a big new top, but the horse appeared to do it within himself. he runs very smoothly, eats up a ton of ground with every stride. i just didn\'t get the sense that he expended enough energy set him back in the short run. at 12-1, you forget about the bounce.
i kind of got the same feeling with SNS. the ill derby was very fast, but he did it so easily, finished so well, i just didn\'t think it was a knock out effort. the derby was just a disaster trip. so bad, in fact, that he probably saved some energy late by getting beat so bad. i thought he was ready to go yesterday, despite the short rest. at 8-1, forget about the bounce. if this guy comes back in less than four weeks, however, i would play him to go back. i do think he left everything on the track yesterday.
as for bro derek, coming into the derby, he had four races since the BC last year, all nicely spaced. i thought he would run pretty well in the derby, and with the wide trip, he did. i thought he ran a grueling race in the derby however. he ran very fast from start to finish. i thought that effort was much more taxing than SNS\'s. coming back on two weeks rest at 3-1 he was a use underneath only.
this isn\'t classic \"bounce\" theory, but i do think you have to look at the individual efforts involved, not just the numbers.