I\'m a bit surprised there haven\'t been more comments about KD\'s ride in the race...NOT that I think it cost the horse the race, but because it was so bloody bad.
For a past reference,take a look back at how he cost Real Quiet the Triple Crown...really cost him the race.
Forgive him any premature move and watch him moving all over the horse\'s back down the lane. It ain\'t a pretty picture. If a tiring horse needs anything from the jockey, it\'s a quiet ride without any aggressive moves...all aggression will do is throw a tiring horse off balance.
KD spent the entire stretch moving in the saddle, throwing the reins, shifting side to side in the saddle, doing everything to destroy RQ\'s balance.
What he did to BB in the early part of this Belmont, forcing him into other horses to gain position probably took more out of the horse than he would have had he just gunned for the lead.
Sometimes aggression is good for a horse in a race; most of the time it is not. KD isn\'t the guy you want riding on your next critical bet.
I\'m apparently a minority, but I disagree with this after watching the replay a couple times.
Gate opens, BB is gunned to the lead, but Da\'Tara is faster off the line and takes that rail position.
As the accelerator is still to the floorboards BB is still increasing speed so D. tries to shift BB outside DT, but TOE moves right over, takes up this position and blocks that forward move. I think D. wanted to go outside around DT at this point and gain the lead back heading into the first turn.
Now he\'s got horse - he gunned out of the gate and told the horse to go - now he has to take back. This is where the horse fights him (no surprise, the horse was just told to GO) and he holds in there for another couple of seconds, knows it\'s not working and the gunned horse now won\'t settle, so he stops fighting the horse and bulls outside pushing AN out of the way and takes up the second choice position (outside, sitting off leader)
Good move when Plan A failed.
And I think Plan A, from the way D. rode, was to lead the race and let them catch him.
All the above happened in the first 6-10 seconds of the race. You can see the replay for free on Bloodhorse.com The race changed from plan A to B right after the announcer says, \"And Da\'Tara is racing for the lead, and Kent ... \"
Stop the tape right there and see what just happened to D.
Alm,
No doubt a panicky ride by Kent D, but BB wasn\'t winning no matter what the ride,imo.When they are empty, nothing else matters not even a little.
Mike
Hi Sight,
Iv\'e watched the replay several times looking for answers. I believe if you look close, Kent D never sent BB hard and snatched him shortly after seeing Alan Garcia on D\'Tara in a full send. I\'d have preferred to see him \"protect\" his position and park D\'Tara to the turn. When you are on a much the best horse, you ride him that way.
I really feel it did not matter at all since BB was empty for some yet unknown reason, the ride was irrelevant,imo. Don\'t you find it strange that a horse of this value is NOT being sent to New Bolton( I was told that Sat night) for a nuclear scan?
Mike
> Iv\'e watched the replay several times looking for
> answers. I believe if you look close, Kent D never
> sent BB hard and snatched him shortly after seeing
> Alan Garcia on D\'Tara in a full send.
When I look at that, I see D. sending BB outside Da\'Tara, and has to snatch as his hole was closed up Agree the ride is irrelevant - there was no horse.
> I really feel it did not matter at all since BB
> was empty for some yet unknown reason, the ride
> was irrelevant,imo. Don\'t you find it strange that
> a horse of this value is NOT being sent to New
> Bolton( I was told that Sat night) for a nuclear
> scan?
Yes, but perhaps they know the horse is just burnt out and tired. He\'s always seemed a good, generous horse in his work and racing.
He\'s a good average horse from a sire that got good average horses and some lower level stakes winners, he\'s got chronic hoof cracks with one currently flaring, it was 90+ degrees and awful humidity, the race was very late in the day, the track was deeper and more tiring than others he\'s run on, the horse missed 3 days of training, and this was the 3rd race in 5 weeks.
Oh, yeah - and the bucking and kicking and flaring up in the stall that was new this week, that Dutrow commented upon? I think a symptom of \"overtraining\" (as in mentally the \'asks\' are getting tougher on the horse)
Not surprised he had nothing left after a mile. I agree, if my horse, a nuclear scan just to look-see would be done. After that, plenty of R and R, then maybe gear back up for the Travers depending upon how he does.
That\'s exactly the way I saw it also - at that point I am smiling thinking that BB will be all spent from wrestling with his rider, little did I know that DT would stay on and make history as the slowest rat to win the Belmont States.
If there is anything I learned from this Belmont - it\'s that I can bet against DOC with confidence if he is running against horses with similar TG#s. DOC is nothing more than a plodder, whose numbers are enhance by wide-trips - no heart.
\"Yes, but perhaps they know the horse is just burnt out and tired. He\'s always seemed a good, generous horse in his work and racing\"
Sight,
Someone around the horse nearly every day told me the horse acted better during the lead up to the Belmont than his previous races. BB presented no signs of being over the top.The reason for the \"Winstrol off\" had nothing to do with them wanting to show the horse did not need it, that was bull. BB was a little stud-ish and energetic (grabbing the bit agressively in the am) and it was noted that after the Winstrol shots in the past, he became a little more aggressive than usual.Same with the jug story,it was all planned off of BB\'s demeanor. Dutrow was determined to \"listen\" to the horse and not screw him up. He told one owner that the only way this horse would lose the Belmont was if he(Dutrow)\"f--ked him up. The same approach generally was used for the Derby and Preakness.
Having watched all of his races ad nauseam, I can\'t believe he performed that poorly without some medical explanation. If he was that far over the top, he could not have possibly presented himself the way he did all week, as also noted by Dr Bramlege.
Mott,Jerkens, Frankel and many other top eyes observed this horse all week and marveled at his body. Not a minor sign of being tucked up or anything and full of energy.I guess things like this are just tough to precisely pinpoint.As far as the track being slow/tiring, I can\'t buy that after the last race(NY bred slow rats) went 1.10 flat for six, out in 16 and change for 6 1/2.
Mike
Actually there was a thread going on this subject. Some of us citing Desormeaux\'s poor ride as costly, others saying basically that we were stupid. Somebody at TG took the thread down immediatetly.
I guess steading three times within the first quarter mile and getting carried seven wide for about seven furlongs of the race is irrelevant, at least when you\'ve been playing against the horse for five weeks, and he finally gets beat.
Good comments and info, Mike, thanks.
What\'s irrelevant is the sniping and backbiting.
Like I said before the race, everybody always wants to come up with a reason. The one factor that has existed in all eleven cases is that the horse was making his third start in five weeks following two big efforts. It can be done-- but if you look at the ones that ran well in all three races (like RQ), they had progressive patterns that led you to believe they hadn\'t killed themselves in the first two.
I just want to know if fkach bet BB to place.
In a normal race had he won or hit the board they\'d have taken him down.Not so sure what they\'d do in the Belmont.
You can\'t push your way out of a jam like he did.Boxed and panicked they pushed Anak Nakal out of there.Inquiry and an objection IMO.If I\'m a steward he\'s getting taken down.
>I just want to know if fkach bet BB to place.<
NO.
I gave him about 70%-75% before the Preakness and made the place bet because the pools were so out of line. 70%-75% to win translated into a place probability that was well over what I needed to break even at the lowest possible payout (plus I get rebated).
Before the Belmont, I stated that I would give him the same 70%-75% to win if it wasn\'t for the 12F and the quarter crack/missed training.
I considered the 12F an incremental risk because IMO many Triple Crown horses haven\'t performed up to par because of the 12F and BB fit the profile of the type that was more likely not to.
I considered the quarter crack and missed training to be a huge incremental risk because I haven\'t seen any horses perform well after an episode like that so close to a major objective like this (have seen some that haven\'t though). The latter type of risk is also the kind of risk that means the horse is very likely to be all or nothing. That means the correlation between the win probability and place probability is not as neat as it usually is.
I gave him about 50% to win the Belmont because of the extra risks, with the caveat that I could easily be valuing the quarter crack risk badly out of ignorance. Ordinarily a 50% win probability translates into a place probability of about 70% (based on my records). In this case, I didn\'t really even try to calculate the place probability because I already knew this was not the type of situation I look for when I want to make a place bet (an all or nothing horse). After the fact, I\'d guess I would have made him 55%-60% plus or minus a bit to place. I didn\'t even see the pools, but I can\'t imagine a place overlay at that probability.
I think my lines were about 30% to win the Derby, 70%-75% to win the Preakness, and 50% to win the Belmont.
I\'m not so sure I quantified the risk of the 20 post and other unusual factors in the Derby or the quarter crack/missed training issues in the Belmont correctly. But I knew that going in. I insist on larger margins of safety when I know my ignorance is a factor.
If you will grant me anything, believe me when I tell you I am the model of self control. I feel no desire to bet a dime on any event unless I feel very secure I have an edge.
At the end of the series....
I put about a laughable $20 into the Derby because I didn\'t want to either bet on or bet against BB at the price and saw no obvious way to construct a serious bet given my opinions. I lost.
I put a lot into the Preakness and won the place bet.
I put a laughable $24 into the Belmont even though I thought that BB was a big underlay. I lost.
Like most others, I believe there was a lot value in the race, but I didn\'t have a lot of insights into where. I probably should have taken a very broad flier like many others did with him and TOE off (the only other opinion I had), but I had things to do that day and wasn\'t in a position to bet near post time. I would not have included the winner anywhere if I played seriously.