See blurb below on This Ones for Phil. As we have seen time and time again, the huge efforts by young 3 year olds knock them out, with some random issue always cited. The deep track for Big Brown, the pin for spectacular bid, the wind and jockeys ganging up on smarty, etc. Be very anxious to see how I Want Revenge holds together. There\'s some big guys trying to buy him who don\'t believe that he will be knocked out before/for the Derby. We will see.
This Ones for Phil out indefinitely
This Ones for Phil, who is also nominated to the Swale, will be out of action indefinitely after injuring himself when getting cast in his stall last week, according to trainer Rick Dutrow. This Ones for Phil earned the highest Beyer Speed Figure by any 3-year-old in the country, a 116, for his victory in the Sunshine Millions Dash earlier in the meet, but finished a tiring fifth behind Quality Road in the Grade 2 Fountain of Youth.
\"He injured his pastern when he got cast in the stall and has some filling in his back leg,\" Dutrow said. \"We\'ll just have to wait until it heals before getting him back to the track to gallop and work again.\"
I\'m not sold on the idea that we need to be suspicious every time a talented horse has a setback after a big race. Horses do goofy things. Stuff happens.
I would suggest that it is likely that just as many slower, less-spectacular horses suffer setbacks after average performances in non-descript allowance and claiming races, but these slower specimens from lesser races aren\'t noteworthy, so it doesn\'t get reported. (And if these did get reported...who would care?)
Food for thought.
couldn\'t agree more than horses do goofy things but when was the last time one of these young 3 year olds that put up a huge number before or in the derby didn\'t have one of these goofy things happen to them within 2 races after the big number.
The only two turn horse in the last 5 years that I can remember who was good as a young three year old and ran in the derby who stayed on to become an outstanding older horse was curlin.
Do we think it\'s any coincidence that he ran three very fast but not completely over the top \"0\'s\" as his first three races while all of them that put up big negative numbers prior to or in the Derby don\'t make it to their 4 year old year?
As an owner, I have come to hate big performances in our 2 year olds and young 3 year olds because I know that will knock them out. It\'s a perverse way to think but that\'s exactly what has happened each time we have gotten a huge effort early.
On the other side, I own a slice of Fitz Just Right who is running in the graded stakes on the undercard of the Lane\'s End this weekend who started out good but not over the top (9, 8, 5, 5 in her first 4) and has progressed forward so I feel like she has a chance to stay on.
covelj70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do we think it\'s any coincidence that [Curlin] ran three
> very fast but not completely over the top \"0\'s\" as
> his first three races while all of them that put
> up big negative numbers prior to or in the Derby
> don\'t make it to their 4 year old year?
Tough to fully accept your premise here. The ones that don\'t suffer any sort of \"setback\" tend to get whisked off to the breeding shed anyway -- that\'s why they \"don\'t make it to their 4 year old year\". In the cases of the ones that have reportedly had something go wrong, some of those reasons have seemed pretty thin. IEAH probably could have brought Big Brown back this year...but why risk it, with easy money from stud fees as the low-hanging fruit.
Do we have a case of the tail wagging the dog here? If there is exponentially more money and less risk in breeding than in racing, I might be inclined to hurry up and find some sort of minor condition on my negative number-runner (dreaming here), to make sure that he makes it to the breeding shed in one piece. If the story I come up with helps me deflect criticism from industry pundits about retiring a perfectly sound racehorse so soon, so much the better. Anyone think this has never happened?
you bring up a great point here.
I always thought the \"reasons\" smarty was retired were pretty suspect.
However, I think the fact that these \"super horse\" three year olds almost always wind up with something that knocks them out for a prolonged period (even if they could be brought back as a 4 year old) is no coincidence. The young ones just aren\'t supposed to run that big and when they do, they pay the price.
\"He injured his pastern when he got cast in the stall and has some filling in his back leg,\" Dutrow said. \"We\'ll just have to wait until it heals before getting him back to the track to gallop and work again.\"
Cov,
What could running a 3yr old negative TG figure possibly have to do with a horse sustaining an injury/illness,of any kind, weeks after a race? This was a stall injury.
You tanked up on Kool Aid?
Mike
Mike, that was the whole point of my original post, that \"it\'s always something\" seemingly random that comes up but is it really all of these random, non running related issues or is it the fact that the big efforts cause the injuries and they manifest themselves in some very odds ways.
I totally get your point but it just seems like it\'s always something random that knocks these huge effort horses pretty shortly thereafter.
To that end (and I believe this is Jerry\'s point about I Want Revenge without putting words in his mouth), are we really going to be all that surprised if something seemingly random pops up before the derby to keep I Want Revenge out of the race?
I sure as hell hope not because I bet on him in the futures (after my original tout of Old Fashioned crapped out) and I want a hero in this sport more than anyone but am I really going to be surprised if it happens? Not at all because that\'s what always seems to happen most unfortunately.
The point is that the stress shows itself in some physical manifestation-- horse isn\'t going to say I ran a neg 4, I\'m done. It can be something mild (getting sick), or something like minor adjusting of stride because of being uncomfortable that causes the problem (think pitchers changing their motions because of irritation and getting seriously hurt).
It also could be something like a tired horse lying down that wouldn\'t otherwise. No idea whether that is the case here or not-- he might have laid down in that corner lots of times.
The point is that big neg figs are not the ONLY possible cause for a horse falling apart as is intimated by many sheet players.
It seems some forget that a horse with no issues is extremely rare. It is fairly obvious that many go bad and certainly it is possible that a fast race or races accelerates or directly causes the demise.
Mike
\"The point is that big neg figs are not the ONLY possible cause for a horse falling apart as is intimated by many sheet players.\"
Miff - A few things wrong with this - one is that NOBODY said the big neg figures were the ONLY possible cause...covelj70\'s whole point was noting several famous cases where there were big numbers and then some off-the-wall incident/injury. You would really have to stretch his point/post to make it fit your description.
Then you expand your original baseless comment by saying this is \"intimated by many sheet players.\" This is simply not true, since NOBODY said the big neg figs were the ONLY possible cause in the first place.
This sheet player believes big neg figs can definitely cause injury, yes, even weeks after a race. I\'m not saying it applies in this particular case, you would have to examine each one on its own merits.
In this thread, you exaggerate and mis-state things to prove yourself correct. If I\'m wrong, find me the post where SOMEBODY (I will settle for one example) said \"big neg figs are the ONLY possible cause for a horse falling apart.\" I don\'t think you can find ONE such post, let alone back up your assertion that this is \"intimated by MANY sheet players.\"
HP
HP,
Not even close, I said many, not all. Talk to any dogmatic sheet player and they will attribute every bounce to prior exertion and nothing else.You may not know them,I do.
Mike
Mike,
I\'m sure there are some players that take a very rigid approach to this subject. Big figure, bounce...thus it must have been the big number and nothing else.
However, when we talk about bounce its always in a handicapping context. Players look for a reason to play against a horse at a short price. This is one way to do that.
To say that these same players believe that the ONLY reason for a bounce is a big figure is stretching things. Perhaps the people you speak of feel this way, but I doubt you have canvassed the entire TG/Sheets community and have found this to be true.
I\'m sure there are those that feel like big figure = bounce. End of story. But to say that this is how the majority feel...hard to believe. Players are just looking for an edge, and predicting a bounce of a big effort is one way to do this. Its just a handicapping tool, not evidence that this is the only reason for a poor performance.
Miff - THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID.
\"The point is that big neg figs are not the ONLY possible cause for a horse falling apart as is intimated by many sheet players.\"
What do you mean \"not even close?\" I never accused you of saying ALL. I know you said MANY because I quoted you and I\'m doing so again. Says MANY, not ALL. I can read. Now you\'re just sidestepping.
I have talked to many sheet players and I\'ve never heard ONE say that big neg figs are the only possible cause for a horse falling apart. You can\'t produce ONE example of a post on this board (which I believe is populated by sheet players) which would back your comment. Now we\'re up to CONVERSATIONS you\'ve had, since you can\'t produce even ONE post as an example.
As for your assertion that I can \"Talk to any dogmatic sheet player and they will attribute every bounce to prior exertion and nothing else. You may not know them, I do\" - would it change your mind if I told you I have given seminars for TG and talked to a few sheet players in my time? I have never heard ONE sheet player attribute every bounce to prior exertion and nothing else.
I\'ll tell you what - find ONE sheet player to post here and agree with your statement that \"every bounce is due to prior exertion and nothing else.\" Should be easy, since you are saying this is such a prevalent point of view.
The alternative would be for you to just admit you\'re wrong.
HP
Just so you\'re not confused...I understand YOU are not making the statement \"every bounce is due to prior exertion and nothing else.\" Just get ONE so called dogmatic sheet player to agree with it on this board.
Mike,
As for your assertion that I can \"Talk to any dogmatic sheet player and they will attribute every bounce to prior exertion and nothing else. You may not know them, I do\" - would it change your mind if I told you I have given seminars for TG and talked to a few sheet players in my time? I have never heard ONE sheet player attribute every bounce to prior exertion and nothing else\"
HP,
Be honest, did you ever ask one? Ahem, since you gave seminars for TG,tell me what OTHER reason would you offer,other than the standard dogma,as to why a big neg fig horse bounced. This should be good!
Mike
First off, I admire your tactic of trying to switch the burden of proof over to me.
You can\'t provide ONE post to support your original statement, nor can you get even ONE person to support your point of view now. This is AMAZING given the fact that you are referring to ALL of these dogmatic sheet players that you talk to who have this point of view. NOT ONE EXAMPLE Miff. Can you address this resounding silence?
It really doesn\'t matter. Let\'s face it, you are constantly posting and acting like the arbiter of opinions here. You over-stepped and I\'m calling you on it. You have no real response. So now you\'re throwing the ball back in my court.
Let\'s get to your next point, since you can\'t address what we were originally talking about.
Miff - \"Ahem, since you gave seminars for TG, tell me what OTHER reason would you offer, other than the standard dogma, as to why a big neg fig horse bounced.\"
Well ahem, there are lots of variables.
Reasons for big neg fig horses bouncing could involve any or all of the following - age; sex; time between races; injury history; trainer; surface; shipping; reaction to previous big neg figs (if any); workouts; and what I would call \"wildcard\" factors like dead rail or a bad trip.
Conversely, many of these factors may be cited in an analysis of why a horse would NOT bounce off a big neg fig. I would not attempt to make one general statement to attempt to cover all of these situations.
You have to look at each individual case to try to make a useful appraisal.
The alternative is what you do, which is to put know-it-all generalities into other people\'s mouths to prove yourself correct (and by the way, I\'m not sure any of these so called \"dogmatic sheet players\" exist since you have not been able to cite ONE example beyond your \"conversations,\" which for all I know are imaginary and take place in your own head).
You\'d have to show me the sheet for the horse and ask me. Does this qualify as \"standard dogma?\" Or do I need to use your method and just make stuff up and put it into other people\'s mouths?
HP
Miff gets one response, then I\'m closing it down.
Thanks JB,
HP,
The reasons you cite, other than the standard dogma are the reasons I HAVE STATED here many times before you joined in this discussion.You will not find those reasons, as you correctly cite, stated by any other poster as far I remember on this board.FYI, there are many sheet players, RAGS and TG that follow the strictest interpretation of what TG and RAGS teach in their intros, notwithstanding Jerry\'s comments re finding one\'s own style/interpretation of the data.
Incidentally,I\'m not an arbiter of opinions,I just don\'t drink the Kool Aid, get it?
Mike
Looks like he might make it to The Swale after all.
Worked 5f Monday at GP, 1:01 breezing.
See worktab at:
http://magna.equibase.com/eqbWorkoutsDisplay.cfm?TRK=GP&CY=USA&DATE=03/23/2009&STYLE=GP
yeah, I saw this yesterday. Quite a turnaround this one made overnight!
Is it possible that the horse just healed up, in boring, uneventful fashion?
Or is it a must that everything that happens in the Dutrow barn be described here in the style of the National Enquirer?
...now if someone could please look at Tricky\'s TG trainer profile and tell
me how his runners can win so frequently while only rarely posting tops or
pairs. Ditto Scott Lake.
For comparison\'s sake look at TG trainer profiles of Asmussen and K.
McLaughlin, whose runners also win between 20-25% of the time, but whose
runners seem much more likely to \"top\" or \"pair\" (ok to use those words as
verbs?).
Not the first time I\'ve mentioned this. With apologies to Walt \"Clyde\" Frazier,
I find these statistics vexing and perplexing.
Well, I see Lake and Dutrow dropping tons of horses when it looks like the horses have shot their magic wad. Those ones that are \'done\' could easily have an adverse impact on the performance based statistics. I seem to rarely see McLaughlin doing such dropping. Asmussen, I must confess i am not familiar enough with his overall operation to have a sense of what his stock is like and how he moves it. Compare BFFs Dutrow and Frankel...Dutrow runs all sorts of stock at all levels and makes all sorts of moves in the claiming ranks. In the last 15 years, I do not think i have seen Frankel enter a horse in a claiming race lower than the uppermost claiming ranks in California. Think how many times you have see a horse where you say this horse can bounce and still win. That often happens when somebody is willing to make a sharp drop down the claiming ranks.
I wonder if it is possible to split performance based stats between those that are 1st, 2nd, or 3rd time after the barn switch versus 7th, 8th, and 9th times after the barn switch. I suspect you would see a difference.
As I look at this, i could also be dead wrong. We probably need one of the statistics mavens to weigh in to separate us chaff from the wheat.