The fastest filly of all time (at least on TG numbers) gets transferred to ownership that will actually put her in competitive races, like the Preakness, against horses that will make her run, generating enhanced publicity for the sport, great wagering opportunities, and potentially renewed interest in the Preakness, and all you read on this board is negative stuff about it.
Covelj,
I thoroughly enjoyed debating the DErby with you for weeks before the race, but don\'t take IWR\'s scratch out of the race as confirmation that fast horses break down, can\'t run back,etc.etc. I know you can think of other examples, but there are also plenty of examples of it not happening. Other horses bowed out of the derby in the weeks before with minor injuries, many of whom were not fast. You own horses, you must know how brittle they are. 1200 pounds on skinny legs that should be supporting 1/4 of that weight at best.
If Rachel runs in the Preakness, it is great news on all fronts IMO. I will be very curious to see how much the male chauvinism of gamblers affects her odds. Fillies beat colts all the time in Europe. It is considered a rarity here. Off the negative 4 and her previous races, she should be even money against the expected field in the Preakness, but I bet she is close to double that.
I am so torn on all of this.
On one hand, I LOVE all of the publicity that her running in the Preakness would generate for the sport I love so much.
On the other hand, I really believe that she has a better chance of being around come breeders cup time if she takes a break here.
If she runs, I will be rooting like hell for here, this much I do know.
Should be an interesting week.
What kinds of odds are we giving that she runs in the Preakness?
If she\'s doing really good and they don\'t race her,their fools,she\'s not going to be doing really good forever.
Bloodhorse:
Although it has not been confirmed that Rachel Alexandra will contend in the upcoming Preakness Stakes (gr. I) at Pimlico against the boys, Wiggins said he is fairly confident the Medaglia d\'Oro filly will be in the starting gate come May 16.
"I'd be very surprised if she was not in there," he said. "That's just my opinion—I haven't heard what they're going to do, but I'd be surprised, because (the deal) went so fast that I think they had something in mind. She'll have to be supplemented, though, and if it's an over-filled race, the supplemented horses have the last shot to get in.
With regard to fillies beating colts \"all the time\" in Europe, while you do see fillies racing against males more often, it is only the very top ones who are competitive against colts. And the fillies also get considerable weight advantages. They still write many \"females only\" races in Europe. It isn\'t a question of chauvinism. Only the outstanding females are successful against the colts. In this case, Rachel surely qualifies.
While one has to concede that entering Rachel in the Preakness would heighten interest in Preakness to maybe a heavyweight championship level, the risk one
runs, if anything happens to her, is goodnight racing.
Remember, last year\'s Congressional hearing was basically a whitewash, predicated on the notion that the easiest way to avoid an efficient hearing is to conduct an inefficient one. There will be no cover this time. The public will be outraged.
And for good reason. JB has, year in year out, documented the toll Triple Crown races take on horses. Now you\'re advocating entering a fillie against colts off a monster new top on two weeks rest.
It\'s such a recipe for disaster that I will say this: if Rachel runs in the Preakness and anything bad to her happens. her connections should be held criminally liable for animal abuse.
Which is not to say she can\'t win the race; she is truly a magnificent horse. Still, she is a fillie running against colts. And on the dirt. In Europe fillies run against colts all the time, on the turf. And even in America it\'s not all that unusual for distaffers to beat males on the turf. But dirt racing is more demanding on the animals; forces them to dig deeper, to ignore more pain. The irony being, the more of a champion a horse is the deeper it will dig, the more it digs the likelier it injures itself.
Because (and this is central to understanding horses racing) horses are basically pack animals. Whose dominance in the wild is manifested by who leads the pack. Horses instinctively will run themselves into the ground for a moment of glory. Think here of the horse dropping to a 32,000 claimer with no recent form who makes the bold move and gets up at the wire. Visually, he looks like a lock to win next out at 32,000 again, but probably he\'ll be seeing 14,000 claimers before he sees the winning circle again. This because he cashed in his class coupons in the 32,000 race he won. That was the day he could be dominant and he willingly paid the physical price for being so. Such is the nature of the horse.
Which brings us back to Rachel running in the Preakness. In what should be a very demanding race for her (if only because of the spacing) she is going to give it her all. She is a champion, she is going to dig as deep as she can. And she will willingly compromise her well being to lead the pack home. She will not pull herself up, or slow down, if she feels herself weakening. She will try to persevere. And because she\'s running against colts she will have to dig that much deeper. And she will dig, Dig, dig, dig, until maybe, courage tested to the breaking point, something snaps.
And then, the crocodile tears. Listen, horses don\'t have the ability to protect themselves, humans must protect them. A responsibility which, surprisingly enough, requires some horse sense. The connections want to run Rachel in the Belmont, fine. Run her in the Preakness, on two weeks rest, off a monster new top,against the colts, you\'re playing Russian Roulette with the horse\'s life.
And this time there will be no forgiveness.
Cant disagree at all with THEHHP on the point re: Champion. Still see Gorgeous George climbing in the slop at Monmouth .... SNAP !! Impossible to predict when it will happen, but some are more obvious than others and this may very well fall into that category ...
Very True Niall,
Incidentally, out of ALL the horses that ran a TG -3 or faster(or even huge new fast TG tops for that matter), how many broke down on the racetrack afterwards. What are their names??
Powerful stuff that Kool Aid!
Mike
one thing not to forget in all of this is that there is still something for her to take on within her own gender. How great would a race between Zenyatta and RA be? Let\'s let her beat the girls before she takes on the boys?
Mike, we aren\'t talking about breaking down, we are talking about getting injured and not running more than 2 more lifetime races after the big effort like so many of the other young 3 year olds that have run back quick after the big effort.
Look, I am no genius (as I proved once again with my derby wagers) and I do love Kool Aid but how many more times do we need to see horses that run big figures get knocked out before you stop attirbuting the knock outs to a whole bunch of random coincidences and consider the logical alternative, that they aren\'t meant to run that fast and then come back so quick.
We just added two more to the list with Quality Road and IWR. You will say the quarter crack has nothing to do with the big effort just as Barabaro\'s breakdown had nothing to do with the big effort, just like Smarty\'s Belmont and subsequent retirement had nothing to do with the big eforrts just like Big Brown\'s foot injuries having nothing to do with the big effort.
Again, I have pretty much proved lately that I am a moron but there seems to be a pretty good mounting body of evidence on the other side of your argument that big efforts don\'t knock horses out, no?
I understand the big breakdowns we\'ve seen on the dirt, but then 100% of the big races the public pays attention to are on the dirt. Where is the proof that dirt racing causes more pain, or whatever thehoarsehorseplayer said? I am totally sympathetic to the cause of the animal, but pretending to know the pain they feel is silly. Also, if we don\'t want to put them through \"pain\", all racing should be banned today.
Cov,
All types can get knocked out from an effort that hurts them, it could a TG 5 or a TG -3. The reason you and others think the way you do is because you are paying most of your attention to the highest level of racing and not All of racing. There are many more breakdowns/over the tops etc at the lower level(mainly because there are many more lower level horses racing overall, simple law of probabilities overall)
It\'s not that simple, you and others are trying to establish something from a number on a piece of paper which trainers in the Hall of Fame who spend countless hours/years around these animals every day,cannot.When a horse is over the top, when it might break down, etc is near impossible to tell. Pure hit and miss especially when a horse seems to be doing great and then runs awful or breaks down.
Go over and talk to Alan Jerkens about some of your beliefs on rest,spacing, stress/efforts et al and see what he tells you, serious, you\'ll thank me.
Lastly your statement that \"horses that run big figs get knocked out\" is so far off the wall that it\'s pathetic. Would you like to make a serious wager that for every horse that you say got knocked out by figs, I\'ll name two or more that did not. We\'ll use TG figs for the last 5 years.Let me know.
Mike
What I woukld ask is this. Did Jess Jackson and Steve Assmussen put Curlin at risk or mis manage him? Did they have the horse\'s best interest and the sport of king\'s best interest while campgining Curlin? I say YES.
Their track record together is positive and results don\'t lie.
Covelj,
You are mixing a lot of horses into a group that I don\'t think belong mixed together.
Barbaro broke down and eventually died. You can make an argument that the big effort was part of it.
Smarty Jones was retired with a superficial injury that occurred after he was a victim of quite a bit of \"race-riding\" in the Belmont, where he fought off multiple pace challenges at a distance he was not well suited for. If he wasn\'t worth so much, he would not have been retired.
Quality Road had a quarter crack, which as an owner, you must know happens all the time. He missed a few days of training. Not a big deal, unless it happens a week before the Derby.
I am sorry and I say this with respect, but it sounds completely ridiculous to me when you talk about putting Rachel Alexander away for late in the year and the Breeders Cup. If the sport is down to that, and everybody starts believing what you and JB and others believe about big efforts ruining the horses, then the sport should end. it isn\'t a sport anymore. You have to be careful not to run fast when you win, but if your horse runs fast, take 4 months off.
On a related note, I hope Rachel Alexander doesn\'t run in the Breeders Cup, She would prove nothing by running in that race against Zenyatta on carpet. Run against Zenyatta on dirt somewhere. Or against the colts in the Preakness. Who cares about carpet results. Zenyatta, until proven otherwise, is a carpet runner.
\"What I woukld ask is this. Did Jess Jackson and Steve Assmussen put Curlin at risk or mis manage him? Did they have the horse\'s best interest and the sport of king\'s best interest while campgining Curlin? I say YES.
Their track record together is positive and results don\'t lie.\"
Buck,
A very good point, the horse was sound, a hard hitter and they raced him liberally. Now IF he would have broken down, you would hear the Kool Aid drinkers telling you it was from all those negative figs.
Mike
Agreed. 100%.
They were great sportsmen. The fact that they had the best dirt horse in the world, sent that horse to Dubai to run, brought him back and tried him on turf with the goal of running him in the Arc if he proved good enough, and then when he didn\'t, they ran him on the carpet at Santa Anita, proved to this gambler that they are sportsmen.
To go back furter on Asmussen, how many trainers would have run Curlin in the Preakness after getting a rough trip in the Derby and having three grueling efforts before the derby. I can still remember the Preakness analysis (which I agreed with) saying that he was a bet against in the Preakness and figured to go backwards. I may have to do a search on the board here and see if Covelj was calling for a freshening after the Derby, pointing him to his 4 year old year. :)
Well, anybody that runs, runs through pain all the time. And most would concede the harder the surface the achier the run. By itself this means nothing, but in the context of my argument my point is running on hard dirt, rather than grass, adds another level of physical stress to the equation. Unless, I\'m mistaken, I thought the purpose of synthetic tracks, was to reduce shock induced stress on the horses. Less stress,less aches and pains, fewer breakdowns, or so the theory goes. Or, in other words, dirt tracks were causing too much stress on the horses.
I agree that I would like to see the race between those 2 on traditional dirt but Zenayatta ran the same number at Oaklawn on the dirt that she ran on the poly so I don\'t think Z is just a poly horse.
RA has already run alot faster than Z ever has but it would still be a very fun race.
Mike,
We don\'t need to dig up the numbers. TG already did it for us, it\'s right in the archives. Horses who have run 2 negative or greater before July of their 3 year old year. I won\'t take your bet because you lost already. They run too big, they get knocked out. It\'s not a debate, it\'s happened to everyone of them that has run 2 negative or more. Not sure how many more it has to happen to before you believe that efforts of that magnitude knock horses out. We might as well just fast forward to April of 2010 when 3 of the horses that have run 2 negatives or greater in Derby preps don\'t make the derby or finish up the track in the derby and paste in your \"Kool Aid\" comments about my views now because it\'s happended with EVERY SINGLE young 3 year old in the last 5 years. No exceptions. You think it\'s a string of random coincidences. I find that hard to believe.
Jerkins hasn\'t ever had a 3 year old run that big of a number so I don\'t think talking to him would mean too much.
I talk to my trainers about it all of the time and they agree with me (surprise surprise, I pay the bills and they yes me to death).
If I ever own the big horse and he/she runs a big negative number early I will either sell it immediately or put them on the shelf for an extended period to recover from the big effort.
As always, I don\'t mean to be too dogmatic in my views, I find the back and forth very very enjoyable so please don\'t take any of this as anything more than a bunch of degenerates having some good argumemnts.
jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agreed. 100%.
>
> They were great sportsmen. The fact that they had
> the best dirt horse in the world, sent that horse
> to Dubai to run, brought him back and tried him on
> turf with the goal of running him in the Arc if he
> proved good enough, and then when he didn\'t, they
> ran him on the carpet at Santa Anita, proved to
> this gambler that they are sportsmen.
>
I don\'t know about being a great \"sportsman\".
The guy is 78 years old and is one of the wealthiest men in our country. So he has 2 choices:
-retire his star horse and watch him mount some mares in a barn and earn more money that he won\'t even begin to count.
- Be the center of attention at many major races around the world, watching his star race horses compete.
He\'s doing it for the thrill of competition, not because of anything resembling being a sportsman. What else is he going to do with Curlin?? Why do you think he bought RA?? So he can send her to the shed?? Can\'t wait to breed her to Curlin. Sure. I\'m sure thats the plan eventually, but its a distant second to the main reason.
Now, if he were 20-30 years younger, it would be much more \"sporting\" to continue to race instead of retiring these horses.
Take Rachel Alexandra. Price was no object, he was buying this horse. Period. Why?? Because at 78 years old, he knows you can\'t take your money with you to the grave. So he spends millions on RA so he can again be the center of attention of the racing world. Drop her right into the Preakness. How sporting of him.
Look, if I had all that loot I would do the same thing. More power to him and good for him. He\'s earned his money and he can do whatever he pleases with it. Buy some horses, have some fun. I get it.
Just don\'t call him a great sportsman.
Cov,
Nice back in, first it was All horses that run big neg figures, now it\'s only 3 yr olds that ran 2 neg figs, anything else?
Who told you Smarty Jones/Big Brown were knocked out. Where do you get that nonsense from? I know the connections of both, VERY well, but guess you know more than the owners KNEW from the numbers on the piece of paper.
Pssst, it was the money in both cases, don\'t tell anyone, it\'s a secret.
Mike
All that Derby and Preakness money weighed Brownie down going 12 poles?
Mike,
you seem to be getting upset and I don\'t want that, this is suppossed to be fun.
My posts about big negative numbers knocking out horses were always intended to be about young 3 year olds. Sorry if that wasn\'t clear in this thread. I made it more clear in other threads.
I know some of the same guys that you know and, you\'re right, they don\'t think anything was wrong with BB before the Belmont or after the Belmont. Just a coincidence that he ran like crap in the Belmont and then only ran 1 more lifetime race.
It\'s really not a big deal, it\'s ok for you and I to be on different sides of an argument. I believe that it\'s the big efforts that knock the young 3 year olds out and you believe its a series of random coincidences. It could be that its been random in each of the cases we are talking about, you could be right. I do not claim absolute knowledge but I would say that I think logic suggests that the big number is a common theme here and the horses that have stuck around never ran a huge number so young.
Street Sense took alot of time off after the first 2 negative and he came back to top it. When he came back quicker after the 2 negative in the Derby, he was never the same horse. Coincidence?
Curlin never ran a 2 negative as a young 3 year old and he stuck around, coincidence?
Zenayatta has never put up one of those huge numbers and she\'s stuck around, coincidence?
I hope to hell it doesn\'t happen but it RA comes up with a chip, tendon, quarter crack, breathing problem, or a toothache that knocks her out, you will tell me I am drinking cool aid for saying it was the big effort and you will chalk it up to yet another random coincidence.
\"I hope to hell it doesn\'t happen but it RA comes up with a chip, tendon, quarter crack, breathing problem, or a toothache that knocks her out, you will tell me I am drinking cool aid for saying it was the big effort and you will chalk it up to yet another random coincidence\"
Cov,
I know now you are pulling my leg cause if you aren\'t kidding about the above list of possible stuff, esp the toothache,you need help.Not angry at all, can tell you are a true believer who dismisses what Alan Jerkens might think in favor of a number on a piece of paper.Don\'t forget what happened to Jim Jones followers though!
To each his own.
Mike
Covelj,
Zenyatta never put up one of those \"big numbers\" because TG doesn\'t give \"big negative numbers\" to synthetic horses The figures are compacted. We have discussed it here many many times.
only sort of kidding about the toothache :)
Rightly or wrongly, I am more inclined to believe numbers on a piece of paper. The numbers aren\'t biased, people can be, people sometimes believe what they want to believe, not what logic tells them. I deal with this in the stock market everyday. The numbers are usually right, people are too emotional.
No disrespect to Mr. Jerkins at all, I don\'t know him but I do know that he has forgotten more about horses than I will ever know.
That said, he\'s never had a young three year old run the kind of numbers we are talking about so I don\'t think he has too much relevant experience in this particular situation.
In the last 5 years (using that timeframe to account for the weaker breed, drugs, etc), I don\'t believe there has been a single young 3 year old that has run the big 2 negative or bigger number, come back quickly and stuck around to race the next year. The numbers say that is a problem, emotion might say otherwise.
I sincerely, sincerely hope RA is the first. I really do because I love the filly.
She ran on the dirt also at Oaklawn and didn\'t get one of those big numbers either though
I\'ve spent a ton of time around horses and have a few thoughts on the subject.
#1 young horses rarely run big negative numbers. They aren\'t supposed to. When they do, it is often because they\'re are other factors that led to the performance. A track they relish, inferior competition, favorable pace, etc. Very often in their next race they do not encounter such favorable circumstances and therefore don\'t repeat the number. The fact is they wouldn\'t have repeated the number again anyway even if they had had enough rest. The pace, competition, track condition, form cycles and trip will rarely align the same way twice.
#2 Even if a horse does encounter favorable racing circumstances again, big numbers are often gut wrenching efforts that will knock horses out if they don\'t get time to recoup. Every race either puts something into a horse or takes something out. That is why they have form cycles. If you bring them back in too little rest they are likely to tail off or get hurt, as would any athlete, period. How many people do you think could win a marathon every two weeks for a couple of months in a row verses different fields in different cities. How often do pitchers pitch on two days rest, etc?
#3 Nowdays the Triple Crown races are one of the few times where a trainer will feel compelled to race a horse 3 times in 5 weeks at different tracks at different distances. When these young 3 year olds run big in any of the preps or the actual races, the trainers feel compelled to run them back. So we actually get to see the effects of too much all out racing in too short a time period. We don\'t get to see this as often in older horses, but I would suspect the patterns would be same if we did. Big races take a lot out of the tank, period.
So in sum, these big races will knock a horse out if they are not given ample rest. In my opinion it is an equine fact. If that tired horses does not get hurt during a gallop, or walking, etc., they still will often not repeat the number either because they are tired or because the race just doesn\'t shape up as well for them.
A big negative number is like ptiching a shutout in baseball. They just don\'t happen that often.
Now what odds would you need to get to bet that a pitcher will throw back to back shutouts, much less do it on three days rest. You\'ve got to look at horse racing the same way or you are just giving your money away. I bet Big Brown in the Derby, passed on the Preakness, and played against him in the Belmont. If Da Tara doesn\'t win that race I am still counting my money...
thanks MJ
Great thoughts.
Right there with you on Da\"Tara. Still waiting for Denis of Cork to whossh by that pig in the stretch.
Rachel now with Asmussen; Preakness an option
By Marty McGee
LOUISVILLE, Ky. - Rachel Alexandra was transferred early Thursday into the Churchill Downs stable of trainer Steve Asmussen, who said the May 16 Preakness Stakes is an option for the standout filly.
Rachel Alexandra, a record-setting winner of the May 1 Kentucky Oaks at Churchill, was led by Asmussen and his assistant, Scott Blasi, from the Churchill barn of her previous trainer, Hal Wiggins, at about 5:15 a.m. Thursday. Jess Jackson, who purchased the filly the previous day for an undisclosed price in the name of his Stonestreet Stables and in partnership with Harold T. McCormick, a longtime friend, was on hand at Churchill for the exchange.
About an hour after being led into the Asmussen shed row, Rachel Alexandra was sent out for routine training. Asmussen called her \"a tremendous physical specimen. We\'re honored to be around her. She looked great going over the racetrack this morning. The way she looks and the way she trains is a credit to Mr. Wiggins and his staff.\"
Asked later if it was the Jackson\'s intentions to race her against males in the Preakness at Pimlico, Asmussen said: \"Her ability allows for a tremendous number of options.\"
Asmussen said he intends to put Rachel Alexandra through an easy workout \"Sunday or Monday, depending on the weather and the condition of the surface,\" and that there was no specific timetable regarding a decision on whether she will run in the Preakness.
Entries for the Preakness, the second jewel of the Triple Crown, will be taken Wednesday. Rachel Alexandra is not nominated to the Triple Crown and therefore would have to be supplemented for a $100,000 fee. Supplemental entries in any Triple Crown race have lowest preference for making the field, so in the case that more than 14 horses are entered in the Preakness, she would be excluded.
Pimlico officials said they had been contacted Tuesday by a Stonestreet representative about procedures involving supplemental entries but that the name of a specific horse had not been mentioned.
If Rachel Alexandra were to run in the Preakness, it is unclear how that would affect Calvin Borel, who became just the seventh jockey in history to win the Kentucky Oaks and Kentucky Derby on the same weekend. A little more than 24 hours after winning aboard Rachel Alexandra in the Oaks, Borel rode Mine That Bird to a 50-1 upset in the Derby. Borel\'s agent, Jerry Hissam, declined to comment when asked about a hypothetical conflict, although he might not even have to make such a difficult decision, since Jackson and Asmussen rarely employ Borel on their horses.
Robby Albarado was the regular rider for Jackson and Asmussen on Curlin, their 2007-08 Horse of the Year. Asked if acquiring Albarado\'s services for the Preakness was in the works, Asmussen said: \"That decision has not been made.\"
Covelj70, can you point me to that TG study you cite. I can\'t find it quickly. Thanks, he said, sheepishly.
sure, it was posted as the ROTW on May 19th, 2007 so its in the ROTW archives for that date.
I can\'t figure out how to paste the link once again proving I am a moron!
cov, you\'re way too hard on yourself!! Calling yourself a moron? Isn\'t that best left to some of the board bullies? Some of them are quite good at it.....
Thanks.
hah, this is great.
I am used to getting called a moron in my day job so I am good at it!!!!!
Cov,
What a stupid response!! lol
Bernardini did put a few -3 together and retired injury free I believe
Ron,
I think all Street Sense ever did after the Derby was to get beat a half head by Curlin and then win the Travers and Jim Dandy....
covelj70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree that I would like to see the race between
> those 2 on traditional dirt but Zenayatta ran the
> same number at Oaklawn on the dirt that she ran on
> the poly so I don\'t think Z is just a poly horse.
>
> RA has already run alot faster than Z ever has but
> it would still be a very fun race.
It\'s amazing the best three year old in America and the best older horse in America could possibly be female..I don\'t think I\'ve ever seen that before.
Is there an older male horse i\'m forgetting..The three year old crew left from last year are no good, Curlin is gone..
Einstein is pretty special but its debatable about how he would fare against the two big fillies.
That was an excellent summary. I would add one thing.
I don\'t think running fast is what takes a toll on a horse. It\'s running hard. It just so happens that running fast and running hard are often the same thing, but that\'s not always the case.
This is the kind of effort that takes a toll: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgj9LeZEUpo
This is the kind of effort that does not: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNkBuJtds58
I don\'t know the psychological term for it, but when people have a theory they tend to look for evidence to prove themselves right and ignore evidence against themselves. They also tend to data-mine.
Those that saw Big Brown as vulnerable in the Belmont will point to the Preakness and say he had an easy race but still bounced. But they are ignoring the fact that he missed training because of a RECURRING hoof problem that was totally unrelated to the Preakness.
In my opinion, Rachel Alexandra has no chance of duplicating her -4 in the Preakness (assuming she goes), but it won\'t be because that effort drained her. She won\'t get nearly as easy a trip in the Preakness as she got in the Oaks. I don\'t mean to diminish her excellence, but she sat off a vastly inferior rival, galloped past her, and was never challenged at any point in the race. I think that says almost as much about the quality of her competition as it does about her potential greatness. In the Preakness, she will face quality competition on the front end and then have to repulse multiple challenges late. That\'s the race that could take a toll because she\'s well into this campaign and already at her short term peak.
Big top filly + short rest for Preakness = bet against.
HP
Miff-- take a look at what has happened to the horses Jerkens has run back on short rest the last few years.
Jimbo-- Einstein, Midnight Lute and others have gotten very big figures on synthetic, compression or no.
You are going to get a chance to win your drink back, Jimbo. If Rachel runs in the Preakness and makes more than 2 other starts by Nov first, you win.
You guys are great. I made the point about Eight Belles before the race. I made the point about IWR before the race. I said it was no sure thing QR wouldn\'t get to the gate a month before the race. None of these seem to count.
Yes, some hold on for a while, a few (Curlin) more than a while. But this game is all about percentages. A very high percentage of young horses that run really big figures are set back or injured after running them, much higher than with the general horse population. Time afterward helps-- as I have said before, if a horse is slightly uncomfortable and slightly changes his stride, the results can be disastrous with the weight and speed issues involved. the more chance they have to get comfortable again, the better-- I think the 5 weeks after the Fla Derby helped Big Brown hang on as long as he did later in the year. If he had put that effort and the huge Derby 3 weeks apart, the Preakness might have been the Belmont.
JB,
I\'ll assume you looked at Alan Jerkens and the quick returners don\'t do well. His point, on more than one occasion was, you run them when are appear to be doing well,rest them when they need it.
I\'ll have some data to share with you in the coming weeks re spacing(two years worth of stats from NYRA tracks). Without going into detail, dirt horses than ran back within 21 days or less won at a far higher percentage than horses that run back with more than 21 days.Not talking about what figs they ran or tops or anything like that.
Trying to get them to filter the data by levels/frequency( claimers, allowance stakes),and eliminating long layoffs,90+ days.Right now, it\'s just one big pot which I feel skews the results.Stakes runners might also be skewed cause guys just don\'t run back quick anymore.
Have you ever ran such a search from your data base re spacing?
Mike
First of all, 21 days and short rest are two separate things. Secondly, all horses coming back quick and young horses coming back qick are two different things. Third, horses coming back quick and horses coming back quick off huge efforts are two different things. Fourth, running well and staying in one piece afterward are two different things.
If you go back and look at the 08 Derby seminar, I both said to use Eight Belles, AND that she was in danger.
Other than that I got nothing.
Not really JB,forever you have talked of more rest being better without the qualification you just made.The next thing is to look at is your own : TG EFFORT DISTRIBUTION FOR 3YOS IN RACE SUBSEQUENTTO -1 FIGURE OR BETTER EARNED BEFORE JULY
Cov was not in the correct area code with his explanation of two neg figs(instead on one) and ALL subsequently being \"KNOCKED OUT\"
If you now look at what the game is all about, you will see that 8-10 WON their very next start, a fairly high percentage of the whole number in the study.I would have loved to own some of those \"KNOCKED OUT\" horses after their pre july neg fig.
Mike
The fillies in Europe beat males over turf, an equalizing surface due to the pace. Top fillies can hold their own going sprints and in turf races (dawdling earlier then sprint to the finish). Mixing it up with the boys for the entire distance of a route, having to go fast the entire distance, that\'s a different ballgame.
The fastest filly of all time (at least on TG numbers)
I\'ve a question about this. I understand that she got an other-worldly number (guess I\'m not supposed to say aloud here). I\'m not understanding what made this the case. What was so terrific about the time and what was so terrible about the trip that equal this filly supposedly running \"faster\" than all before? THere has to be an equation here that reaches this conclusion and as much as I admire the filly, I don\'t see it.
Smarty Jones was retired with a superficial injury that occurred after he was a victim of quite a bit of \"race-riding\" in the Belmont, where he fought off multiple pace challenges at a distance he was not well suited for. If he wasn\'t worth so much, he would not have been retired.
You are in error about SJ. His injury wasn\'t superficial at all but quite serious. He had extensive bone bruising, I believe in all 4 limbs, and that is caused over time.
She wins the Oaks by over 20, comes home her last 1/8th in a shade over 12 flat afer pressing an honest pace the entire way on a clumpy, drying out track and does all of this under wraps with the jock doing nothing more than to point at and pet her from the 8th pole on.
Now I\'ll concede the overall talent of the field wasn\'t what we normally see in the Oaks. But I think the final time of the race and the overall figure are legit. Watch the way she runs. Watch the way she gallops out after that race as if she could keep laying down 12 and change 1/8ths for another 1/2 mile or more. She just skips over the dirt and kicks out from behind like an absolute freak!
If she gets in the Preakness, trains well leading up to the race, draws well and goes off at 9/5 or so that could turn out to be the bargain of the year. She could run 4 points slower and still probably win with a hand ride.