I know it\'s not likely but I will be praying every night for the next 3 weeks that they do the right thing and turn her out for 3 months.
It was an amazing day for racing and it could be even better if the connections do the right thing by the horse.
I\'ve said all along I\'m in the bag for this filly and today certainly didn\'t do anything to diminish those feelings. I want to see her running at the end of the year and the most likely way that will happen is if she takes 3 months off.
On a seperate note, JB, today exemplifies why thorograph is in a class by itself when it comes to betting on a horse race. I felt like I was a step ahead all day, thank you!
covel,
It\'s good to see you had a great day, you\'re always one of the most positive, enthusiastic posters on a daily basis.
I too hope they put her on the shelf for an extended period, today\'s race took a lot out of her and a 3 week return will not be a good thing.
Congrats again!!
Covel - I could not agree more. Excellent post, I hope they read it. PLLLLEEEAASSE do not run this fabulous athlete in the Belmont.
Naaaah, she didn\'t handle the track, run her in the Belmont.
Agree.
She did a lot of work early. Remember this was from the 13 hole. In the middle and coming home so she had right to be a little tired.
But she Bob Beamon\'ed it on Oaks Day. I\'m not kidding it was a Secretariat in the Belmont performance and needs a break. An athlete on total MAX OUT.
TVG asked D. Wayne to compare her to Azeri. He said if she comes back next year there is none. Lets see her again late summer and fall then next year.
Racing made new fans today lets try and keep\'em around.........
Thank you so much, it\'s days like today that make the game so amazing both from a gambling and racing perspective.
While we know the filly likely runs in the Belmont, looking purely at what is best for the horse, what would be an appropriate rest of the year for her if the goal is to run her this year and next? Haskell or Travers, one more race after that and then the Breeders Cup to end it, or is that too much even? If you were planning the rest of her year, what would you do?
jma11473 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While we know the filly likely runs in the
> Belmont, looking purely at what is best for the
> horse, what would be an appropriate rest of the
> year for her if the goal is to run her this year
> and next? Haskell or Travers, one more race after
> that and then the Breeders Cup to end it, or is
> that too much even? If you were planning the rest
> of her year, what would you do?
excellent question, and one that begs historical data on how much fillies can improve later in a 3 YO campaign. My gut says colts will get physically better quicker, but this makes for great discussion for the next few weeks.
looks at how the Moss\' handled Zenyatta, they have given her 6 months off after a hard BC campaign and she is an older horse who has never run as faster as RA.
Bring RA back at Belmont against older fillies in the fall and have her ready for the BC. She could run on a bed of nails, she will handle the poly at SA just fine if she gets the right rest here.
I know this suggestion is COMPLETELY unrealistic, but I would rest her till sometime in July or maybe even August, then ship her to Santa Anita for some conditional allowance race (of course they would write a race for her) with a test run over the Pro Ride and then give her the 5 weeks off to be ready for the Distaff on Nov 6. Her campaign thus far puts her right on the level of possible horse of the year, so she only needs a couple more quality races to be among the top 2-3 contenders. Again, totally unrealistic, but you could sure eliminate the mystery of her being able to handle the Pro Ride before the really big dance in Nov.
The next 72 hours will probably determine where she goes next.My guess if that if she shows the slightest sign of being tired, she\'ll target the Travers or the Haskell with a prep in mid July.Unless she comes out bad, there is no chance that she\'s going to be stopped on for 3 months since that effectively keeps her out for like 5-6 months since horses don\'t come with an off/on switch.
Jess Jackson made it pretty clear on Ch 4 that he intends to campaign her as a great horse(not filly)so I guess they\'ll be racing the boys for awhile.He also made it clear that he would like to go to the Belmont if RA is up to it.
Mike
After Curlin got beat by turf horses, I hope Asmussen/Jackson refuse to race her on that garbage surface at Santa Anita.
Great idea Mike. Just what racing needs, its biggest attraction missing from racing\'s biggest day.
Curlin losing on Pro Ride didn\'t keep him from being named HOY.
I have no expertise regarding when or how often horses should run. But this is a game of probablities, and horses running these types of efforts at this stage are susceptible of going off. Agree with your point, I don\'t think Jackson or Asmussen run her in 3 weeks unless they are sure she is up for it. After the number is produced, would like to hear JB\'s opinion.
Read his Preakness Analysis.its in there already
Did Beamon bounce after 29\' 6\'\'?
Paul,
If that filly is ever going to be in jeopardy it may be when she plants and sticks(instead of giving) on those garbage synth surfaces that robs horses of their brilliance.That was my point in not running.
You must be kidding as to what TGJB will say regarding when her next race should be.My guess is that JB has her somewhere between giving her last rites this morning,to breaking down in the Belmont.
Mike
No he just put in a couple of normal efforts.
Like the filly did yesterday......
Mike,
That is a classic. Very funny. \"Richie-Bee-like\". Having a hard time explaining to wife and daughter right now, why I am cracking up laughing, over my keyboard.
Paul,
You should know what JB will think though, seriously. He talked about watching the race \"wincing\" or \"cringing\". He is at the head of the movement that all fast horses are in danger after big efforts. Let\'s let JB make the figure for yesterday but it has to be a backward move off the negative 4. Everybody will call it a backward move and she becomes a huge bet-against in the Belmont, if she runs. I will bet against her too, but not because yesterday was a backward move. I really don\'t think it was, no matter what the figure is. She was pushed hard early, carried wide, ran a very legitimate pace, opened up 4 lengths on the field, then got tired late, over a track her jockey says she didn\'t handle. Compare the fractions she ran with the fractions in other races on the card. She ran a very legitimate pace and got no breather. The only \"breaks\" she may have caught were 1) not a single \"stalker\" in the race fired. This race seemed to be filled with quality stalkers but not one of them fired and 2) Mine that Bird got a bad trip from Mike Smith. I won\'t say bad ride because I didn\'t see a path inside he could have taken, but nonetheless he got stopped approaching the far turn and then talk the overland route and she was gone when he got through. But even those \"breaks\" were small ones. First off, the stalkers may not have fired because they had to chase her and she ran them off their feet. And as for MTB not getting through, it is true, but he got the best of the fact that she did all the work on the front end, while wide, while he conserved energy at the back of the pack. It is very doubtful that she gets pressed that hard in the Belmont early, unless Quality Road makes it back to the race.
She ran fast all through the race, proved she could beat the best colts, not just the rats she ran against in the Oaks.
Paul, sorry but I also hope she skips the BC. California made a huge mistake with synthetics and they need to correct it. Having the stars skip the event may hasten the correction.
I can\'t imagine a scenario where RA would skip the BC excepting injury of course. Her Keeneland race as a 2YO removes any doubt that she can run on the synthetic surface. I look forward to a showdown with a hopefully still undefeated Zenyatta. Sure would add some juice to the Friday card.
Frank,
You are probably right and me talking about the BC is misplaced today anyway.
I am reading all over this board today about her \"bounce\" yesterday. She didn\'t bounce yesterday. Not sure how JB will see the race, Beyer paired her up. She was pretty wide first turn, so if JB sees track speed the same way Beyer did, the most she moved back was a couple points. When you look at the OTHER factors in yesterday\'s race, like the race shape, energy exerted throughout the race, and increase in the level of competition she faced, it was NO BOUNCE.
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Paul,
>
> If that filly is ever going to be in jeopardy it
> may be when she plants and sticks(instead of
> giving) on those garbage synth surfaces that robs
> horses of their brilliance.That was my point in
> not running.
>
> You must be kidding as to what TGJB will say
> regarding when her next race should be.My guess is
> that JB has her somewhere between giving her last
> rites this morning,to breaking down in the
> Belmont.
>
>
> Mike
Mike,
You\'re saying she will injure herself on Pro-Ride because she may plant and stick?? What makes you think that will happen??
Still laughing over your second point.
Paul,
I have some friends who race out there and some of their horses don\'t handle those surfaces too well as it is VERY different from dirt surfaces.RA did win on KEE Poly but Pro Ride is not the same, nor is cushion.
I\'m sure she\'ll go there, this owner wants to run everywhere.
Mike
Jimbo -
Hard for me to believe she didn\'t do what TGJB said was likely in his comments: go back a few points (maybe 3 or 4) and still win. I think Mine That Bird gets about what she did (by virtue of the added 5 pounds) and the others aren\'t that far behind. If she paired the negative 4, it would be raining negative numbers.
Borel\'s comments after the race about her preferring a harder surface were interesting to me. If Belmont is indeed \"Big Sandy\", she might not find it to her liking.
Miff and Jimbo-- So let\'s see...
Last year, when Rachel had run 5 times and not won a stake, I recommended her purchase to four clients, telling them that she was as good already as Stardom Bound, and the favorite to win the Kentucky Oaks.
Before the Preakness, when some were scoffing at bounce theory, and others were predicting she would bounce to the sky (and wondering why I did not also), I predicted the most likely eventuality was a backward move of a few points that would make her about 50/50 to win. I haven\'t done the figure, but judging from who was where at the wire (including Lukas\' horse), I would say I nailed it, and sure enough, she won, but not by a lot.
So you figure the right idea this time is to dismiss my comments about her future. Good thinking. And when something goes wrong with her before or after her next race-- and it will-- we will hear the words \"Kool-Aid\" again. Her best chance to avoid injury is either a) to pass the Belmont and not run again until late July or August, or b) protect herself in it if she goes, like Big Brown did. If she makes it to the gate and runs hard to the wire, you won\'t be seeing her again for quite a while.
The most signifigant comment on this board since the race was made by Covello about Borel\'s comments about her handling the track, and I thought exactly the same thing the second he said it.
Here\'s what Borel knows-- that she strode out differently in the Preakness. Here\'s what he CONCLUDED-- that she was not comfortable (undoubtedly correct), and that the reason had to do with the surface. If you knew how many times I have had trainers tell me that (or report jockey\'s saying that) when it was either a) an obvious bounce situation, or b) there was something wrong with the horse that showed up soon...
This is the third (and last) time I am going to say this here. The most likely explanation for horses getting hurt a race or two after giant efforts is that the effort causes stress, which causes discomfort (like I felt after playing golf for the first time in 9 months last Tuesday), which causes a change in mechanics to avoid the discomfort (like I did nine months ago because of two golf induced knee surgeries), which then causes an injury somewhere else. Except in my case changing my swing just resulted in my elbow swelling up and being frozen at a right angle for three weeks, in the case of a pitcher changing arm angle just results in an arm injury. With a thousand pound animal moving 40 miles an hour and coming down on something really small, the mechanics have to be perfect. If a horse changes his (or her) stride because of discomfort, the results can be catastrophic.
\"So you figure the right idea this time is to dismiss my comments about her future. Good thinking. And when something goes wrong with her before or after her next race-- and it will-- we will hear the words \"Kool-Aid\" again. Her best chance to avoid injury is either a) to pass the Belmont, or b) protect herself in it if she goes. If she makes it to the gate and runs hard to the wire, you won\'t be seeing her again for quite a while\"
JB,
From 35 years around the track I know that horses get hurt all the time for a VARIETY of reasons. If RA gets hurt/ill, that will not be surprising to me. You seem to think that only \"efforts\" cause problems, that is not correct.I never said that a big \"effort/s\" is not ONE of the causes that horses go bad, but it\'s not the only reason.
I do not share your myopic view on this regarding her backing up, fig wise. You have ignored the fact that she \"warred\" with a fast colt for most of the race causing her to slow late, skewing final time.I don\'t buy that she backed up SOLELY because of her previous effort, big league race dynamics had just as much to do with it.
Mike
The Day After: Still Raving About Rachel The Day After
Borel and Steve Asmussen, who took over the training of the Medaglia d\'Oro filly less than two weeks earlier after owner Jess Jackson purchased the winner of the Kentucky Oaks (gr. I), both took time out from their daily business at Churchill to meet with the media. During the interview, the pair could not contain their euphoria over Rachel Alexandra's performance the previous day.
"She's one of a kind," Borel said, noting that the filly overcame a lot to win the second leg of the Triple Crown. "If she had gotten beat yesterday, I would not have been disgusted. She was racing against the best horses in the country and it was over a track she didn't like."
Borel said the filly had to stand in the gate an unusually long time as Big Drama threw his rider and had to be reloaded in the Pimlico starting gate. When the gates opened, Rachel Alexandra stumbled slightly before Borel settled her into the lead in the 1 3/16-mile race. Finally, Borel said the track was looser than the filly prefers, since the Pimlico maintenance crew did not water it as much as normal because they had been expecting rain prior to the race.
"Yesterday, you did not see the real Rachel Alexandra," Borel said. "She struggled so much over the track. But she showed what she's made of. She got the job done. God knows what's next."
Asmussen was equally bullish in his praise of Rachel Alexandra, noting "She ran an incredible race. We are extremely proud of Rachel Alexandra. She is truly a special horse in her own right. He (Jackson) was correct in his assumption she could handle the boys."
The trainer, who also conditioned two-time Horse of the Year Curlin for Jackson and Midnight Cry Stable, said he was concerned that Rachel Alexandra was on the lead as the Preakness unfolded with fast early fractions. In the end, however, the filly won as a result of her ability and Borel's ride.
"The only reason she won was because she was good enough and because Calvin gave her a chance to win," Asmussen said.
The trainer said Rachel Alexandra left Baltimore early Sunday, May 17, and was back in her Churchill Downs barn by noon. She said she recovered from the race without any problems, but was non-committal about a possible start in the June 6 Belmont Stakes (gr. I).
"I don't think there is the sense of urgency now that it was yesterday," Asmussen said.
He added that he believes Rachel Alexandra is the front-runner for Horse of the Year honors and that the rest of her 2009 campaign will be structured around solidifying that status.
Asmussen said a decision on whether filly will be pointed toward the Belmont will be made as a result of an evaluation on how she came out of the Preakness. He said the filly will return to the track for some light exercise May 20, and would have her next workout Monday, May 25.
Miff-- use the search engine on this site and find me one time I said huge figures are the ONLY thing causes injury.
What you have said many times contradicts what you just said. You have said that the idea that huge efforts cause health problems is \"drinking the Kool-Aid\".
Nobody said that\'s the only thing that causes problems. I didn\'t even say they ALWAYS cause problems-- I said it\'s a matter of percentages, and the percentages go way up. And I showed you by way of example my record on calling this in advance.
Let\'s do this. We\'ll both pick 10 stake horses that are taking a regular turn and don\'t have a history of soundness issues. Neither of us will talk to the connections of the horses, or rely on anything but handicapping. The idea will be to predict which ones develop a problem in their next two starts that causes a layoff of 4 months or more after one of the next two starts. You don\'t get to pick horses that have recently run a new top of at least 2 points, I only do. I\'ll bet I beat you by at least two. It will probably take at least a year to play out. Want to bet? My first pick is RA if she doesn\'t get a break now.
\"What you have said many times contradicts what you just said. You have said that the idea that huge efforts cause health problems is \"drinking the Kool-Aid\".
JB,
For the last time, huge efforts \"ALONE\" and that CERTAINLY has been your mantra.
Since you are in a betting mood, I\'ll make a better one. For every horse that goes bad,4 MONTHS, because they ran negative figs according to you,I\'ll identify TWO that went bad in the same time frame that never ran negative anything. NY racing only,name the bet, this can be arranged easily.
Mike
I found it interesting that MTB did not pass Rachel in the post Preaknes gallop out.
MIff-- if you are willing to predict them in advance, you are on for as much as you want. If you are talking about naming them after they get hurt, that would be some bet-- I get the few that run giant figures, you get everybody else. Wait, let me think about it...
Let me make clear what I offered you again-- we each identify 10 horses, I HAVE TO BEAT YOU BY TWO. What more could you ask?
\"Only huge efforts\" and \"huge efforts by themselves\" are two different things. Yes, huge efforts, especially when not given extra time following, are far more likely to cause an injury than lesser efforts. But NO, I never said they are the only thing that causes injury. And you know it.
Suggest you drop it.
If RA skips the Belmont does Calvin get the mount back on MTB? and if he were to win the Belmont with MTB he probably could have been the triple crown winner, (assumming racing luck would\'ve been better to him in the Preakness.)if he chose to ride MTB instead of RA
I have to say, my favorite part besides the win was watching Borel muttering \"you have to do what\'s best for the horse\" as he kept requesting bottled waters and pouring them on Rachel, taking a sip or two for himself, while walking to the winners circle.
Jerry,
You were right about her last year being a top filly. And you were right not to throw her out yesterday. Kudos to you on both.
But your consistent \"gloom and doom\" every time a horse runs fast comes across cultish. Especially when you talk about \"cringing\" when watching her run yesterday. And it becomes even more \"cultish\" when you have a bunch of posters on this board immediately after the great performance by the filly yesterday posting about how she will get hurt if she runs again too soon.
I can do searches on this board for other comments you made about horses like telling me Big Brown was 50/50 to make the starting gate in the Derby because of the Florida Derby. He ran quite a few more times, including win 2 legs of the Triple Crown. Horses are fragile. We get it. Not every horse that runs back off a big effort in short time will bounce and certainly not all will get hurt.
You can give RAchel your \"backward move\" yesterday. Those of us that use the TG figures as a valulable tool, but NOT the only tool, will upgrade the figure in our future handicapping, because she did it while pushed the entire way.
Upgrade it, like with IWR\'s Wood?
Re Big Brown:
First of all, yes, he was one I thought would be hurt by the first huge effort. I made similar comments about IWR and QR making the gate at CD.
1-- He had 5 weeks after his first big one, which helps. When he ran another huge one he didn\'t get the rest and backed up considerably in Baltimore (the move on the way out the door I mentioned in my Preakness comments).
2-- There were two possible extenuating circumstances-- he might (ahem) have been getting a lot of help (Dutrow got a Clenbuterol positive with another horse the same weekend), and being eased in the Belmont might have taken away some of the stress and kept him from getting hurt.
JB,
Last post, promise. As I said before, if you decide to run for political office, let me know, I want to back you.This whole string was about you predicting that some horses will go bad because of efforts. I never said anything about my predicting horses going bad, you did. My point,again,is that the probabliity of ANY horse going bad is very high.As you note, this probability may even be greater at the higher level racing but no number on a piece of paper will tell you that with any certainty.
Making a suggestion to stop on RA now, or gloom and doom, is pure guesswork especially if RA\'s vet and Asmussen are satisfied with her overall condition.I would think that a break is in order also but would defer to those with hands on day to day knowledge of the animal.
Mike
Re Big Brown:
First of all, yes, he was one I thought would be hurt by the first huge effort. I made similar comments about IWR and QR making the gate at CD.
1-- He had 5 weeks after his first big one, which helps. When he ran another huge one he didn\'t get the rest and backed up considerably in Baltimore (the move on the way out the door I mentioned in my Preakness comments).
2-- There were two possible extenuating circumstances-- he might (ahem) have been getting a lot of help (Dutrow got a Clenbuterol positive with another horse the same weekend), and being eased in the Belmont might have taken away some of the stress and kept him from getting hurt.
---------------------
I\'m trying to understand your logic. What are the odds that any top horse will get hurt in the coming weeks/months? Less than even? I could name 5 top horses, predicting they\'ll come up injured, and 3 of the 5 will come up injured, maybe 4 of the 5. But it doesn\'t make me Carnac the Magnificent. That\'s what happens to our best horses, and the better they are, the more likely it is they\'ll be hurt.
As for Big Brown, he was battling hoof issues from day 1. It is both a credit to the horse and credit to the trainer that Brown did as well as he did for as long as he did.
FC-- you get the same offer I made Miff, find it in my 5:33 post on this string. If I don\'t beat you by at least two with us both picking 10 horses, you win. Let me know. If the logic you are having trouble understanding is off, you should do as well as I do. If you really think 3 out of 5 stake horses will have 4 month or more layoffs following one of their next two races you should jump on this bet.
Miff.
Didn\'t deferring to those with hands on day to day knowledge of the animal give us the likes of Union City, who stood lame in ice buckets for two weeks after the Derby before D Wayne sent him out for his fateful Preakness run.
Aren\'t those closest often the most conflicted?
Mike,
Gotta challenge the Pro-Ride comment. TGJB says that Pro-Ride is turf, Poly is almost turf and Cushion is dirt. Interesting and I would say not far off. So why do you call turf garbage? Why should RA not like it? Turf is a safer surface and so is Pro-Ride. I have horses in training at Santa Anita and Keeneland. They are the best surfaces in the world to train over and to race over - its grass. Witness when it rains and comes off the grass – nobody scratches. The trainers understand this.
You may not like to have all BC races run on \"grass\". That's a good point. But its not garbage and its much safer than the old dirt track especially SA. True some horses don't handle it just as some horses don't handle turf. I think we have a good mixture of synth and dirt in this country now. Maybe California should have a major dirt track. As for gambling if you realize that dirt form doesn't necessarily carry over just as it doesn't to turf, the handicapping gets a whole lot easier.
Bob
I like that , at some point imo eventually common sense and prudence has to win out the day - just like that inevitable random factor . They had the filly in and out of the winners circle seemingly almost as fast as her historic run around the Pimlico strip . I\'d send her to summer at Monmouth , pass the Belmont and if had to show everyone , as some kind of favor , the worlds best and run in this race or that , prep at a PID or another synth track out east before the BC ...
Hi Bob,
Long time. Your experience is very different from several owners and trainers that have/are abandoning California because of the surfaces.Kee does not seem to have the same issues but thats a very short couple of meets.Every statistical report that I have seen suggests that synths have promised far more than they have delivered.There is no question that those surfaces(except cushion) penalize brilliant speed,esp POLY.
I am willing to bet that before one other major track goes synth,one synth will be torn up and returned to dirt.Not exactly my garbage word, but for example, Hall of Famers BAFFERT, ZITO,MC GAUGHEY and others have serious issues with racing on synths(not training)If you had been at the NYRA horsemens meeting re surfaces you would have witnessed a small mutiny when the subject of switching NYRA tracks from dirt to synths for racing purposes(not training)
Bob,as an aside, many big/regular players do not step out on synth racing, some still don\'t gamble it at all.The game can\'t afford to lose any players for any reason.
Anyway, I\'m glad your stock is doing well at KEE and CALI.
Mike
i think they have amnesia. the old track at SA was a killing field like Churchill is now for instance.
Cheap shot JB. That\'s ok.
I am going to give up the discussion with you, as I know this is like religion to you.
I will leave you with a thought, discard it if you like. Is this gloom and doom of predicting injuries good for your business? I will tell you, a few years back, when I truly believed that what you are now saying is true, I tried to explain/share it with some solid horseplayers, who understand the game. They thought I was a crackpot. It comes across as wacky, even if you can point to a few examples of horses getting hurt. Everybody knows horses are fragile. You are getting to the point where every time a big name horse runs fast, you are predicting doom. Instead of being known as the guy who makes the best figures in the market, you can get tagged with a different moniker.
Yesterday, you and TGAB put up a $40 horse, a $28 horse, an ice cold triple/exacta with the $28 horse, all by using your figures, and all the talk today here is about how Rachel might get hurt if she races in the Belmont.
I shut up now. At least on this topic.
Assuming Rachel doesn\'t run, I am now going to start posting about why Charitable Man wins the Belmont instead of this....
Jim
I wouldn\'t call Churchill now a killing field compared to the old CA tracks (which I think were).
I would love to see Churchill be the first track to spend the money to take off the top, save it, and re-lay their base. I imagine I\'d shrudder, seeing the cracks and holes and voids in the base I am sure are there.
I don\'t know about anyone else, but I always had a hard time transferring California concrete-dirt form readily to other tracks on the Derby trail. CA had dirt, but it sure was different dirt than everywhere else. I just dealt with it. It\'s no different for me now.
TonyP. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If RA skips the Belmont does Calvin get the mount
> back on MTB?
No. They have already publically said that although Borel was the first jock to follow the trainers instructions, Smith gave a great ride, they were thrilled with the way he took MTB outside when the rail trip was blocked, and Smith has the Belmont ride on MTB as he rode the horse exactly as instructed.
Amen to Charitable Man winning the Belmont. That\'s something we can all agree on!
Please
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Miff and Jimbo-- So let\'s see...
>
> Last year, when Rachel had run 5 times and not won
> a stake, I recommended her purchase to four
> clients, telling them that she was as good already
> as Stardom Bound, and the favorite to win the
> Kentucky Oaks.
She lost a G3 by a short margin at that point and had won 2 of her 4 starts. Spotting potential talent there wasn\'t exactly rocket science. What amuses me about agents is that they all tout their success stories but we never hear of all the horses they recommended who bombed. Percentages and ROI are the two stats we need to see to properly ascertain how well an agent does, and I\'ve never seen an agent who lists either.
> Before the Preakness, when some were scoffing at
> bounce theory, and others were predicting she
> would bounce to the sky (and wondering why I did
> not also), I predicted the most likely eventuality
> was a backward move of a few points that would
> make her about 50/50 to win. I haven\'t done the
> figure, but judging from who was where at the wire
> (including Lukas\' horse), I would say I nailed it,
> and sure enough, she won, but not by a lot.
You nailed it along with me and 700,000 others. You scoffed when I told someone to believe their eyes, that we could all see that the Oaks didn\'t take so much out of her that she wouldn\'t be up to the task 2 weeks later. You hedge your bets, saying here\'s why she might win and here\'s why she might not, so then you can claim you nailed it.
> So you figure the right idea this time is to
> dismiss my comments about her future. Good
> thinking. And when something goes wrong with her
> before or after her next race-- and it will-- we
> will hear the words \"Kool-Aid\" again. Her best
> chance to avoid injury is either a) to pass the
> Belmont and not run again until late July or
> August, or b) protect herself in it if she goes,
> like Big Brown did. If she makes it to the gate
> and runs hard to the wire, you won\'t be seeing her
> again for quite a while.
She\'s run 4 times in about 9 weeks, and the last win was a tough effort. Again, it doesn\'t take a rocket scientist to think she would probably benefit from a break right now or that if she keeps running every 2-3 weeks at this level, that it will take its toll.
Sight-- that\'s the point, all right. They jumped to synthetics before attempting to fix the dirt tracks. The studies on dirt tracks lumped all the tracks together, which was misleading.
FC-- Okay, pal.
1-- I\'m not an agent. Agents send me ten times as many horses (at least) as I recommend to my clients.
2-- We used to have a complete history up in the horseman\'s section of the site for a 5 year history of EVERY horse bought on our recommendation, what it was bought for, what it earned, final disposition (resale, retirement, etc.). We stopped doing it because a) it was a pain in the ass to keep updating all that data, and b) I have clients (one in particular) who does not like that info being made public for his horses. Eventually it became outdated and we took it down. But I am not aware of anyone else, ever, who has done that publicly. Prestonwood once did a comprehensive study of my work for them-- 23 horses bought, 13 won stakes, average price for the 23 was $125k. Don\'t remember the ROI, but it was unbelievable.
I know this doesn\'t cover what you want, but I\'m responsible for the purchase of 78 horses that have gone on to win stakes for our clients, including several real biggies (Victory Gallop, Da Hoss, Rachel) and several other major horses that have become stallions (Distorted Humor, Even The Score, Student Council, Claramount, Evening Kris). The only one who may have a claim to have done anything similar for his clients is another guy who posts on this board.
3-- At the point I recommended Rachel I didn\'t say she had \"potential\". I told four clients that SHE WAS AS GOOD AS THE 2YO CHAMPION ALREADY, AND WAS THE MOST LIKELY FILLY IN THE COUNTRY TO WIN THE ASHLAND AND THE OAKS. I have emails and witnesses to prove it. And the clients will tell you I don\'t say things like that-- it was a first.
4-- I didn\'t make the same prediction 700,000 others did. I predicted she would run significantly worse than in the Oaks because it was a knock-out effort (I seem to recall you saying it was not), but that she had a very good chance to win anyway.
Jimbo-- it\'s not meant as a cheap shot. It\'s meant to show that the supposed non-effort made no difference in assessing his pattern and the effects of it-- he still went bad.
I am torn on the question of RA running in the Belmont. On the one hand, she\'s my baby, and I don\'t want anything to happen to her. On the other, this is setting up to be one of the best betting races in history, if the Preakness figures come out the way I think they will.
By the way, just eyeballing it, I would be pretty surprised if Andy doesn\'t change that figure.
Best betting races his history!! Hmmm.....
Shoot, I was going to try and have a 1 to 2 week \"freshening\" of my own, before the Belmont, so I can hit a \"new top\" betting on Belmont day. But now I am intrigued. Gonna need blinkers added to keep my focus on work the next couple weeks.....
I\'m actually going to take a rest BECAUSE it looks like a great betting day.
But don\'t let that stop all you guys from buying data...
\"setting up to be one of the best betting races in history\"
How do you go about concluding that without knowing who else will be running? Are you making some assumptions about that? If so, which ones are you assuming will show up for the Belmont that you would look on favorably?
I\'m basing who will run on printed reports, and I\'ll save my horse-specific comments for the data we sell.
But to your larger point, I\'ve said this before-- I don\'t bet horses, I bet races (see the betting guidelines in the Archive section). If RA goes, I start out with the opinion that she\'s going to run much worse than the public thinks she will, at a short price-- she will be on 90% or so of the tri tickets. This is similar to the situation with BB last year, when I took a similar strong position, right here, and was right-- but didn\'t use the winner, so I came up empty.
That\'s not say this kind of position always works out, just in terms of the favorite running poorly, let alone getting the rest of the race right. It worked with Barbaro and some others, didn\'t work with Smarty in the Preakness or BB in the Derby (though my position was not nearly as strong as later, and he wasn\'t nearly as short). But the point is that if you are right half the time in predicting an \"X\" for an odds-on horse you will make a lot of money in the long run because all the exotics without him (or her) are tremendously overlaid.
Re \"printed reports\". I\'m sure you have access to information that most of the rest of us don\'t have. From my vantage I don\'t have any sense for how the Belmont field will shape up. Will it be a big field? Which new shooters will show up? Which repeaters will be coming in that are just as likely to bounce as RA? Etc. I understand your point about the favorite bouncing, but I can\'t say with any assurance at this point whether that will present a great betting opportunity or not. You seem to have already reached that conclusion so you obviously feel more confident about the answers to those questions than I do. I\'m happy when I can detect a great betting opportunity with 5 minutes to post time. Three weeks is outside my limit. However, if someone will please point me to those printed reports about the prospective Belmont field, I would be interested in starting the process.
By printed reports I mean DRF, Bloodhorse, etc. Check out their websites.
Just being able to bet against RA into those gigantic pools is where the opportunity lies. We\'ll see how she trains and acts leading up to the Belmont.
MTB will most likely be 2nd choice, and this is a mile and half race. Most people will conclude that his closing running style will be helped by the extra ground. Fact is the opposite is usually true in ultra-long races. One run closers often lose their punch at longer distances.
The Belmont is usually won by a horse with tactical speed. The key is finding someone that can relax long enough to get the distance.
So if the filly goes, and MTB goes, you have very vulnerable first and second choice horses, and multi-million dollar pools to bet into.
I don\'t need to know who else is running to know that I will be all-in.
Agree with you and JB 100%...If both MTB and RA are in the race this is EXACTLY the type of wagering opportunity that ANY \'fig handicapper\' (particularly one who uses TG) looks to crush...how much tri $$$ will include both MTB and RA...85-90% ??...Thats why they call it pari-mutual wagering!
John
OK, let\'s go through this.
Both the trainer and (I believe) the owner have said that their objective is to win HOTY with this filly; so what needs to happen to achieve that?
Right now the top competition for HOTY honors are Einstein, Well Armed (coming back from Dubai to the Santa Anita BC) and Zenyetta. Of course she will beat none of these in the Belmont Stakes.
Therefore from a risk/reward perspective winning the Belmont has little upside toward RA\'s objective of HOTY since the plan must be to beat one of those three on the track (unless they hope one or more of them stub their toe along the way) and considerable risk of (a) injury and/or (b) poor performance.
So if the RA camp keeps their \"eyes on the prize\" as we used to like to say then they don\'t enter the Belmont and put together a campaign targeting Santa Anita and, who knows, maybe Zenyetta decides to go in the \"Non Gender-Specific Classic\" and all four run on Saturday.
Some times you get to the right spot even if it\'s not for all the right reasons.