Zenyatta inhales them again.
Only good thing you can say about RA is if you like her it the matchup, you just got a much better price.
PS The NTRA site that was supposed to stream the two races today, was DOWN for the entire time.
Because of 1 race where 1 horse, Zenyatta was fit, and the other wasnt?
Congratulations on Zenyatta inhaling those tomato cans again.
Yes -- a special do over for those that just can\'t get it through their heads that one race does not equal a whole year of achievement.
We\'ll call it the \"Horse Of The Sour\" award.
Do we have to go through this crap again??
An excellent question, Paul.
Let\'s ask the guy that started it up again. Boscar?
I think one could argue perhaps the tomato cans ran in last year\'s Woodward. When Z inhales RA at the 1/8th pole in Arkentucky and Wide Mikey cracks a Coors banquet beer nearing the wire, RA\'s legacy will be cemented. A brilliantly fast 3 YO and that\'s pretty much it. Sherriff\'s has to be chuckling tonight
Rick,
Sounds like you know I wasn\'t talking about you. I love Z but its over with, looking forward to next month.
i really hate when anyone calls horses at a top level \"tomato cans\" ESPECIALLY giving an example like the Woodward. in the woodward, rachel won BOUNCING. any horse that bounces is vulnerable to losing to an overall slower horse
Paul,
I know you *shouldn\'t* have been talking about me, but I wasn\'t sure...so I responded coyly.
Look, I think it should be over, too, but I\'ve been powdering and diapering Zenyatta crybabies for so many months now that it\'s automatic -- I don\'t even realize I\'m doing it sometimes.
(And if you don\'t find the above offensive, congrats -- you know I\'m not talking about you.)
Rick
Uncle Buck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RA\'s legacy will be cemented. A brilliantly fast 3
> YO and thats pretty much it 2009 Horse Of The Year.
There, cleaned that up for you.
You\'re welcome.
Rachel has had 7 workouts since Jan, Zenyatta has had 8 workouts.
I\'m sure both Asmussen and Shireffs felt they had their charges \"fit enough\" to get the job done today. They both wanted (and expected) to win, but they also didn\'t want to fully extend today either. Rachel gave what she had today, without being abused, and probably needed another work or two in her.
Today, Rachel was asked to get the job done at 8.5 furlongs carrying 123#\'s (career high), and Zenyatta had to get 9 furlongs today packing 127#\'s, but has carried and won with 129#\'s. When Rachel has a chance to pack SERIOUS weight and win against great company, then I\'ll jump on her bandwagon as one of the \"all-time greats.\" Until then, I consider her a great race horse with something yet to prove.
Were they both on top of their game today? Of course not. They\'ll both be as good as they can possibly be in early April. If not, one of them might get drilled with the whole world watching, then we\'ll have to toss the bullshit excuses. If there\'s a legitimate pace in the race, it\'ll be fun to watch.
You\'re kidding right??? That race at Fairgrounds was a complete joke. Zardana is a decent allowance/overnight stakes/maybe a grade III type runner (the others are barely horses); she looked Rachel in the eye and it was over fast. That was a pathetic effort with or without a layoff. They have no business even trying Zenyatta at this point, and I wouldn\'t be surprised if Assmussen makes up some excuse, and they don\'t even run at Oaklawn. Maybe Rachel can get back to her brillance of last year and maybe she can\'t, but in any event she\'s not even 50% at this point. It would be ridiculous even to try Zenyatta now. That race was a complete joke, and Zenyatta looks better than ever. Good luck with that one.
i think they WILL run her especially for a FIVE MILLION DOLLAR purse.. assmussen wouldnt be my concern for the 2 horses running together next month it would be if Oaklawn will be able to change their minds for the purse money they are putting up that race! There should have been something said saying if both horses didnt win their debuts this year that oaklawn could change their minds IF they cant do so at this point. As I said in a previous post this could very well be a Flower Alley type situation with Rachel this year.. it happens sometimes but lets see how she comes out next time first cause it should be some kind of improvement.
That was nothing close to the Rachel we saw all last year. She looked like Roberto Duran in the \"No Mas\" episode. There is something not right with her and I can\'t imagine they run her in the Apple Blossom in this condition.
I am sure that within days we will hear:
1) that she had a physical problem.
2) that she is badly out of condition and can\'t possibly get fit in time
I bet they don\'t run her next month.
Leamas
I\'ve seen lots of horses in my day, and few were able to consistently produce the push button acceleration Zenyatta has shown repeatedly.
Not to mention the athleticism of being able to shift in and out late in the race and keep the momentum.
I agree with Dana666, RA\'s performance was a disappointment. Let\'s see what the #\'s tell us.
i would gauge that RA probably ran around a 0, Zardana a Neg 1.5, and Manny Pacquiao a Negative 9.25? =D
I disagree. I think Rachel\'s race was actually better than it looked. She went very fast early for the day. The winner got a dream trip stalking the speed. And this is Rachel\'s first race back. I\'m sure the stable wanted to win, but I don\'t think they were life and death to do it and to me Rachel was clearly not fully cranked for this. I do agree that I think Z would have beat her today on almost any surface, but that may not be the case a month from now. But I hope that remains the sentiment.
That\'s what I\'m saying. I completely agree.
Rick B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Paul,
>
> I know you *shouldn\'t* have been talking about me,
> but I wasn\'t sure...so I responded coyly.
>
> Look, I think it should be over, too, but I\'ve
> been powdering and diapering Zenyatta crybabies
> for so many months now that it\'s automatic -- I
> don\'t even realize I\'m doing it sometimes.
>
> (And if you don\'t find the above offensive,
> congrats -- you know I\'m not talking about you.)
>
> Rick
Rick,
The diapers/crybabies comments weren\'t necessary. Zenyatta supporters have a right to voice their opinions. If you disagree, fine. Usually someone around here would come down on that type of comment.
We\'ll see what excuses Rachel supporters come up with if she loses next month. You all had a nice head start with today\'s excuses for the loss.
Rachel wanted to go and Borel stiffed her throughout the backstretch..
I think Calvin Borel and perhaps the jockey instructions given by Asmussen had a large role to play in todays upset fighting Rachel for 6 furlongs. They didn\'t want her to run a monster number first back off the layoff before the Apple Blossom and it cost them this race.
By the time they got to the top of the stretch Rachel was gassed trying to fight Calvin and had little left for the stretch run.
Zenyatta certaintly relaxes much better early in her races than Rachel does, but those are just the different running styles of the two horses.. If Calvin lets Rachel go, she wins the race in a romp, there\'s not a doubt in my mind about that, but would also be in worse shape for the Apple Blossom if they let her romp.
One other thing that hasn\'t really been mentioned... This is Zardana\'s first career dirt race and it looks like a big number. Shirreffs would be a big dope to bring her back to the dirty carpet.
sekrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rachel wanted to go and Borel stiffed her
> throughout the backstretch..
>
> I think Calvin Borel and perhaps the jockey
> instructions given by Asmussen had a large role to
> play in todays upset fighting Rachel for 6
> furlongs. They didn\'t want her to run a monster
> number first back off the layoff before the Apple
> Blossom and it cost them this race.
>
> By the time they got to the top of the stretch
> Rachel was gassed trying to fight Calvin and had
> little left for the stretch run.
Coming from a sheets a natural point of view why would this make any sense? I dont want to sound harsh or anything but wouldnt it be a great sign if Rachel came back to top or new effort to set her up to run even better? She is only 4 years old! If you remember a horse like ghostzapper he ran a neg 4 (got thru his 3 year old top first out) then IMPROVED next out to a negative 6 as a 4 year old and eventually won the Breeders Cup running consistent efforts with nice spacing in between. And yes im making that comparison cause those horses have run negative 4s and are at the same level. If she came out with a Negative 5 what was stopping her 30 days from now running a negative 6? She is suppose to be in prime shape at 4 years old and improving running more consistent top efforts more often...NOT held back because they are afraid to improve the efforts. 4 weeks off is plenty of time for a championship horse to come back to a nice effort.
People seem to be missing the idea that theres a LOGICAL reason why she didnt run today and win and its most likely because she simply had wayyy too much rest coming into this race! Give her some time and she should come around. To me she ran a very nice race and should be able improve next time out with no problems. (Asmussen 2nd off the layoff). IF she does not improve and actually gets worse (by several points) dont be surprised if you hear about retirement. I do not think so though and yes that is a pretty far fetched thing to say. We will see!
Yeah...you\'re right, the fractions for the 8.5 furlongs were--- brutal??
The 1/4 in 23.84, 1/2 mile in 47.72, 3/4 in 1:12.86, mile in 1:37.1, and the final time of 1:43.55.
1st quarter 23.84
2nd quarter 23.88
3rd quarter 25.14
4th quarter 24.24
Final 1/16th 6.45
Her time from the half mile pole to the mile marker was 49.34. Blistering, huh?
You can\'t look at the raw times. Compare Rachel\'s race, 47.74, 112.86 to other times for the day:
MCCLM10000 49.66, 115.87
OCLM62500N3X 49.15, 113.64
Trust me, Rachel\'s race was very quick for the day. In the OCLM62500N3X race, the pacesetter was King Dan, a GIII type that won nearly 200k last year and has shown he can run a 46 and change half and keep going up to 1 1/16. The horse that was pressing him, Secret Getaway, is roughly of the same caliber.
I don\'t have the final numbers crunched yet, but roughly speaking I would say after adjusting for the varient Rachel\'s race would look more like a 46 to the half, 110 to the 3/4. Not being 100% fit, she had every right to tire in the lane after pressing those fractions. What remains to be seen is if she will now move forward off that race, because the Rachel of last year would have still kept on going and drawn off anyway.
Jellish that is a ridiculous statement and you KNOW it
according to last years figures, its also important to note that if she did not run a neg 4 top effort that her off efforts ranged from about a 0 to negative 1. if she ran within that yesterday she would be right in line with last years efforts. she is running against older more experiences horses this year so she will have to run more consistent top efforts than last year to win races. Horses like Zardana, Zenyatta, etc are much better horses compared to last years 3 year old male and female crop. Realistically, other than 2 efforts from last year a 0 to negative 1 range will generally not cut it in a graded 1 stakes race running against 4yo\'s and up.
I always respect your insights.
The thing we may need to get past...this isn\'t last year. Each time she steps on the track in \'10, she\'s likely to catch fields superior to last year. Her year may well be filled with hard-knocking, quality older horses that are used to being in dogfights.
With 45 head nominated to the Apple Blossom, there are gonna be some runners in there besides Zenyatta and Rachel.
She may prove to be up those constant challenges, she may not, time will tell.
She\'s lost a lot of confidence, she doesn\'t know she wasn\'t fully fit, she just knows she got eyeballed and got beat.
I\'m hopeful Rachel can rebound and get fit and make the starting gate. Racing needs high profile animals like Rachel and Z on the track.
Peace out
How about this point of view no one seems to see. Last year running undefeated she ran once at Fairgrounds running her WORST number, a 3.5, and it was 2nd off the layoff... she was still able to win! Maybe she just doesnt like the track? anything is possible. Also important is that when we see what she ran why dont we compare that number to her first out as a 3 year old. one could say that if she ran a negative 0.75 or better yesterday that she has started her 4 year old campaign much better than last years at 3yo and it may be a sign that she\'ll actually run better this year ESPECIALLY having 6 months off coming into yesterdays race.
I think Rachel never looked great in her breezes. She looked so much bigger and her way of going looked different. I posted before that if bigger was better she would be a lot better. But bigger may not be better for her. She looked more like a heavy pounding Curlin breezing than that sinewy Rachel from last year who skipped over the dirt and kicked those back legs out farther than any horse i ever saw...
Rachel will need to get lots of that race and move forward to be anywhere near what she was last year. Hooked by a rather common slugette, Zardana, and outgamed. The pace, adjusted for track speed was not that fast and the final Beyer of 101 puts Rachel in the TG 1 range, extremely common for her. Don\'t buy she was rank or any other excuse, she was either short or not be the same horse as last year. I think the next few days/weeks will speak volumes as to whether Rachel comes back to last years ability.Rachel will not the first champion who was let down and not return to their best.
Z looked dominating beating up on the same Sisters of the Poor\"swallowing\" ahem, a 50-1 shot that has not won in two years.Z\'s figure not yet available will be ordinary. Z is brilliantly consistent and a total mismatch for those common female slugettes in Cali. Trivia question, quick, name one \"runner\"Z swallowed yesterday.
I doubt Z and Rachel will show up at their best at OP,maybe too far to come for Rachel and Z may not enjoy the closers bias of routes at Santa.As to who else shows up at OP, it\'s not relevant imo as no other fillys/mares are in the same area code with these two at their BEST!
Mike
Re: Borel and Asmussen cost Rachel (55 Views)
Posted by: Silver Charm (IP Logged)
Date: March 14, 2010 11:12AM
Jellish that is a ridiculous statement and you KNOW it
Silver, I have no idea what you are referring to.
You do believe in the concept of track variants, correct? I would have to imagine you do, or you probably wouldn\'t be on this board as the concept is embedded in the methodology behind TG numbers.
Coming up with the track variant is probably the most crucial aspect to calculating accurate figures. I personally believe that very often there just isn\'t enough data there, and rather than go off the times you often have to go off of the times AND the horses. But anyway, if you believe in the concept of track variants, then you can apply that same adjustment to the fractional times of any race, keeping in mind that there can often be a big difference between the variants of one and two turn races. This is especially true when wind comes into play.
To me, this is what makes TG numbers so powerful. Jerry and his team seem to get the most accurate variants, not to mention incorporating ground loss and weight into their figures. Just ask Jerry how tough it is to get a variant you can feel confident in when you have a day that has one race run at 1 1/8th, or when the wind shifts halfway through the card, or it rains or they change the amount of water they are putting on the track.
So what exactly did you find ridiculous about my statement?
mjellish,
Help me analyze this please.
I\'m looking at the Redboard Room for Saturday\'s FG and SA races, specifically Rachel and Zenyatta.
In Rachel\'s case, her sire Medaglia D\'Oro doesn\'t have a 5 year old crop yet, and since Rachel\'s only 4, it doesn\'t pertain to her.
Medaglia\'s 3 year olds, 120 horses, with 606 starts and 20 Stakes wins and it looks like their TGI number is 10.3. So 20 of the wins were stakes races for
16%.
His 4 year olds, 39 head started only 66 times with 2 Stakes wins for 5%. Also, his 4 year old TGI\'s moved from 10.3 to 11.1, so does that show a slight degression on his older horses? I\'m just asking because I\'m not familiar with the TG system.
In the case of Zenyatta and her sire Street Cry, it appears differently:
His 3 year olds, 127 horses, with 673 starts and 15 Stakes wins and it looks like their TGI number is 11.2, higher (less overall quality?) than Medaglia\'s 3 year olds. So 15 stakes wins of 127 horses won stakes for @ 12%.
Street Cry 4 year old numbered 84 head, with 443 starts and 24 Stakes wins. Of the 84 head, 24 were stakes wins for 28%. They also improved in the TGI number from 11.2 to 9.1
Street Cry 5 year olds and up showed 28 head with 151 starts and 13 Stakes wins. Their TGI number also continued to drop, in this case to 6.
Am I reading this wrong, or does it suggest based on these samples, that Medaglia 4 year olds may actually degress a bit, where the Street Cry horses may improve as they get a little older.
I don\'t guarantee I have these numbers sequenced exactly as they should be, but it did seem to explain why Z continues to run well as a 6 year old.
It seems odd that Medaglia\'s horses moving from their 3 to 4 year old year show dramatically less horses and less starts: 120 head and 606 starts as 3 year olds, but as 4 year olds 39 head for only 66 starts and only 2 Stakes wins.
Whereas, Street Cry 3 year olds 127 head for 673 starts and that number shrinks as 4 year olds to only 84 head but still 443 starts.
Help me out here.
Thanks
hey small timer
the sample for Medaglias horses at 4 year olds is really small compared to 3 year old so i wouldnt use that at all... plus the TGI comparison 10.3 to 11.1 is really just spliting hairs anyway.. theres not enough information at all with the second sample size.
as far as 5 year olds and up with street cry.. only about %18 of horses (28 horses ran as 5 years old and up telling me that most retired and stopped racing at that age. The ones who were actually racing were at the championship, stakes, and allowance level and were still able to compete at the highest level at that age. We know Zenyatta has consistent neg 1 so her efforts this year will only better that but dont compare the 6 to Medaglias 66 starts at 4 y.o. cause the 5 yr old and up category doesnt even come close to existing and the 4 year old TGI is not well established yet
The sample size is too small to begin looking at the data that way. 39 runners and 66 starts is not enough to make an assessment of Medaglia D\'Oro\'s runners at age 4. We won\'t really have the data for at least another year, or even better two or three years. With only 66 starters, the 4 year old TGI number could be skewed by something as simple as let\'s say his best runners just haven\'t run much yet this year, or his worst couple of runners have run more often.
You have to be careful with how much credence you lend to early sire stats.
Sounds like solid reasoning. I just figured 3 and a half months into the 2010 season most horses would have had at least 1 or 2 starts by now.
Appreciate it !!
thats exactly why i tell everyone that every individual horses pattern is much more important than ANYTHING else coming into a specific race. as an example, just because a horse runs a negative 3 as a new top from lets say a previous top of a 2 (5 point jump) last out and only has 10 days rest coming into a race THAT specific horse is a bounce candidate. No matter what u tell me about sires or pedigree or whatever a horse in that same race running consistent 0\'s with rest will most likely beat that neg 3 horse on that given day (and probably at better odds).
In my opinion, try to focus on an individual race rather than a whole picture. Since we wager and put money down we shouldnt be too concerned at what 600 other horses did because those other horses ran in different conditions, biases, time off, etc (even though the TG figures take that into consideration). But by taking each race as an individual and forming an analysis that is more consistent for all the horses that day (weather that day, rest for each horse, post positions) you will be able to get a better idea on how that race will run with your money in THAT specific race situation and most likely make more money.
\"because the Rachel of last year would have still kept on going and drawn off anyway\"
This was not a 100% fit animal. You can not perform at your best if you have not been conditioned to do your best.
Tiger Woods should just go hit a bucket of balls and show up at Augusta and expect to be the winner.
NOT!!!
Silver,
I still have no idea what the hell you are talking about. The Rachel of last year WOULD have kept on going. She clearly showed she could run that fast early and still kick away at the top of the lane. She\'s obviously not there yet this year. I\'ve been saying, right here on this board, for 2 weeks now, that I did not think she was fit at this time and would be vulnerable. So either you are not understanding me or I am not understanding you or you just don\'t see it that way. Whichever it is that\'s fine with me. But there is nothing ridiculous about my statement.
If people want to make up their mind about Rachel after her first start back since last fall then I guess that is up to them. But if she moves forward off this and trains well you are going to see a whole different animal in her next race. I thought form cycles were one of things this board was supposed to be about...
You didn\'t expect these guys to suddenly become rational in this debate did you?
How many workouts do you guys think a horse needs after a layoff like that? Didn\'t she have 7 or 8? That what is so hard about this game, you could work them forever and risk overdoing it on the training track or you have to give them a race to get there.
Either way they may have done better to turn her out on a farm for a couple months during her break or kept her in light training like Zenyatta. Because hot housing her for months in the barn just got her fat and way out of condition apparently.
Jellish I rest my case. She is nowhere near last year from a conditioning standpoint to last years form. So how can you say \"the Rachel of last year would have drawn off.\"
\"She\'s clearly not up to her previous level,\" Asmussen said. \"We\'re going to regroup and come back again. The disappointment from yesterday continues.\"
Ok, I\'m done with this. Obviously you either aren\'t a very good listener or you are taking what I said the wrong way as that is EXACTLY what I was saying and have been saying on this board for over two weeks. When I say \"The Rachel of last year\" you should be reading \"a fit and ready Rachel.\" Go back and read my posts. I think most people on this board know I am a big Rachel fan even though all she has done so far is cost me money. I have no clue why you have a beef with me.
You aren\'t a dentist named Kevin Smith by chance, are you?
From Joe Drape in the NY Times
\"There was an e-mail message in my in-box from a fourth-generation horseman and breeder who knows more about thoroughbreds than most.
"Sometimes fillies want to be broodmares and lose their competitive edge," it read. "Zenyatta looked like a tiger and Rachel looked resigned to me, but time will tell."
Basically, that\'s what prompted my initial post, though I\'m just a first generation horseplayer.
No I am the dentist from the The Marathon Man and was brought here to torture you.
I think we are saying the same thing.
I just notice tonight that the official chart caller also used the term \'inhaled\' to describe the win.
Is there a doctor in the house to explain further?
You can suppress estrus in mares - I would guess her estrus is already suppressed.
First race off a layoff. Big deal. It was a good effort for a training race, she had to put out but Borel didn\'t punish her (a good thing).
It means nothing for the rest of the year. She could come back and be HOY this year, too. She looked unmuscled and only about 80% in the paddock to me to me. Just like one would expect a horse to look ... first off a layoff.
Horses are not 100% every race. You get the horse fit, then pick the race when they are ready. Aiming for a certain race (take the Derby every year as an example) - nonsensically difficult. Horses aren\'t robots. You can try to train them up to a target race, but it doesn\'t mean the horse will cooperate.
Edit: in the rest of the world, good horses are not expected to win their prep-races leading up to the big race. Nobody freaks over it. In fact, a good but unplaced showing could be the perfect prep to destroying the competition next time out. Geesh, folks - these were only prep races. Public works. It\'s the body of work over the season that will count (remember \"seasons\"? Where horses were not expected to do the impossible and race year-round, but had some months off, and were brought back fat and hairy?)
Thanks for responding so quickly.Imo I thought the race she ran(all things considered)went well.Key word there is layoff.There\'s a quote by Bobby Jones
(I cannot remember it exactly)and he refers to coming back from a layoff as the golf club feeling like a lead pipe and the golf balls feeling like rocks when struck.She\'ll probably make out fine.
Thanks,
mjs
smalltimer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sounds like solid reasoning. I just figured 3 and
> a half months into the 2010 season most horses
> would have had at least 1 or 2 starts by now.
>
> Appreciate it !!
It is not ONLY a small sample...it is also a SKEWED sample. For established stallions, you get the whole 4 yo year full of efforts. For a first time stallion, you are only getting the first quarter of the 4 yo year because there is still 9 months to go in the year. Presumably, horses as a group steadily improve over the course of their 4 yo year. That means the quarter of the year you are looking at is the worst quarter of this year with the three best quarters still to come. Not only is the sample small, it is horribly skewed. This is not a criticism of the stats or of TG. You just need to be cognizant of what you are looking at.
Great minds think alike. Inhaling 50-1 shots, Brilliant!
Miff,
What do the horses\' odds have to do with whether one should be described as \"swallowing\" or \"inhaling\" her opponents? Sounds like a Bill Clinton thing. \"Yeah, I took in the smoke, but everybody expected me to take in the smoke. Therefore, what I did should not be called \'inhaling.\'\"
Also, regarding the \"closers bias\" in SA synthetic routes: How many synthetic routes were run at SA over the last five days, and how many of those were won wire to wire?
Rich,
Any decent horse can swallow an overmatched field(Z swallowed/inhaled the leader by about 1 length). It\'s the clueless hyperbole of her briliance that is being spout about without regard to certain relevant facts. Z is phenominally consistent, not phenominally fast, there is a major difference.When Z faces a field of \"runners\"(negative type TG\'s) and swallows/inhales them, I\'ll be the first to give her props(don\'t tell me the BC had \"runners\" on that surface).Who you beat has much to do with greatness,imo.
FYI,in Zenyatta\'s previous 5 performances(track profile for her last not available) there has been a closers bias every time.That confirmed by the best \"bias\" data available. What happened the last 5 days in Santa Anita routes is only relevant if the track played speed on Sat when Z ran.
Mike
Sight-- exactly. And she still ran fast enough to win most FM stakes.
Flight-- that\'s how golf feels to me ALL the time.
How about this point of view.. If our gauge of her last effort is correct she has gone backwards the 2 races from her top effort. maybe that negative 4.5 (her top race) ruined her? Never really made sense to me that Asmussen put her on the shelf for so long especially since after her last race she wouldve had about 2 months of rest going into Breeders Cup. They PASS on the Breeders Cup ($5 million purse) AND now they pass on a $5 MILLION dollar purse at Oaklawn (with 30 days rest and 2nd off the layoff)?! Thats $10 million in purse money over 7 months with only two races. What are they afraid of?! Money?! In both situations the horse wouldve had plenty of rest given the circumstances in the prior race. Doesnt something seem really off here?
Miff wrote:
\"Any decent horse can swallow an overmatched field\"
I would be inclined to go even further by saying that even a lousy horse can swallow an overmatched field.
\"Who you beat has much to do with greatness,imo.\"
Yes. And it also has much to do with who shows up.
\"FYI,in Zenyatta\'s previous 5 performances(track profile for her last not available) there has been a closers bias every time.That confirmed by the best \"bias\" data available.\"
Miff: No offense intended, but if you need help from some unnamed bias experts (comical) to determine whether SA had a closers bias in routes on Saturday, then you might want to cut down on your constant use of the word \"clueless.\"
\"Also, regarding the \"closers bias\" in SA synthetic routes:
Rich,
My point was that Zenyatta has raced on surfaces which played to her closing kick on the last five occasions, before SAT.Hee Hee you\'re correct, no such thing as track bias data,that is comical since all tracks play honest every day.
Mike
Miff,
As you no doubt knew, I was not saying that I don\'t believe in biases. I do believe in biases and I track them every day. What I found funny was your inability to figure out on your own that Zenyatta did not have a closers bias in her favor Saturday.
Real quick: Here are the pace call positions of the winners from Saturday\'s four synthetic routes:
First at the pace call.
First at the pace call.
First at the pace call.
8th at the pace call, 10 lengths behind the leader.
That last one, of course, is Zenyatta.
Rich,
You\'re never going to find many positive comments or support about Zenyatta around here. Its ALL about the almighty number, and people love to point to 1 or 2 isolated big figures others have thrown out. Its been going on for years if not decades. Rachel tossed a freak figure, and everyone around here points to that number....so she is the greatest. Zenyatta is clearly inferior, don\'t you get it by now??
tough crowd here ;-)
According to some here, they should be revoking the purses Zenyatta has been earning on nothing but biased racetracks vs salami\'s.
Methinks they protest too much.
TGJB,
LOL.Funny thing how a full time job gets in the way of our golf game.Btw,have you ever tried using an impact bag?
mjs
Mike,
Can you spin that one to show a closers advantage Saturday?
Paul,
See, now, your last post is NOT strictly \"expressing an opinion about Zenyatta\" -- it\'s you sour-graping about the fact that not everybody here has fallen at Zenyatta\'s feet they way you and her other supporters have; that sort of meta-discussion is what generates comments about \"powdering and diapering\" that are well within justification...whether you happen to like it or not.
Rick
Hah! Don\'t need to revoke any purses when Zenyatta\'s trainer pulls a brain fart like he did this weekend.
If he controls his zeal to beat a suspect Rachel and leaves Zardana at home, RA walks the track Saturday at Fairgrounds, and probably goes on to Oaklawn...where the consensus seems to be that she would have gotten thumped by Zenyatta.
Instead, his second-stringer beats RA, Sherriffs wins a ham sandwich (comparatively speaking, of course), Asmussen / Jackson pull RA from the Apple Blossom...and Moss is racing next month for 60% of $500K instead of $5 Million.
A $2.7 million dollar \"premature track expectation\" (or something like that). Smoove!
Small,
No spin,Z inhaled the Sisters Of The Poor in spite of speed doing well in routes.Fyi, that was the only time the track profile was against her in 6 starts and, drumroll please, she didnt\' run that fast AGAIN!
Thought Rachel wasn\'t 85% of her old self and no excuses are acceptable. World Champion freaks do not get beat by slugs unless they are VERY short,hurting, ill or not the same horse which cannot be concluded from one sub par performance.
Mike
Miff,
If, Zenyatta is so slow...how\'s come the greatest filly of all time is calling in sick again? Didn\'t she just take a powder last year when the Z connections said \"come on down.\"??
Eventually, hopefully, they\'ll meet once or twice this year and we\'ll see if Zenyatta can only run a 0 or a -1. Somebody is gonna win and somebody is gonna lose. Maybe more than once.
Mike, I generally enjoy your posts, even though your facts are usually skewed.
Peace out
wouldnt this be considered a redboarding comment?
\"If, Zenyatta is so slow...how\'s come the greatest filly of all time is calling in sick again? Didn\'t she just take a powder last year when the Z connections said \"come on down.\"??
Small,
The answer is obvious, Z is not that slow, she\'s just never run as fast as Rachel, period. If Z did run as fast, what was the race, I missed it.
Rachel is not at the top of her game, calling in sick,is pure nonsense. Why would the connections be afraid of Z if Rachel was at her best.Let\'s see Z ship and beat a runner, I\'d like to see it on dirt.
Mike
Z shipped to OP and ran a winning race, under wraps.
I\'d also love to see Rachel ship to California and beat a runner, I\'d like to see it on artificial, and I\'d like to see her pack some serious weight. Fair enough?
P.S. What Rachel did last year is irrelevant, there are no guarantees that she can recapture that level anytime soon.
Thats it for Rachel and Zenyatta. I look forward to their meeting.
Can you tell me what Zardana\'s TG number was on Saturday? I missed it. Her previous numbers were (T) 6,6,7,6,5,5 and AW 4,5. Did she jump up on dirt cause I know she\'s not quite as good as Zenyatta.
Rick B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Paul,
>
> See, now, your last post is NOT strictly
> \"expressing an opinion about Zenyatta\" -- it\'s you
> sour-graping about the fact that not everybody
> here has fallen at Zenyatta\'s feet they way you
> and her other supporters have; that sort of
> meta-discussion is what generates comments about
> \"powdering and diapering\" that are well within
> justification...whether you happen to like it or
> not.
>
> Rick
Wrong again Rick. No sour grapes at all. Just pointing out facts. You and your boys point to a couple big figures, don\'t take into account that synthetic and turf numbers are slower than dirt figs, and take it from there.
I really don\'t give a crap about your little put downs, you seem to be the one with the complex....whether you like it or not.
Miff wrote:
\"FYI,in Zenyatta\'s previous 5 performances(track profile for her last not available) there has been a closers bias every time.That confirmed by the best \"bias\" data available.\"
There was a closers route bias on June 27th at Hol? Miff, there was only one synthetic two-turn race run that day, and it was won by Zenyatta. The 2nd-place finisher was the frontrunner Briecat, who was the 4th choice in the wagering. And frontrunners ran well in one-turn races all over the card--in literally every race there was a good performance from a frontrunner. And the previous route race (the day before) was won by a frontrunner at 7-1.
A closers bias? Please do me a favor and check the charts from June 27 before we move on to May 23 at Hollywood, which I find even more interesting.
P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong again Rick. No sour grapes at all.
Yes...just like the majority of your posts over the last few months, all sweetness and light, no sarcasm, no bitterness. No sour grapes. Not you. Just plain, unemotional facts.
It\'s me. I\'m wrong.
Rich,
Both days were closers bias June 27th(114) May 23rd (100) even more severe.What else??
Mike
Miff wrote:
\"Both days were closers bias June 27th(114) May 23rd (100) even more severe.What else??\"
I guess this means you don\'t want to read the results charts for yourself, as I suggested. OK. You are giving me nameless bias \"experts\" and the numbers 114 and 100. I think I\'ll counter that with the numbers 126 and 134. No. Make that second number 135. Yeah,135. Take that, Miff! And please let me know if you ever change your mind about wanting to look at the results charts.
You got the last word, congrats.
Rich,
On many occasions,determining bias is not as simple as looking at the charts.Like anything you study in detail, you find subtleties.There are real sneaky running style/path biases on occasion and on others,it\'s pretty obvious.It\'s like only looking at raw time to determine if a race was fast/slow.
One service I use looks very closely at cushion depth,individual runners,pace duels/pressures and overall race dynamics.They use gate break, position after an 1/8, then a quarter etc.There are several variations of their formula which are used by others.They make one figure for both routes and sprints, I break out NY sprints/routes to separate numbers for myself.
I note you used pace call in one of your posts, they do not think pace call is the most accurate point to use, nor do I.In any event, if you feel that Z was \"beating\" a speed bias in many of her races, you\'ve got a scoop. The bias guys have it the opposite way,probably except Sat.
Re Z,there is no question in my mind that on more than one occasion,she would have been beaten on an \"honest\" synth surface as opposed to those which favored her big late run, fairly consistently.Can\'t imagine they could engineer a better horse than Z on synths. She may be unbeatable on synth since most fast dirt runners trying her out in Cali would probably not be able not transfer their ability.
Lets leave this until Z ships to a few dirt tracks and inhales non Cali female slug-ettes,then we\'ll crown her.I\'m betting she gets waxed against the first fast/salty bunch she meets on dirt.Like to see her meet the good Rachel/Quality Road and others at the Spa.
Mike
Miff,
What is the name of the bias outfit you were referring to earlier when you quoted those numbers?
I used the \"pace call\" because it is a term that you favor in your posts. I don\'t rely on it for bias assessments. Indeed, I hate the term, and I wonder why people feel obliged to defer to whoever decided which call is the \"pace call.\" In my opinion pace handicapping has produced more dictatorial lunatics than any other area of handicapping (quite a feat), and my inclination is to monkey with the \"pace call\" just to annoy these people.
I did not say that Zenyatta was beating a speed bias in many of her races. To me that would be just as wrong as saying that she has been helped by closer biases in many of her races.
We agree that looking at charts is not the last word in bias analysis. But I do believe it is a reasonable starting point, and I look forward to your reaching it.
I don\'t blame anti-Zenyatta people for trying to use \"closer biases\" to deprive Zenyatta of victories. After all, nothing else has worked.
I think both Zenyatta and Rachel are superb horses, horses for the ages, and I can\'t think of a bad word to say about either of them. I really prefer taking shots at their connections.
Miff,
You need to run for public office. You\'d fit right in.
You say Z benefitted from the closers bias on Saturday, when clearly the evidence shows otherwise.
Z\'s had 14 races on synthetic and you\'re saying on more than one occassion she would have been beaten if the track weren\'t playing to her advantage. How can you be so intellectually dishonest? Come on, 14 times in a row she had an advantage?
And Quality Road? Please.....Is that gonna be your new best hope?
The last time I seen him, he was melting down in California.
Who else you got on the short list in case Rachel doesn\'t come back 100% and Quality Road decides to meltdown again? It\'s a long time between now and the Spa, gives you a lot of time to find some other live ones.
Also, I asked you to please help me with the TG number that Zardana received on Saturday, since I know you\'re usually the first one to declare. What was her number? Was it a new top on dirt?
Mike in 2010
So the last time you saw QR, was in California. Where were you when he generated a sonic boom at GP?
I think QR anywhere near top form takes Zenyatta down. Obviously on dirt. She can make up 12 lengths at nine furlongs non-synthetic runners, but she would need to catch him after fractions that would leave her with 20 or more lengths to make up. Unless the track were very slow, she would never get close enough to read his bumper sticker.
I still think that the horse that had the best chance to win, even on the Cushion Track (ever wonder why they call it that?) surface, on BC day was QR and he mysteriously freaked. Somebody else come into my conspiracy corner, please...
Leamas
The last time I saw QR was at the BC in Nov. Santa Anita is Pro Ride, not Cushion.
He ran a big figure a month or so ago. Since Zenyatta only runs good ones on the artificial in California, I\'m waiting for QR to run a good one somewhere besides GP.
I have got to admit, while on sabbatical from racing and focusing on more important things like family, health, work, golf....(yes golf), NBA Basketball...lol( we actually have an NBA team in Charlotte unlike NYC, NJ, Philly etc), this is the most entertaining read for a horse racing forum out there. Many other boards are way to vanilla for my taste...this board has a Baskin Robbins 31 flavors feel to it (maybe it\'s Fudgie the Whale...i don\'t know)...not that any cares about my two cents worth anyway....
sight hit it best, geez folks it\'s a couple of prep races, we have a long way to go...so don\'t get the agida going this early over the RA vs Z thing.....Although i was really impressed with Z\'s ability to shift gears in stretch more like a running back avoiding tackles....
NC Tony
And Quality Road? Please.....Is that gonna be your new best hope?
The last time I seen him, he was melting down in California.
Small,
If you think Z is as fast as QR/Rachel at best,no point in discussing.You are a fan, I am not, I could care less about either horse but note their unprecedented accomplishments. When they race, I know who\'s faster going in,all things equal, and appreciate \"fan\" money in the pools.
Zardana looked like a TG 1 (if JB agrees with Beyer/Hopkins) but in any event a big new top for sure if her previous top was what you posted.She is obviously much faster on dirt.
Mike
Thanks Mike,
I REALLY like QR and Rachel. I want them both at their best. For them to come back and be racing as 4 year olds is what we all want, who isn\'t tired of the good 3 year olds sailing off into the breeding shed just when they were getting good? That point makes it hard to be a \"fan\" because you just know the Bernadini\'s, the Smarty Jones, etc and leaving the public arena. How great for the sport was it when Curlin came back and ran at 4?
Man, you put a race together with Rachel and QR, throw in Zenyatta, a healthy Summer Bird and maybe 2-3 other top flight dirt horses and we got ourselves a horse race to discuss, \"probably\" wager on, and definitely a huge tv and live crowd, and a lot of wagering interest.
I know you appreciate \"fan\" money, as we all do, but trust me, I don\'t play races with any serious money. But, I do enjoy putting a couple bucks down on these type races.
Since Zardana ran a big new top on dirt, and yes her previous numbers from the TG sheets are in order from her last 7 races prior to Saturday: (T) 6,6,7,6,5, and AW 4,5 then it is possible, since Zardana is a 6 year old mare now for one that OLD and that SLOW to jump up to a new top, unlikely, but it did happen. Her turf races were all at a FLAT mile, and her two previous AW races were 8.5 furlongs like last Saturday at the FG. Plus, her past numbers show she is the consistent type. But, I don\'t think she\'s ever gonna be confused with Zenyatta, do you?
If Zardana ran a TG 1, as you suggest, that\'s a 3-4 pt jump over her previous top? But, her coming from a Turf and AW background showed nothing to suggest that she was capable of running a big new top, in fact, she just proved it could be done. Although it\'s not likely, Zenyatta could replicate that type of improvement. A 3-4 point forward move would put Z at least, in the \"hunt\" with Rachel and QR\'s best races ever, right? Again, not likely, but last Saturday proved it is possible. Thus, as you say, \"waxing\" Z could prove to be difficult.
On paper, Zenyatta, having run -1,-0,-1,-0,-1,0,0,-1: \"appears\" to be a solid 4 to 5 point better animal than Zardana, on Zardana\'s best day. To me, the \"unknown\" with Zenyatta on the regular dirt adds a lot of intrigue to a potential matchup with Rachel or QR. After all, don\'t we already know what QR and Rachel have run on their \"best\" days? Hell, Zenyatta may just be a 0 or -1 on the dirt, but what if she isn\'t?
In looking at Zardana\'s 2 previous AW 8.5 furlong races at Santa Anita, her late pace numbers were 95 and 85. In Zenyatta\'s 8.5 furlong races at Santa Anita her late pace numbers were 130 and 128, that equates to between 17 and 21 lengths difference. Not including 4 other 8.5 furlong races at DMR/HOL Park which were 117, 105, 113, and 121. To think that Zenyatta wouldn\'t FLY PAST Zardana in the stretch is not realistic. It would be ugly in the stretch.
Again, Mike thanks for the TG number.