After months of prepping Dry Martini for the Bowling Green, it was disappointing to see such a tough bunch entered in just a $150,000 race. But after looking at the sheets, maybe we can be competetive. We know the horse is fit, the last race just being a prep. He loved the grass and the distance suits. I am a novice at reading the sheets, so would love to see this race be the ROTW-or any of you with input would be appreciated.
I wish I could come up with some knocks on the top two in the race, Al Khali and Winchester...but I\'d be reaching.
Dry Martini has some back numbers to run to, though, and on his best he can be right there with the top two.
The horse that concerns me the most is the Goldberg horse, Strike A Deal -- he might seem a step slower than the top two, but Goldberg has been getting prices home lately, somewhat under the radar (no surprise at TG, see $23.80 BEST BET at Monmouth, Race 8 on Labor Day), and having Dominguez aboard sure doesn\'t hurt.
You got it, though you won\'t like what I have to say.
That\'s ok, tell t like it is. You were right about DM when I met you for the Whitney a couple years ago.
Rick:
My opinion on this may start a whole different discussion.
The \"magic\" training methods , IMO, do not work at 1 3/8 on the grass. Horsemanship, class, pedigree, (and numbers) are what get it done on the weeds going long.
Ever notice that you don\'t get any Gio Pontis, Winchesters, Tellings, or Al Khalis coming out of a Dutrow, Mullins, Lake, or Rudy Rodriquez barn.
Whatever success Strike a Deal had in the past had nothing to do with trainers like Goldberg suddenly catching fire.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
I\'m guessing Dry Martini is using this as a prep for the JCGC. A 1 1/4 on dirt sounds better, although it would not shock me if he hit the board tomorrow. This is not exactly the BC Turf.
I will actually use Interpretation in exactas. Belmont is kinder to the less athletic types and his last was not that bad. I look at Channing Hill as an improvement over Lezcano, the human anchor.
Agree with TG assessment of Al Khali. With his turn of foot, he will be very tough if he can handle 1 3/8 which may be more likely here as it is 2 turns, not 3.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
jbelfior Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I look at Channing Hill
> as an improvement over Lezcano, the human anchor.
>
>
Are you serious??? Channing Hill??
That field in the sword dancer was grade 3 at best so i\'m not playing anyone coming out of that race..I\'ll take my chances with Winchester. The Chris Clement horses always seem to have slow-looking numbers but tend to win a lot anyway. He has numbers, is hard knocking and loves distance.
Simmard is the X factor for me in this one, he looks like he was on his way to being a nice horse but got hurt in 08 and then again in 09 and he came back off that layoff in 2010 and looks like he got hurt again so i\'m not keen on him here but his works have been good and Johnny V is up so i\'ll make him my B horse and push Gabriel\'s hill in as a C horse just in case he somehow gets loose on the lead.
Jbelfior-this is definitely not a prep for the JCGP, which will prbly be too tough. This is the race DM has been pointed for, but it came up tougher than expected. 1 3/8 should not be a problem as he wasn\'t even blowing after going 1 5/8. That was his prep for this. He is fit and ready, just maybe a bit over his head. It is also not favorable that Grand Couturier and Winchester will be finishing late as well as DM. Oh well, we can always hope.
Lost:
Doesn\'t matter.....half of the field was scratched.
I\'m headed for Monmouth. Eye of Taurus just caught my \"eye.\"
Good Luck,
Joe B.
jbelfior Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The \"magic\" training methods , IMO, do not work at
> 1 3/8 on the grass. Horsemanship, class, pedigree,
> (and numbers) are what get it done on the weeds
> going long.
>
> Whatever success Strike a Deal had in the past had
> nothing to do with trainers like Goldberg suddenly
> catching fire.
Joe,
I thought Strike A Deal ran an absolutely huge race on the lead, missing the win by about a length and a half. The top two were simply too much.
Any chance you want to pull back a little on the training \"magic\" innuendo, and give Goldberg a little credit for some horsemanship instead?
Regards,
Rick B.
jbelfior Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lost:
>
> Doesn\'t matter.....half of the field was
> scratched.
>
>
> I\'m headed for Monmouth. Eye of Taurus just caught
> my \"eye.\"
>
> Good Luck,
> Joe B.
I still went hard on the 5-1 exacta and the 1-5 backup...and here comes TG ROTW pick to blow me up..blown up twice this week for big money. Oh well, won\'t be the last time..
Congrats to TG for picking Al Khali in the ROTW. I really wish you were wrong this time though.
Sorry Rick, can\'t do it.
He crawled in :26 and :25 splits and couldn\'t respond when the real running began.
I\'ll give Goldberg credit for the strategy, but not much else.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
jbelfior wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry Rick, can\'t do it.
>
> He crawled in :26 and :25 splits and couldn\'t
> respond when the real running began.
>
> I\'ll give Goldberg credit for the strategy, but
> not much else.
All due respect, I think you are being a little stubborn...that, or, your story is changing.
You said horsemanship was one of the components necessary to get a horse to perform well in these longer races, not training \"magic\" (with which you are clearly implying that Goldberg is juicing, or up to some other illegal hijinks).
Strike A Deal missed winning a 7,260 foot race by a mere 22 feet -- to breezily dismiss this effort as not being able to \"respond when the real running began\" is patently unfair: the horse did all the dirty work up front and came up about a second short. I don\'t know if you are a pace guy or not, but interior splits of :25 and :26 are pretty common in these longer route races.
Can a guy training from the bottle really get this sort of effort from a horse going 1 3/8 miles? The other day, your answer seemed to be \"no\".
Rick B wrote:
\"the horse did all the dirty work up front and came up about a second short.\"
Thus disproving poster MO\'s theory that lone \"dirty work\" invariably wins.
Rich Curtis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick B wrote:
>
> \"the horse did all the dirty work up front and
> came up about a second short.\"
>
> Thus disproving poster MO\'s theory that lone
> \"dirty work\" invariably wins.
\"Invariably\"?
Care to show me where I wrote that? Don\'t bother -- I know damn well I didn\'t write it; show me where I even inferred it...without using some convoluted construct of inverse logic, please.
I\'ll handle any rewrites of my posts, thank you. Meanwhile, it seems you invariably have nothing to do but stir the pot around here. Of course, that\'s only a theory.
Rick,
1: Push the \"search\" button.
2: Go to \"Search Messages.\"
3: Extend the date range to \"all dates.\"
4: Type in \"invariably wins,\" but don\'t use quotation marks.
5: Tell me what you read from poster \"MO,\" and tell me how many times you read it.
6: Then come back here and read my first reply to you (I\'m tempted to say \"for the first time\").
7: Then please make a vow that in the future, you will actually read the posts before you decide what they mean, and before you go into the patented Rick B freakout routine.
Rick:
I never said that I thought Goldberg was juicing. My point was specific to the \"supertrainers\" who, IMO, do not possess the horsemanship and skill required to win going long on turf.
The effort by Strike a Deal was ordinary for a horse of his credentials. I\'m guessing his number comes up ordinary as well. I was not impressed with the race.
Good Luck,
Joe B.