Random meaningless thoughts:
Based on Chromes line going in he looked explosive to me. Presenting sort of a \"now or never\" moment because he ahd been at that 0 range for a few months. At short odds he was unbeatable (and almost unusable). The figure looks a little faster than I thought but what do I know....
So off 4 weeks rest Chrome backup on Ragozin in the Derby and then made a significant 3+ pt forward move on 2 weeks rest. Easy read....GOT IT!!!
If Chrome runs a 0 in the Belmont does that constitute a \"bounce\" or a solid effort at a distance he doesn\'t specialize at and will have done tough work over a 5 week period?? I don\'t think it does....
The Filly is still faster.
When you say the filly is faster do these numbers take into account that CC has been geared down in every race this season. He has never been asked for a full run in the stretch.
Im new to this.. just asking questions.
No way Chrome was geared down in the Preakness. He ran fairly fast early, fought off an early move by Social Inclusion and then had to fend off Ride On Curlin late. He was all out to win the Preakness. Whipping him harder in deep stretch would have made no difference.
Now add another 5/16ths and try to do it all over again in 3 weeks against a tougher field. That is the task in front of this colt.
IMO, the difference in time difference between geared down and all-out is less than what people think. He wasn\'t being pulled up. The difference is probably less than 2 lengths, likely closer to 1 more often than not. It might look like the jockey has given up pushing him, but it\'s more of an illusion than anything that the horse is actually running slower. The final furlong of the SA Derby was 12 2/5 and he couldn\'t have looked more \"geared down\" than that. Doubt very much that he woulda clicked sub 12 there. He was running harder than it looked.
Not pushed hard the last few jumps (after being pushed for 95% of the race) and \"geared down\" (the rider slowing the horse down) are two different things. In the first case the difference is probably negligible.
Yeah, a good example of \"geared down\" would be that old-timer lady jockey race earlier that day where the 2nd place finisher was on an open lead and the jock stood up in the saddle 10 jumps prior to the line, costing the horse the race.
Am I wrong in thinking that CC looks A LOT like Funny Cide... though raced more heavily as a 2yo
twoshoes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Am I wrong in thinking that CC looks A LOT like
> Funny Cide... though raced more heavily as a 2yo
No comparison. Funny Cide didn\'t wear nasal strips.
Their three races leading up to the Belmont certainly mirror each other, within a point. FC had a slightly more distinguished, and shorter, two year old campaign until CC ran his eyeballs out at the end. Apart from the numbers, their Preakness experience was quite different. I can\'t remember the specifics of FC\'s race, but it was a nondescript field, and his -1 was definite overkill over runner up, Midway\'s, 4. I can\'t imagine he was used beginning, middle and end the way that CC was. Then again, maybe he wouldn\'t have been able to do it, either.
At 9-5 Funny Cide was no gift but towered over the field. The clincher for me was Santo\'s motivation to show the horse and rider were both legit and that he wasn\'t carrying a device as erroneously reported first by the Miami Herald based on a blurry photo. IF he had saved something in reserve instead of winning by the 3rd largest margin (9 3/4 lengths) in Preakness history, the tank may not have been emptied. I doubt it cost him a triple crown as Empire Maker with a healed foot and bred out the wazoo for the distance stood in his way. If Empire Maker had not missed training in the run up to the Derby, he most likely would have been the winner, even so he scored a 0 on TG vs a 1 for Funny Cide as Bailey gave him a very wide and over confident ride considering his missed training.
Chrome in contrast looks to be the best of his male generation although not as dominant on the figures as in winning margins. Chrome also has more gears at his disposal and a quicker turn of foot. I think he could run faster against the clock but seems very aware of his surroundings and competition. He had Ride on Curlin measured and kept his speed equal to ROC the last eight once he had him in sight despite being forced to move prematurely at the half mile pole. Very athletic and very savvy but it does not guarantee anything. There are a 1,000 ways to lose a race and only a few ways to win.
Doesn\'t logic suggest that when the drug protocols tighten, the horses will go back? Derby numbers seem to me to have gotten uniformly slower since 2007. Again, it seems, just on the face of it, that changes in PEDs monitoring may allow more error to slip into numbers which rely more heavily on projection methodology (what a horse has done in the past with perhaps lesser drug monitoring). If true, the surprise would be if 19 didn\'t go back? As much as I hate the drug culture in racing, and appreciate your determined outspokenness about it, I think the changes from one venue to another would create havoc for number-makers.
Everything else aside, it was not the only race on the card with those protocols, and even I don\'t think 19 out of 20 guys are cheating. Literally zero chance those numbers are right. The only question is whether they ran even faster than I gave them, not 3 slower.
They also got the Preakness a couple of points slow relative to scale (meaning the rest of the horse population), but at least that one is defensible internally. They did it exactly as I predicted here.
\"They did it exactly as I predicted here\"
...ahem, not much of a prediction!
I mean that they gave the winner his 2yo top on their stuff.
oh, thought you meant that he just went forward.
Which brings up-- hey Vito. I\'m going to take a wild shot here. And say that of the 19 Derby horses that went back on Jake, at least 17 go forward in their next one,on Jake. When that happens you can explain how.