There were a bunch of factors that contributed to Cali Chrome\'s loss on Saturday but one factor was that he was forced down inside early in the race
I\'m not making any assertions as to how much of a factor that was but it clearly didn\'t help matters for him
A bunch of folks on the board (myself included) and in other places had suggested all Triple Crown that this horse would be vulnerable if he was forced down on the inside as his previous weak races came when he was down there and Victor has been very clear about his intent to keep him in the clear throughout his campaign
I thought, erroneously, that he would be pinned down inside in the Derby/Preakness and or forced very wide in those races but Victor and the horse did a terrific job of making good trips for themselves and the horse ran big both times
Saturday was a different story and here\'s my question:
Did the other riders intentionally pin him down there or was it just the break and luck that caused him to be down there?
Reminded me of the Big Brown Belmont when he broke akwardly and was pinned down in there and clearly resented it. He was another one that up until the Belmont had been in the clear in his prior races and didn\'t run his race when pinned down inside (there were obviously other factors at work there as well).
I watched the replay a bunch of times and I can\'t decide for myself if Rosie and Javier had him boxed in on purpose or if it was just luck that he got pinned down there
I\'m trying to decide how much credit to give the other jocks when they get in similar situations going forward so any thoughts would be appreciated.
thanks all
I am not saying he would have won; but if you are on \"the best horse\" you have an inside draw and speed in a race with out much pace, you go to the lead.. he could have easily went but looked like he was trying to set up the same trip he had in Preakness and then got stuck inside. For what its worth CC did not look like a happy camper when forced into that position.. just my opinion
Jim,
Jimbo66, mjellish, myself and others felt Chrome emptied out pretty hard in the Preakness. I knew that Chrome had needed 3 more strides to finish the the final 1/8th in the Preakness vs. the Derby, so that\'s always guaranteed to show the horse has been hard used, especially in the short spacing races.
Chrome was positioned fine early but definitely was stuck in a pocket with no place to go until almost the mile marker. When he shifted out just before the 1/2 mile pole Chrome had no excuse to not win the race, if he would have been good enough. He got out finished by several horses.
Victor said Chrome had very little left at the 5/16 pole, and it became apparent that Chrome lacked that burst that he\'d shown for the last 6-7 races.
He ran bravely down the lane, and showed his grit, but the tank was nearing empty.
Have a good one
Covel:
A minute or two after CalChrome arrived in the paddock, NBC commentators
showed a very calm CC and made the usual \"Nothing bothers him. Docile like a
stable pony. Unflappable.\" comments.
With about 15 minutes to post time, the same calm CC, the same comments.
Finally, about a minute before they were to leave the paddock, Bailey
commented that CC\'s \"calmness\" might be a cause for concern.
After the race, Bailey commented that he thought that Espinoza did a good job
of working CC to the outside in the late stages in the race. Randy Moss
disagreed vehemently, saying that Espinoza should have used CC\'s speed to
establish position early.
CC\'s \"backyard bred\" pedigree made for a good story but was exposed in the
Belmont.
Yes. They race rode him into a position where he was clearly not comfortable. They did the same thing to Big Brown. Victor should have used him enough early to secure clear sailing although they probably would have then just strung him out to the outside rail.
Agree with Moss. Also, with wins in the derby and the Preakness, CC had more than outrun his backyard pedigree. To boot, his Belmont was a very good performance considering his troubled position early, his wide trip late and third effort in 5 weeks. Hats off to him. He\'s dead game. Expect to hear more from him down the road. Hopefully nothing more from the owner.
Jim-- first of all, you meant to say a bunch of possible factors.
I thought it was clear before they got to the first turn that CC didn\'t have the energy he had in previous races. Horses that didn\'t figure to run away from him early did, and that was clearly not what Espinoza wanted-- it was the horse.
Richie-- same with the pedigree angle. You\'re going to have a hard time convincing me that he had enough pedigree to win the Derby but not the Belmont.
I\'ll see what the day looks like when I get it, but the single biggest noteworthy thing about the 2014 Belmont is how slow it went vs. the Brooklyn (and thank God they ran another 1 1/2 race). Yeah, they carried a lot more weight. But Norembega isn\'t a world beater, and there were three together at the wire.
covelj70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I watched the replay a bunch of times and I can\'t
> decide for myself if Rosie and Javier had him
> boxed in on purpose or if it was just luck that he
> got pinned down there
I only watched the replay a couple of times so I could certainly be wrong but it didn\'t appear that Victor was trying to get Chrome outside at any point prior to the move outside he eventually made, can\'t recall him ever looking over his shoulder to see if an opening was available. While it didn\'t look like Chrome was fighting the jockey, being pinned in the first 7 furlongs or so couldn\'t have been the trip they were looking for.
Monday morning handicapping... but imo Victor should have sent just enough to get Chrome and Commissioner relatively clear of the other pace types. Once clear he could cede the lead and more easily position Chrome outside into the stalking trip that worked so well for him in the Derby and Preakness. Then again unless Victor perused this board, and read your thoughtful foresight, he probably didn\'t see Commissioner going to the lead either and really didn\'t know what to make of the pace in the race.
\"You\'re going to have a hard time convincing me that he had enough pedigree to win the Derby but not the Belmont.\"
Damn my eyes but isn\'t that what just happened? And by your figures he ran a 0 in the Derby which stacks up favorably to any \"better bred\" Derby winner in the post steroid era. To boot, his nicking pattern is A++.
Your point?
I\'m afraid Victor had one thought in his mind and that was don\'t move too early. That box was death.
He did have enough pedigree to win the Derby but not the Belmont.
I have heard countless times on here that Trainers sometimes are not the best source to guesstimate a \"bounce is coming\" than really about anyone else.
How many times did we hear from press and TV reports that the \"horse seemed to be thriving on the work\".....and then when Victor said he had nothing at the half pole, well now you know!!
I do believe they tried to box him in a tad and Javier even left a small rail hole if he was gonna take the bait and get up in there. Victor didn\'t and I don\'t know that it mattered. The horse didn\'t have the energy required to punch. But to his credit gave it all he had. The other 2 Triple Crown participants hardly finished and dont think other Trainers will not notice.....
Thanks for giving this horse his due. Sorry to hear we won\'t be seeing him again until the fall. Seems like a rather long freshening.
JB,
I get it that you think it was the bounce and not the trip or the pedigree that got to him
that aside, I am still wondering if you have an opinion as to whether Javier and Rosie had the guts to race ride in this setting?
I will leave the debates about why he ran how he ran to other folks, I am just trying to make the data base more robust for next time
thoughts on if they race rode?
When I saw CC\'s workout before the Belmont, I thought then that I was seeing a drained horse, because his poverty crease was so pronounced. Then everyone started raving about the work, and about his condition and weight gain, and I thought \"What do I know?\" Still, I almost had the trifecta: I picked Tonalist, Medal Count, and Wicked Strong (my order).
Yeah, that\'s obviously exactly what happened, cause and effect, because there were no other variables.
I thought the guys on the outside did what they figured to do-- I think I said something after the draw about the outside horses having riders and trainers that were ground conscious (one of which was Clement, and Tonalist was wide anyway). I think the top and third start in 5 weeks probably got to CC, but as I said in ROTW I have no good read on this horse.
Meanwhile, didn\'t you and I have a conversation where you told me distance pedigree was more important in the Derby than Belmont?
He got stepped on right out of the gate.
Is it possible that had something to do with his inability to get to the front and establish position?? Thought I read somewhere that Victor wanted to go on but CC didn\'t have the acceleration to do so.
Yet another variable. It\'s tough to do cause and effect relationships with a sample size of one.
That\'s one of the good things about what we do for the Derby seminar-- by now we have a lot of data, and breaking it down into groups (new tops etc.) smoothes out the other variables.
I most definitely never said pedigree was more important in Derby than Belmont
I even put up a post about the Brooklyn/Belmont double last week where I said why I wasn\'t posting alot ahead of the race (because this race is about who can get distance and not the figures). I obviously use the figures for the Derby (and most other races) and since I don\'t for the Belmont, I would say it\'s pretty clear I think pedigree more important for Belmont than Derby
As I mentioned, I don\'t want to get into why he didn\'t run well, that\'s for others to decide/debate, I\'m just trying to get a fix on which jockeys are willing to do whatever it takes to win for future reference
I guess the diff between vermin and champion is about two lengths at a mile and a half then?
jeez.
Energy level pre race was below par. Ride was not inspired. Foot injured. 4 path at the 5/16 that day no bargain. 2-3 lane was juiced.
Beaten 2L for the whole enchalada.
You figure it out.
Mr. C.,
Take a few minutes and go to the Belmont Archives and see if any horse that has not run at least a TG \"4\" in their 3 year old season has won the Belmont. One of the rules I have on the Belmont is not to play any non TG \"4\" horse to WIN the Belmont, but if they have a slight forward moving pattern to a recent TG \"5\" and especially if they got that # on an off-track, I do give them a shot to hit the board in the Belmont. Especially if that trainer is TAP.
Have a good one.
JB, get used to nasal strips. They\'re legal, they\'re here to stay and they\'re no big deal. Get over it.
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Energy level pre race was below par. Ride was not
> inspired. Foot injured. 4 path at the 5/16 that
> day no bargain. 2-3 lane was juiced.
>
> Beaten 2L for the whole enchalada.
>
> You figure it out.
Yeah Boscar, I get all that.
I watched the race, saw everything you just mentioned.
It was a specific question regarding his inability to get to the lead, due to being stepped on.
A lot more weight indeed. 9 pounds in a mile handicap race would have many trainers scratching the favorite. Here they carried it another 1/2 mile. With that and going out quicker, it\'s no wonder they limped home in comparison.
You\'re right, exactly what I meant. The only possible variables were his pedigree, or the nasal strips he had in the Belmont AND his previous races.
This is a great question that Jim asks, and my gut feeling would be to say no, that jocks aren\'t thinking about putting other horses in jackpot situations, they\'re just worried about their own mount and giving that mount the best possible trip they can.
This is what you see in the stretch a lot of times, with someone slipping up the rail, this shows me that jocks arent worried about other horses, they\'re just trying to make their mount go as fast as possible to the wire.
wasn\'t referring directly to your post.
I haven\'t been able to see a head on of the start , for some reason the NYRA replays omit them for SAT.
I would imagine that if he was stepped on out of the gate, the initial pain of that might have been a significant factor.
still looks like a very tenuous ride, plus the gang up did him in. Could be even if he had the lead at the 1/4 as was obviously expected, he\'d have folded. No way to know.
I don\'t know how much credit to give the other jocks,seeing if all them gang up to beat 1 horse they pretty much give up any chance to win themselves.
I believe Victor when he says the horse was not himself.
Chrome did have a decent part of his hoof removed from being stepped on at the break. Was it sore throughout the race? Was he tired? Was it the extra weight from the Sketchers blanket? Who know\'s?
Horse lost a mile and a half race by a length and a half not a bad performance.
Jim
When the decision was made by victor to let the Commissioner go on with it, there was no race riding. Just a jockey decision.
Rosario missed the break a bit and sensing the slow pace he eased his horse up down the backstretch, albeit losing ground on the turn.
So, sure, at that point chrome was down inside.
But a big difference between the way he was down inside this time versus the race MJ pointed to last year. In those races he was rank and climbing. Uncomfortable. He settled fine in the Belmont. No pulling. No rank ness. He was a spent horse. Racing always creates diverse opinions because there are so many factors. But this was one that was pretty clear to me. He was hard used in the Preakness. Figured to be pointing toward empty unless he was a freak. Once he let a plodder like commissioner outrun him to the lead, I knew he was not the same horse. Espinoza eased him off the rail and he had a chance to win but made up no ground and lost ground late. To a slowish horse in commissioner and Tonalist who got a 4w trip around 1.5 mile track.
The 3 races in 5 weeks got him.
I am shocked at the number of people, including Beyer who want to blame Espinoza. This was not as clear as big brown who was a completely dead horse, but I thought it was pretty clear chrome was over the top and victor didn\'t have a lot of options
I suspect that if victor did go to the lead, we would NOT have seem the slow fractions. Rosario would have pressed them pace if it was chrome up front. The fact that it was commissioner up top and chrome down inside made Rosario and the other jockeys feel comfortable with their position and the pace. Which almost got commissioner home.
Not being on the lead at some point before the 1/8 pole was an almost certain recipe for defeat.
You\'d think that would have been in the plan. If he thought he had \"no horse\", he certainly rode the hair off him down the stretch.
Tough game.
Chrome got a better trip than the winner. By a lot.
If he was good enough he wins.
Nobody ganged up on him. Silly comment. This was not smarty jones. The pace was 24 and 48 and change on a fast track. He could have set it, instead got a tucked inside trip and relaxed well during it.
No punch late.
No excuses (except the grabbed quarter, which could be a big exception, but I think there is some evidence to suggest he was just a tired horse).
Tough to fire three big ones in 5 weeks at these distances. Especially as the breed continues to evolve with more and more speed influences as opposed to stamina.
considering what i read daily on the boards, I feel out of place if I don\'t make at least one silly comment.
maybe you\'d like to wise up this Sherman guy who said
\"I was watching the race, and down the backside he was in all kinds of trouble," Sherman said. "Victor was trying to get him out. They were pushing him down in there and he had no racing room. But, hey, listen, the horse has had six straight races with perfect trips. Sometimes, in this game, when you have a bad trip, that's part of it. Racing luck means a lot. Being a former rider, I know that."
probably just imagined it because he trains the dang horse.
There are no coincidences.
\"I\'ll see what the day looks like when I get it, but the single biggest noteworthy thing about the 2014 Belmont is how slow it went vs. the Brooklyn (and thank God they ran another 1 1/2 race). Yeah, they carried a lot more weight. But Norembega isn\'t a world beater, and there were three together at the wire\"
JB,
So far Tonalist Belmont win:
Beyer 100 equal to a TG 1
Rags 6 equal to a TG 2.5
Timeform 102 equal to a TG 2
TG figs,having both Tonalist and Commissioner a little on the slow side going in, imo,should be interesting.Highlights the different creative license portion of what goes into making speed/performance figs.
Mike
This is where I get a headache and don\'t envy figure makers. Rags has ground loss, and Tonalist was wide so they had it WAY slower than Beyer.
Sek,
Of all the fig makers,Rags stays closest to the clock. If a race comes up slow on the day,adjusted for track speed at the distance,it gets a slow figure, period! no wiggle room, not the case with most other fig makers.
But do you really need anyone to suggest the race was slow based on the glib surface, the Brooklyn,the Belmont splits and the stagger fest home in 26 seconds?
Mike
Actually, as Miff can tell you, Jake guys almost always overstate ground loss for \"wide\" horses-- they should have him faster relative to the second finisher than we do.
Miff-- it\'s not simply a matter of creative license (judgment)-- there are differences in methodology which force certain figure makers to certain conclusions in certain situations, no matter what figures result. Not kidding about that. A few years ago a Rag guy (David Patent?) posted here that they gave Paseana something like a 15 when she won a GI by more than 10 lengths.
Their definition of a correct figure is one that results from a specific process, period. What makes it worse is that the process is not founded in logic or science (see \"Changing Track Speeds\").
\"Miff-- it\'s not simply a matter of creative license (judgment)-- there are differences in methodology which force certain figure makers to certain conclusions in certain situations, no matter what figures result. Not kidding about that. A few years ago a Rag guy (David Patent?) posted here that they gave Paseana something like a 15 when she won a GI by more than 10 lengths\"
JB,
I agree for the most part but to insist that horses at a certain level,as a group, never can have an off day, ie, a slow performance, is not credible.The greatest athletes in the world, human or equine, can underperform at any time for a host of reasons.
Sometimes,I identify fig makers dismissing the clock,the most slippery slope one can take when making or gambling off such figs.Peeking back/projection off back races is a fine tuning process imo, but should not dominate the fig, the adjusted clock should always be overweight in making figs.
Mike
The issue is not whether anyone has an off day (and even in that discussion, since you have to make the same correction to all of them, the question would be whether they ALL had an off day at the same time).
The entire question centers around the belief (as stated clearly in Ragozin\'s book) that tracks do not change speed unless there is rain, a freeze or thaw during the card. That forces them to use the same variant all day long-- which in effect means using an AVERAGE variant for ALL races on days when it does change speed.
Paul thinks that when he was there they had some kind of artificial rule along the lines that you could change a variant no more than 1 point from one race to the next even when there was rain.
And forget about splitting one and two turn races. They believe that relationship is a constant (they are the only figure makers I ever heard of that do). Just like the sprint/route issues they have in SoCal, if you look at their NY figures you will see the route horses almost always have their tops in the one turn routes at Belmont and Aqu.
Spoke to many fig makers, never anyone at Rags so I will not guess their mo though I have a feel from conversions.No question they are seen to be one of the top fig makers along with TG and Beyer from from those involved in the game, owners, trainers,gamblers.Their figs stack up in conversion overall to TG and Beyer, whereas, for example, the computer generated type figs have been dropped as being too inconsistent.
There is science/data provided by Dr.Mick Peterson regarding the measuring of track speed which confirms that tracks can/do change speeds,mainly due to weather or maintenance. Quantifying how much track speed is being affected/changed,during a given day, is another story.
From my standpoint,looking back/projecting to establish by how much a track may have changed speed TODAY is nothing more than backing into a fig,it\'s so so methodology. I can easily argue that the track speed of a horse\'s previous race is completely irrelevant in establishing today\'s track speed.Looking back to fine tune a fig is one thing, looking back to tweak to days track speed is another.(understand the process brings similar results)
Never will buy that a fig should look pretty or fit on paper,but should only reflect today\'s performance without preconceived notions regarding prior performance/ability.
You know, I get the feeling you never watched Changing Track Speeds.
I contacted Peterson (and his predecessor, George Pratt, and others) before putting together that presentation for the DRF Expo. They sent me emails which I show there saying all that. Peterson also sent one saying basically the best method for quantifying track \"speed\" is the one we use.
That method, dubbed \"projection\" by Crist, is a form of regression analysis, recognized everywhere as a scientific statistical tool. The important questions, always, come when you decide what to leave in and what to leave out when doing your analysis. And once you know tracks are capable of changing speed, you understand it is unsafe to make the ASSUMPTION they don\'t.
If you break down your third paragraph, you will find that the only way NOT to do it the way you don\'t like is to make the assumption the track stays the same and use an average. Try it and see.
Yea, but with a track capable of changing speeds from minute to minute, or hour to hour, looking back days or weeks to a previous race, re track speed today,is irrelevant, but in any case, by how much a track changed speed, a pure guess.
I wonder how the question was posed to Mick, because the answer you say he gave is not in his makeup, ie making too many assumptions.
I emailed you the whole email exchange with Peterson from 10 years ago, too much work to put it together for presentation here. You can report back to the masses.
Every single scientist I approached who had studied racing surfaces said the same thing about them changing throughout the day, they are quoted in the Archives presntation.
Interesting read on more subjective cause and effect from the other side of the pond: https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/california-chrome-and-belmont-defence-victor-espinoza
rhagood:
The Euro article makes sense to me. It is logically sound. Thanks!
What actually happened, as I currently understand it, is one TAP horse rushed up, pinned CC against the rail and stepped on his foot. A second TAP horse got in front of CC and slowed the pace to a crawl. The angry neophyte owner used the word cheaters.
A 200K bet on the (11/1 = 9/1) winner as/after the race starts. And I thought the Ragozin board poster expecting 3/1 on Tonalist was deluded. Tapit is now a stamina influence?
For a Wall Street Celebrity to even ask the original question is no coincidence.
Sticking to the obvious.CC was over the top and could not finish the last quarter in 25.68 to win the TC,it was that simple.Over a Belmont surface that was as glib as any in his past 5 races, his sharp late run was absent.Check his last split in the Belmont vs his 5 previous races.Not a late pace fig guy but they had to drop off in the Belmont vs his previous figs as did his whole fig.
Five fast performances in a row finally wore him down enough for a couple of slower types to outrun him. Also doubt they beat him at any distance on near his best day.The foot, the inside, the race riding,if any, were all irrelevant if he was not a tired horse. That was unknown from sources that observed him for two weeks as he outwardly looked fine.
Simple look at his TG sheet tells the story clearly, he bounced.
I bounced off the floor when I read you using the word bounced. Kool aid with breakfast today?
Have you, or has anyone else, learned anything worth sharing about the source of the rumored $200K win bet.
Congrats om last Sunday\'s 5th if that was you! The last 5/16 looked exciting from the chart.
Dan B from West Palm beach kennel who won the $6.6 million pick six at Gulf,rumored to have hit the Belmont for app $1.8 million.Dont know if it was the $200K win bet or exotics.Know he liked Tonalist.