Did Exaggerator not like Belmont Surface?

[bobphilo]

I\'m usually skeptical of trainers blaming the surface for their horses\' poor performances but Keith D may have a point here. Looking at the photos of EX in the stretch it appears that his forelegs are sinking deeper into the Belmont surface than the other horses. He has a smaller hoof than most which usually indicates a preference for off tracks but might make him sink deeper into Big Sandy.
Just a theory. Any thoughts from the panel?
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/features/2016-belmont-stakes-race-sequence-212357

[sekrah]

I hope he doesn\'t actually believe what he said or else it\'s absurdity from a clueless trainer.

Didn\'t hear one complaint about him getting over the surface during his workout on the 7th.  \"Good energy, lots of fluidity, all systems go\" - Kent last week.

Horse very predictably retreated after running three 0.75s in 6 weeks.

[bobphilo]

I\'m not claiming this was the only reason for his poor performance. TC fatigue is also a likely factor. However, just because he had a good work at 6F doesn\'t mean he could duplicate it at 12. Could be the effect of a tiring track accumulates over a long distance. A wide trip and and being taken out of his preferred running style could also be factors.
The only excuses that don\'t make sense are Kent\'s where he blames everything except his ride. Hate to say this but maybe he was thinking better when he was drinking.

[sekrah]

I don\'t see any shred of evidence the track surface had anything to do with his failure yesterday.  

I see plenty of reasons to believe that he would have had the same performance on any surface.

This is a horse that ran tops or pairs on 8 different surfaces prior to Saturday\'s race.

Del Mar fast
Saratoga fast
Keeneland muddy
Delta Downs muddy
Santa Anita fast
Santa Anita sloppy
Churchill Downs fast
Pimlico sloppy

Suddenly this is a horse picky about surface?  Yeah, I doubt that.  Curlin - the one who the pedigree hawks rightfully point to for Exaggerator\'s sloppy track success - didn\'t have any problems at Belmont.  He went 2-2-0 in four G1 races there.

[miff]

Bob,

Awful ride by Kent D, track anything but tiring +180,EXaggerator completely empty for whatever reason.Exag is however 2-8 on dry surfaces 3-4 wet.

Mike

[bobphilo]

Maybe not, but what did you think of the photos were he seemed to be sinking deeper into the track than the other horses? Not denying the effects of his previous races but not every poor performance has only one explanation.

[sekrah]

He was a spent horse from the TC trail and had nothing left.  All horses that are shot and not in top form will sink deeper into the track.

[bobphilo]

Mike,

Track was not tiring in general. It just seemed from the photos that he wasn\'t handling it as well as the others.

Kent\'s explanation made no sense. He claims they were crawling early which shows he doesn\'t understand that what is a slow pace in a shorter race is solid in a 12 furlong marathon. Asmussen was right on the money when he started celebrating when he saw the early fractions set the race up perfectly for his closer, Creator.

[jimbo66]

Bob,

Despite Sekrah\'s over the top assertions in his response, truth be told it is hard to say.  

There are some pretty smart and astute observers that made the comment BEFORE the Belmont, that Exaggerator wasn\'t going to like the track:

1.  Brad Thomas - to my mind easily the sharpest of the public \"track handicappers\".  He talked about Exaggerator\'s stride, running action and running style before the race and how he thought he wouldn\'t handle Belmont.  

2.  Multiple workout people didn\'t like the workout.  Yes, it wasn\'t unanimous and some said he looked fine, but Welsch and others had their doubts.

Like you, I hate when trainers talk about excuses after the fact, and the bad performance by Exaggerator certainly looked like \"bounce\" and \"too many good figures in a short period of time\".  And perhaps it was just that, but I would not bet Exaggerator back on that surface from what I saw.

As for wet track vs dry track, while more of Exaggerators wins were on a wet track, he had fine figures on a dry track as well.  And the performance WAS SO AWFUL and unlike anything he has done before, can\'t say it was because the track wasn\'t wet IMO.  

Jim

[bobphilo]

How does fatigue make a horse sink deeper? Actually a fresher horse going faster would hit the track harder and sink deeper if anything. Besides, horses who were more exhausted than him were not sinking as deep.

[sekrah]

Because as they tire their action gets slower, therefore they are in contact with the dirt longer than if they were fresh and fit.  Watch Quarter horse races.  Horses that were super fast last time out will suddenly get stuck in the same track next time out when they aren\'t as physically sharp.

[jimbo66]

Bob,

The numbers pretty clearly say Kent was right and Asmussen was wrong.  The pace was not fast at all.  

2016  24  48.2  1:13.1   2:28.2

2015  24  48.4  1:13.2   2:26.3
2014  24  48.2  1:12.4   2:28.2
2013  23  46.3  1:10.4   2:30.3


Sort of throw out American Pharaoh who was  cut above and the you look at:

This year   Out in 1:13.1 home in 1:15.1
2014        Out in 1:12.4 home in 1:15.3
2013        Out in 1:10.4 home in 1:19.4

The pace was slow to par.  The track was fast.  Exaggerator being a  few lengths off the lead was NOT because Kent rode him poorly.  (not that being 4 wide early was smart, but the pace was very mediocre and you had to think dropping back 15 lengths like the Preakness would be a bad idea.)

People love to kill Desormeaux.  Anybody that watched Saturday and thinks Exaggerator was in the Superfecta with any kind of ride should quit the game because they don\'t understand it.  Exaggerator was almost as empty as Big Brown was.  (yes, I still run into people that say Kent botched that ride too, which is even sillier)

Now, you want to say he moved early on Real Quiet.  I don\'t know.  Certainly a possibility.  But that took a hall of fame ride and one of the best I have ever seen in a big spot by Stevens, to run him down by a dirty nostril, so can\'t kill him for that one either.

Jim

[miff]

Maybe a few too many wines at dinner but to suggest one can \"see\" how deeply a horse is going while powering thru a dirt or any surface is something I\'ve never heard in 50 years.

[sekrah]

Anyone have an example of a horse running 5+ slow on a specific dirt course after have no problem over many other tracks?

To chalk up his performance Saturday to the course is quite insane.

[jimbo66]

Sekrah,

Is it your reading or comprehension that has regressed in the last two years?

Pretty sure I didn\'t say the performance was purely related to the track surface.

As for your question.  Of course.  Literally 100\'s of examples.  Every year.  Horses for courses, and other horses that don\'t run well at certain courses.  Lava Man never ran a number outside california on dirt.  Skip away couldn\'t get a number at Churchill.  Many others.  

Glad to see your eye has gotten keener.  You can see quarter horses sinking into the track like quicksand.  Hmm.....  

Jim