Always negative

[Thehoarsehorseplayer]

Well, anybody that runs, runs through pain all the time.  And most would concede the harder the surface the achier the run.  By itself this means nothing, but in the context of my argument my point is running on  hard dirt, rather than grass, adds another level of physical stress to the equation.  Unless, I\'m mistaken, I thought the purpose of synthetic tracks, was to reduce shock induced stress on the horses. Less stress,less aches and pains, fewer breakdowns, or so the theory goes. Or, in other words, dirt tracks were causing too much stress on the horses.

[covelj70]

I agree that I would like to see the race between those 2 on traditional dirt but Zenayatta ran the same number at Oaklawn on the dirt that she ran on the poly so I don\'t think Z is just a poly horse.

RA has already run alot faster than Z ever has but it would still be a very fun race.

[covelj70]

Mike,

We don\'t need to dig up the numbers.  TG already did it for us, it\'s right in the archives.  Horses who have run 2 negative or greater before July of their 3 year old year.  I won\'t take your bet because you lost already.  They run too big, they get knocked out.  It\'s not a debate, it\'s happened to everyone of them that has run 2 negative or more.  Not sure how many more it has to happen to before you believe that efforts of that magnitude knock horses out.  We might as well just fast forward to April of 2010 when 3 of the horses that have run 2 negatives or greater in Derby preps don\'t make the derby or finish up the track in the derby and paste in your \"Kool Aid\" comments about my views now because it\'s happended with EVERY SINGLE young 3 year old in the last 5 years.  No exceptions.  You think it\'s a string of random coincidences.  I find that hard to believe.

Jerkins hasn\'t ever had a 3 year old run that big of a number so I don\'t think talking to him would mean too much.  

I talk to my trainers about it all of the time and they agree with me (surprise surprise, I pay the bills and they yes me to death).

If I ever own the big horse and he/she runs a big negative number early I will either sell it immediately or put them on the shelf for an extended period to recover from the big effort.

As always, I don\'t mean to be too dogmatic in my views, I find the back and forth very very enjoyable so please don\'t take any of this as anything more than a bunch of degenerates having some good argumemnts.

[P-Dub]

jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agreed.  100%.
>
> They were great sportsmen.  The fact that they had
> the best dirt horse in the world, sent that horse
> to Dubai to run, brought him back and tried him on
> turf with the goal of running him in the Arc if he
> proved good enough, and then when he didn\'t, they
> ran him on the carpet at Santa Anita, proved to
> this gambler that they are sportsmen.
>

I don\'t know about being a great \"sportsman\".

The guy is 78 years old and is one of the wealthiest men in our country. So he has 2 choices:

-retire his star horse and watch him mount some mares in a barn and earn more money that he won\'t even begin to count.
- Be the center of attention at many major races around the world, watching his star race horses compete.

He\'s doing it for the thrill of competition, not because of anything resembling being a sportsman. What else is he going to do with Curlin??  Why do you think he bought RA?? So he can send her to the shed?? Can\'t wait to breed her to Curlin. Sure. I\'m sure thats the plan eventually, but its a distant second to the main reason.

Now, if he were 20-30 years younger, it would be much more \"sporting\" to continue to race instead of retiring these horses.

Take Rachel Alexandra. Price was no object, he was buying this horse. Period. Why??  Because at 78 years old, he knows you can\'t take your money with you to the grave. So he spends millions on RA so he can again be the center of attention of the racing world. Drop her right into the Preakness.  How sporting of him.

Look, if I had all that loot I would do the same thing. More power to him and good for him. He\'s earned his money and he can do whatever he pleases with it.  Buy some horses, have some fun. I get it.

Just don\'t call him a great sportsman.

[miff]

Cov,

Nice back in, first it was All horses that run big neg figures, now it\'s only 3 yr olds that ran 2 neg figs, anything else?

Who told you Smarty Jones/Big Brown were knocked out. Where do you get that nonsense from? I know the connections of both, VERY well, but guess you know more than the owners KNEW from the numbers on the piece of paper.


Pssst, it was the money in both cases, don\'t tell anyone, it\'s a secret.


Mike

[magicnight]

All that Derby and Preakness money weighed Brownie down going 12 poles?

[covelj70]

Mike,

you seem to be getting upset and I don\'t want that, this is suppossed to be fun.

My posts about big negative numbers knocking out horses were always intended to be about young 3 year olds.  Sorry if that wasn\'t clear in this thread.  I made it more clear in other threads.

I know some of the same guys that you know and, you\'re right, they don\'t think anything was wrong with BB before the Belmont or after the Belmont. Just a coincidence that he ran like crap in the Belmont and then only ran 1 more lifetime race.

It\'s really not a big deal, it\'s ok for you and I to be on different sides of an argument.  I believe that it\'s the big efforts that knock the young 3 year olds out and you believe its a series of random coincidences.  It could be that its been random in each of the cases we are talking about, you could be right.  I do not claim absolute knowledge but I would say that I think logic suggests that the big number is a common theme here and the horses that have stuck around never ran a huge number so young.  

Street Sense took alot of time off after the first 2 negative and he came back to top it.  When he came back quicker after the 2 negative in the Derby, he was never the same horse.  Coincidence?  

Curlin never ran a 2 negative as a young 3 year old and he stuck around, coincidence?  

Zenayatta has never put up one of those huge numbers and she\'s stuck around, coincidence?

I hope to hell it doesn\'t happen but it RA comes up with a chip, tendon, quarter crack, breathing problem, or a toothache that knocks her out, you will tell me I am drinking cool aid for saying it was the big effort and you will chalk it up to yet another random coincidence.

[miff]

\"I hope to hell it doesn\'t happen but it RA comes up with a chip, tendon, quarter crack, breathing problem, or a toothache that knocks her out, you will tell me I am drinking cool aid for saying it was the big effort and you will chalk it up to yet another random coincidence\"

Cov,

I know now you are pulling my leg cause if you aren\'t kidding about the above list of possible stuff, esp the toothache,you need help.Not angry at all, can tell you are a true believer who dismisses what Alan Jerkens might think in favor of a number on a piece of paper.Don\'t forget what happened to Jim Jones followers though!

To each his own.


Mike

[jimbo66]

Covelj,

Zenyatta never put up one of those \"big numbers\" because TG doesn\'t give \"big negative numbers\" to synthetic horses  The figures are compacted.  We have discussed it here many many times.

[covelj70]

only sort of kidding about the toothache

Rightly or wrongly, I am more inclined to believe numbers on a piece of paper.  The numbers aren\'t biased, people can be,  people sometimes believe what they want to believe, not what logic tells them.  I deal with this in the stock market everyday.  The numbers are usually right, people are too emotional.

No disrespect to Mr. Jerkins at all, I don\'t know him but I do know that he has forgotten more about horses than I will ever know.

That said, he\'s never had a young three year old run the kind of numbers we are talking about so I don\'t think he has too much relevant experience in this particular situation.  

In the last 5 years (using that timeframe to account for the weaker breed, drugs, etc), I don\'t believe there has been a single young 3 year old that has run the big 2 negative or bigger number, come back quickly and stuck around to race the next year.  The numbers say that is a problem, emotion might say otherwise.

I sincerely, sincerely hope RA is the first.  I really do because I love the filly.

[covelj70]

She ran on the dirt also at Oaklawn and didn\'t get one of those big numbers either though

[mjellish]

I\'ve spent a ton of time around horses and have a few thoughts on the subject.

#1 young horses rarely run big negative numbers.  They aren\'t supposed to.  When they do, it is often because they\'re are other factors that led to the performance.  A track they relish, inferior competition, favorable pace, etc.  Very often in their next race they do not encounter such favorable circumstances and therefore don\'t repeat the number.  The fact is they wouldn\'t have repeated the number again anyway even if they had had enough rest.  The pace, competition, track condition, form cycles and trip will rarely align the same way twice.  

#2 Even if a horse does encounter favorable racing circumstances again, big numbers are often gut wrenching efforts that will knock horses out if they don\'t get time to recoup.  Every race either puts something into a horse or takes something out.  That is why they have form cycles.  If you bring them back in too little rest they are likely to tail off or get hurt, as would any athlete, period.  How many people do you think could win a marathon every two weeks for a couple of months in a row verses different fields in different cities.  How often do pitchers pitch on two days rest, etc?

#3 Nowdays the Triple Crown races are one of the few times where a trainer will feel compelled to race a horse 3 times in 5 weeks at different tracks at different distances.  When these young 3 year olds run big in any of the preps or the actual races, the trainers feel compelled to run them back.  So we actually get to see the effects of too much all out racing in too short a time period.  We don\'t get to see this as often in older horses, but I would suspect the patterns would be same if we did.  Big races take a lot out of the tank, period.

So in sum, these big races will knock a horse out if they are not given ample rest.  In my opinion it is an equine fact.  If that tired horses does not get hurt during a gallop, or walking, etc., they still will often not repeat the number either because they are tired or because the race just doesn\'t shape up as well for them.  

A big negative number is like ptiching a shutout in baseball.  They just don\'t happen that often.  

Now what odds would you need to get to bet that a pitcher will throw back to back shutouts, much less do it on three days rest.  You\'ve got to look at horse racing the same way or you are just giving your money away.  I bet Big Brown in the Derby, passed on the Preakness, and played against him in the Belmont.  If Da Tara doesn\'t win that race I am still counting my money...

[covelj70]

thanks MJ

Great thoughts.

Right there with you on Da\"Tara.  Still waiting for Denis of Cork to whossh by that pig in the stretch.

[miff]

Rachel now with Asmussen; Preakness an option
By Marty McGee
LOUISVILLE, Ky. - Rachel Alexandra was transferred early Thursday into the Churchill Downs stable of trainer Steve Asmussen, who said the May 16 Preakness Stakes is an option for the standout filly.

Rachel Alexandra, a record-setting winner of the May 1 Kentucky Oaks at Churchill, was led by Asmussen and his assistant, Scott Blasi, from the Churchill barn of her previous trainer, Hal Wiggins, at about 5:15 a.m. Thursday. Jess Jackson, who purchased the filly the previous day for an undisclosed price in the name of his Stonestreet Stables and in partnership with Harold T. McCormick, a longtime friend, was on hand at Churchill for the exchange.

About an hour after being led into the Asmussen shed row, Rachel Alexandra was sent out for routine training. Asmussen called her \"a tremendous physical specimen. We\'re honored to be around her. She looked great going over the racetrack this morning. The way she looks and the way she trains is a credit to Mr. Wiggins and his staff.\"

Asked later if it was the Jackson\'s intentions to race her against males in the Preakness at Pimlico, Asmussen said: \"Her ability allows for a tremendous number of options.\"

Asmussen said he intends to put Rachel Alexandra through an easy workout \"Sunday or Monday, depending on the weather and the condition of the surface,\" and that there was no specific timetable regarding a decision on whether she will run in the Preakness.

Entries for the Preakness, the second jewel of the Triple Crown, will be taken Wednesday. Rachel Alexandra is not nominated to the Triple Crown and therefore would have to be supplemented for a $100,000 fee. Supplemental entries in any Triple Crown race have lowest preference for making the field, so in the case that more than 14 horses are entered in the Preakness, she would be excluded.

Pimlico officials said they had been contacted Tuesday by a Stonestreet representative about procedures involving supplemental entries but that the name of a specific horse had not been mentioned.

If Rachel Alexandra were to run in the Preakness, it is unclear how that would affect Calvin Borel, who became just the seventh jockey in history to win the Kentucky Oaks and Kentucky Derby on the same weekend. A little more than 24 hours after winning aboard Rachel Alexandra in the Oaks, Borel rode Mine That Bird to a 50-1 upset in the Derby. Borel\'s agent, Jerry Hissam, declined to comment when asked about a hypothetical conflict, although he might not even have to make such a difficult decision, since Jackson and Asmussen rarely employ Borel on their horses.

Robby Albarado was the regular rider for Jackson and Asmussen on Curlin, their 2007-08 Horse of the Year. Asked if acquiring Albarado\'s services for the Preakness was in the works, Asmussen said: \"That decision has not been made.\"

[TGAB]

Covelj70, can you point me to that TG study you cite. I can\'t find it quickly. Thanks, he said, sheepishly.