Cali Horses

[ajkreider]

Shout out to Went the Day Well.  Flying down the stretch - made up 8 lengths.

[phil23]

Matz saying something went wrong with him, he was limping a bit afterwards.  Too bad.  Given that he\'s already a grade 1 winner and with his pedigree...I\'m afraid we might not see him on the track again.  Hope I\'m wrong.

[circlethefield]

I don\'t know, and I emphasize, I don\'t know....I don\'t know how the therapy benefited I\'ll Have Another.  I do know that trainers and vets and/or their equivalents have been employing various treatments/methodologies to horses for a very long time in attempting to improve performance/profit. It\'s understandable.  It\'s evident, and it would be great if it would end.How great would it be if the playing field was even for all involved, including us, the bettors?  It\'s very easy to imagine that serious attempts to create systems of analysis, on that hypothetical playing field,  would benefit the bettors, the trainers, the breeders....the horses. I support those endeavors completely.  I recall an idea that every wagering opportunity would offer the opportunity to pony up an extra buck or two to support jockey or equine charities or support funds.  I recall that not a single player in my local otb thought it was a good idea.  Not one, here in southeastern Va., ten years ago.  Small sample?  Sure.
  It\'s odd, really...and perhaps inexplicable that just a short time ago I sat, with my wife, daughter, granddaughters watching the Derby at her house...chanted Mario in the stretch drive and high-fives all around afterwards.  I recall my Dad years ago coming home one Saturday afternoon and saying..\"...It\'s the Belmont...there\'s a Virginia-bred running, I hear he\'s pretty good.\"  It was the only time we ever watched racing, before or after.  But I never forgot it. I  chose I\'ll Have Another to win because of the finish in the SA Derby.  Horse and jockey in unison...the subsequent work/gallops at Churchhill Downs.  He looked *serious*...Smarty Jones serious.  What am I saying in the end?  Clean it up?  Absolutely.  Count on me to support it.  A world without thoroughbred racing is the worst for it.  But in the meantime, look at that race...It was a fine performance by both horse and jockey.  With any luck at all, they\'ll take him back to the west coast and await the Travers.  I\'ve rambled here, and offer myapologies.  Thanks again to all who\'ve posted here over the past few years.  I\'ve learned a lot...though clearly not enough to become a ThoroGraph user.  Soon though, I\'m sure.  Good Luck to all.  And thanks again.

[JR]

Dead on. I can understand the 1st through 5th placings but 13th, 16th and 19th? Bad showing.

[JR]

For everybody.

[sighthound]

Sometimes things are GOOD for the horse.  The whole point is to \"improve performance\".  There is nothing wrong with that.  

You breed or buy genetic potential.  That leaves you nutrition, training and conditioning to separate the men from the boys.

Nobody wants illegal drugs used.

[sighthound]

Yeah, but that sucks the life out of horses.  They can\'t breath.  They can\'t cool.  They tire more quickly.

[JR]

Matz? His was the only one of the \"local\" bunch that ran a lick. And he had an excuse.

[alm]

For the most part I had a good day at Churchill yesterday, except for the Derby on which I followed the TG analysis for the most part (threw out TCI on a personal call.)  But the TG analysis also missed the Oaks very badly when coupled with JV\'s bonehead ride.)

So last night I went back and looked at the Derby through a different microscope...adding groundloss estimates to BRIS speed numbers.  5 points for a wide trip; 3 points for a partly wide trip.  And I came up with a different take on the race.

Here\'s what that approach showed:

TCI and UR both regressed significantly in the FLA Derby, suggesting they were tailing off; Hansen clearly regressed in the Blue Grass, same conclusion; Gemologist actually set a new top in the Wood by almost 10 points, suggesting a bounce; Daddy Nose did the same thing at Sunland by 11 points, a bounce candidate; El Padrino\'s numbers were regressing seriously in his past two races; Alpha was steady; Creative seriously regressed in the SA Derby.  All of this left 3 contenders whose patterns were steady or improving: Bode on top, IAH and Dullahan close behind.

When you add to this Miff\'s point of view about TG\'s West Coast numbers, you get a feeling some adjustment needs to be made here.

[big18741]

Gem finished the Wood in 13 seconds +.Do you really think he bounced off that crawling finish?

I\'ll Have Another ran back to his fast RB Lewis.There was nothing wrong with the # assigned to him for that race.Thinking he could get back to that is another issue.His 10f breeding is better than most.

Bodemeister was the fastest horse in the Derby field on any #\'s.If you didn\'t think he would bounce who would be more logical to hit the board.

Dullahan was an improving horse who finished fast in both 9f races and his dirt effort in last years juvenile was as good as his poly race and better than his grass races at two.Thought he would run best at 10f\'s with a trip.

UR found more trouble-no way of knowing what he is.

You can spin it a lot of different ways after the race has been run but I see nothing wrong with the #\'s here.Applying them was the difficult part.

[Michael D.]

big18741 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gem finished the Wood in 13 seconds +.Do you
> really think he bounced off that crawling finish?
>
> I\'ll Have Another ran back to his fast RB
> Lewis.There was nothing wrong with the # assigned
> to him for that race.Thinking he could get back to
> that is another issue.His 10f breeding is better
> than most.
>
> Bodemeister was the fastest horse in the Derby
> field on any #\'s.If you didn\'t think he would
> bounce who would be more logical to hit the
> board.
>
> Dullahan was an improving horse who finished fast
> in both 9f races and his dirt effort in last years
> juvenile was as good as his poly race and better
> than his grass races at two.Thought he would run
> best at 10f\'s with a trip.
>
> UR found more trouble-no way of knowing what he
> is.
>
> You can spin it a lot of different ways after the
> race has been run but I see nothing wrong with the
> #\'s here.Applying them was the difficult part.


big, you wrote the following a few weeks back, and while it\'s too soon to tell for sure, I think you might have nailed it.


\"His sheet looks pretty good and he\'s undefeated with wins at CD.My problem with Gemologist is the slow finish against the clock in the Wood.

Anyone else having trouble with his final 1/8th in a little over 13 seconds?
His running style suggests ground loss as well.If he draws inside is there any evidence he wants to sit down in traffic eating dirt?Right or wrong I\'m leaning towards tossing him at what should be single digit odds.\"

[Michael D.]

alm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For the most part I had a good day at Churchill
> yesterday, except for the Derby on which I
> followed the TG analysis for the most part (threw
> out TCI on a personal call.)  But the TG analysis
> also missed the Oaks very badly when coupled with
> JV\'s bonehead ride.)
>
> So last night I went back and looked at the Derby
> through a different microscope...adding groundloss
> estimates to BRIS speed numbers.  5 points for a
> wide trip; 3 points for a partly wide trip.  And I
> came up with a different take on the race.
>
> Here\'s what that approach showed:
>
> TCI and UR both regressed significantly in the FLA
> Derby, suggesting they were tailing off; Hansen
> clearly regressed in the Blue Grass, same
> conclusion; Gemologist actually set a new top in
> the Wood by almost 10 points, suggesting a bounce;
> Daddy Nose did the same thing at Sunland by 11
> points, a bounce candidate; El Padrino\'s numbers
> were regressing seriously in his past two races;
> Alpha was steady; Creative seriously regressed in
> the SA Derby.  All of this left 3 contenders whose
> patterns were steady or improving: Bode on top,
> IAH and Dullahan close behind.
>
> When you add to this Miff\'s point of view about
> TG\'s West Coast numbers, you get a feeling some
> adjustment needs to be made here.


I don\'t see the point in any of this, but I guess it\'s possible that the grueling stretch run of the Wood had some negative impact on Gem, led to some sort of \"bounce\". He hadn\'t been used hard in nearly 5 months.

[alm]

I was not trying to analyze the Wood as a race, guys.  I pointed out only that the BRIS numbers, adjusted for ground loss, suggest that Gemologist\'s Wood was nearly 10 speed points higher than his previous top, according to BRIS.  That being the case, he was a bounce candidate, regardless of his overall ability.  In other words, Big\'s call on the horse was very accurate and if my hindsight analysis is correct, the horse may have been too slow AND he bounced on top of that.

If you think the TG numbers for him were spot on, you don\'t have a logical explanation of what happened to him.  Pointing out he had a slow last eighth in the Wood makes no sense if the TG number was right.  TG suggested that Gemologist paired up in his last two races.  BRIS suggested that that was not the case.

Which is my point.  I realize that I am at great risk on this site, mentioning stuff like this, but how many of us are right all the time?  You did not pick the winner of this Derby with the TG analysis.  NFW

[Michael D.]

alm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was not trying to analyze the Wood as a race,
> guys.  I pointed out only that the BRIS numbers,
> adjusted for ground loss, suggest that
> Gemologist\'s Wood was nearly 10 speed points
> higher than his previous top, according to BRIS.
> That being the case, he was a bounce candidate,
> regardless of his overall ability.  In other
> words, Big\'s call on the horse was very accurate
> and if my hindsight analysis is correct, the horse
> may have been too slow AND he bounced on top of
> that.
>
> If you think the TG numbers for him were spot on,
> you don\'t have a logical explanation of what
> happened to him.  Pointing out he had a slow last
> eighth in the Wood makes no sense if the TG number
> was right.  TG suggested that Gemologist paired up
> in his last two races.  BRIS suggested that that
> was not the case.
>
> Which is my point.  I realize that I am at great
> risk on this site, mentioning stuff like this, but
> how many of us are right all the time?  You did
> not pick the winner of this Derby with the TG
> analysis.  NFW


I believe Brisnet uses a computer model (correct me if I\'m wrong). A computer model has no way of putting an accurate speed figure on a single two-turn race. You need to look at anything and everything to get something like that right, especially when they\'re all going 9f for the first time.

It\'s possible Gem did react to the Wood, or maybe there\'s some physical issue that the vets find. And it\'s possible Alpha wasn\'t right either. But it\'s also possible that the Wood just wasn\'t that good.

[ajkreider]

UR was the only horse not named WTDW who did any real running late.  Everyone else was flattered by Bode dropping anchor. Rags was 20 lengths back at one point, and he\'s not a deep closer.  A decent start was all that horse needed to be right there.