ROTW: "It's time to make the Triple Crown longer than five weeks."

[P-Dub]

plasticman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because a 2 week turnaround might not be good for
> the horse in the long run? Sure, plenty of Derby
> winners won the Preakness, but horses like
> Charismatic might have had longer careers if they
> didnt come back 2 weeks after the derby. Im fairly
> certain that the connections of Charismatic would
> have preferred to race him thru his 3 year old
> year and not retire after the Belmont.


Well, I\'m also fairly certain that if he won the Belmont Stakes, his connections wouldn\'t have cared if he ran thru his 3 YO year.

You\'re asking for the connections to give up the chance at history. Citing one horse that got injured isn\'t a good enough reason.

It didn\'t stop Silver Charm from winning the Dubai World Cup the following year, nor did it stop Curlin, Sunday Silence,  and others from winning the BC Classic and other races later in the year. It also didn\'t stop Easy Goer and others from racing thru their 3 YO years.

Each horse is different. To suggest that forgoing the chance to make history is a better option because of what it \"might\" do to a horse, is specious at best.

[miff]

Also should move the fences in, the goalpost closer,and lower the rim in baskets!


Voodoo theories on spacing are disproven every day at every racetrack, possibly again on Saturday.


Mike

[FrankD.]

Mike,

Did you miss the kool aide stand on your way to the track?
LOL

I\'m completely against changing the traditional schedule that makes it \" The Triple Crown\" and with messing with \" The Baltimore boating season\" any alteration would water it down to asterisk land IMHO.

That said I would hardly call ample spacing between races and the bounce candidates we both toss daily Voodoo.

Good luck and NO Triple Crown Winner this year,

Frank D.

[miff]

Frank D,

Whether a horse will regress or not off a big race will never be solely predicted by numbers.If it was that easy,we\'d all be rich and not searching for a way to consistenly beat the game.

Good Luck, Triple crown a 50-50 prop overall imo, 90-10 if IHA has a pair in him.

Mike

[TGJB]

Hey Rip Van Winkle-- while you were sleeping they DID move the goalposts, to the back of the endzone. Think players are safer because of that move? And if players ever start hitting their heads on the rim they should look at raising it.

The point is not to make the TC easier. The point is to keep horses around longer. The issue you bring up-- whether they run well on short rest-- is the wrong question. Bill Finley did that too in a piece he wrote-- he pointed out Onion beat Secretariat on a week\'s rest. He failed to mention Onion couldn\'t get back to the starting gate for something like 15 months after that. Same issue with CC winning the Belmont 5 days after winning the Met-- how many more starts did he make? The question is not whether horses run well on short rest-- it\'s what toll it takes.

As for \"voodoo\"-- you seem to be saying that if there is not 100% provable cause and effect correlation something is not a factor. Do you apply that thinking to other handicapping factors? Does pace analysis,betting the fastest horse, or pedigree give you 100% winners? It\'s all a question of percentages. A lefty homering off a lefty doesn\'t mean you aren\'t better off in the long run making him hit against lefties.

By memory, I\'ve said 4 times that a horse\'s campaign was putting him at risk. Those were Barbaro before the Preakness, Go For Wand before the BC, Eight Belles before the Derby, and Rachel before the Preakness. I did not necessarily think they would break down in the race, although 3 of them did-- I thought running would do them some damage. I was wrong about Rachel. But that is an unbelievable record-- as I said to you last time we had this conversation, you go pick out 4 horses off form, without knowing anything about them, and predict they will make no more than one start in the next 6 months. Let\'s see if you\'re right 3 times.

I also wrote this before the 2008 Belmont about Big Brown: \"Big efforts take their toll, and when you\'re also dealing with a horse with a history of soundness problems, the effects are magnified. Big Brown\'s recent foot problems can be seen as a symptom, and the missed training doesn\'t help his cause. Now he\'ll be making his third start in five weeks, while dealing with the effects of two big efforts, three if you count the Florida Derby. There is a reason ten horses in a row have lost when in this position-- the Triple Crown is a tremendous amount of stress to place on a young horse in a short time frame. Big Brown is the best horse here, but he is likely to regress further, and that would bring him back to several other horses\". In case you slept through that one too, BB was eased.

Am I predicting IHA will be eased or break down? No, especially since his connections were smart enough to give him extra time this spring-- but I think it\'s more likely than with most horses, and I am saying there is a strong chance that he will pay a price for running in this race. Not necessarily immediately-- I think there\'s a good chance he\'ll put in an effort maybe 3 points off his top on his way out the door. Someone out there should make a list of all the horses that started in all 3 TC legs, and another of those that ran in the Belmont but not BOTH the previous two, and see how they compare in terms of number of starts for the rest of their career. You can start with Smarty, Prarie Bayou, Monarchos, Pine Bluff, Point Given, Charismatic...

Yes, there\'s also Funny Cide, Skip Away, and Silver Charm. But I\'ll bet you the first group averages WAY less starts going forward. The game needs these horses to stick around, and we\'re eating our young.

[miff]

Obviously meant, move the goal post back in to make it easier.

On the staying around longer comment, you have completely disregarded the huge financial issue which is why many retire after the TC.Those aint retiring because they are worn out.Pure speculation that spacing the TC races further apart would mean that more would stay around longer, maybe, maybe not.

And yeah, but for every Onion there\'s one that went on and ran back fine.

[TGJB]

I didn\'t disregard a damn thing. They tried to bring several of those horses back, and many others were not syndicated for a lot. That\'s leaving aside the ones that actually broke down and were carted off.

Yeah, I knew what you meant about the goal posts-- that\'s how I knew you didn\'t get it. It\'s not about making it easier to win the TC. It\'s about survival.

Pitchers in the old days threw an unbelievable amount of inings, made an unbelievable amount of starts (see-- Young, Cy). Today\'s guys throw harder and place much more strain on their arms. Yeah, there\'s the occasional Nolan Ryan-- but there are a whole lot more guys that if you asked them to pitch three times in a row on 3 days rest would be done for life. There\'s a reason they\'re giving Santana extra time now.

The guy who brings them back quickly these days is your buddy Tricky. When we get a chance after the Belmont we\'ll run the ones that he has brought back on 7 days or less rest, and compare the number of starts they make in the next 6 months with the number in the 6 months prior to running close together. Pretty sure they\'re not being retired to stud.

[miff]

\"The guy who brings them back quickly these days is your buddy Tricky\"

JB,

Correct, by design, esp if he \"feels\" an issue is impending or about to surface in the next one/two starts,pretty good at it.

Claimed one recently, got two solid wins, closely spaced.The horse is on the farm now for issues that require time.

Thats the game,no? esp claimers, get what you can while you can.

Mike

[Gerard]

Considering you now deal with the full 20 horse field year in and out for the KD, why not just have a modern triple crown. The traditional triple crown is too taxing and all but dead. Maybe IHA wins and goes on to race as a 4 & 5yo,if there was a betting pool on this, I\'d be going with the under.

Move the Haskell to the Fourth of July and make that the second leg. Make the Travers the third leg. Offer double the amount of the traditional triple crown to the winner of the KD, Haskell, and Travers. Offer enticing, but less money if you win the Preakness or Belmont, and the final two legs. This way there is still much interest in the Preakness and Belmont, but as a trainer/owner/fan, you can do your job/make more money/enjoy the game more than watching what has essentially turned into a 15 round heavyweight bout that lasts five weeks.

[miff]

JB,



Think Le Bron will bounce after running a top last night.Surely the effect of that effort should make him tired just like you think horses get tired after a top.


Mike

[alm]

I know I said I was getting off this board, but when you sent me the notice about the Belmont being the ROTW, I had to come look at the analysis.  I think it has serious flaws.

Basically, one has to accept the idea that IAH moved to a big new high in the Preakness.  One has to accept TGs West Coast numbers, especially the SA Derby.  I don\'t.  I think the Preakness was a  new top for IAH, but by a small margin over the Derby.  And I think his SA numbers were higher by enough to suggest that his overall development has been in modest increments.

If I am right, he lays over this field with a new top.

I don\'t want to knock Dullahan off your pedestal, because he might move forward enough to be competitive.  But I can\'t do the math required to level off East Coast and West Coast numbers, which would tell me just how good this one is.  Nor the poly to dirt numbers required.  For what it is worth, the horse\'s jump in dirt numbers, from his limited sample, suggests that the Derby was a big new top for him.  It doesn\'t mean he will bounce, but it could mean that he won\'t go forward much.  If I am right about IAH, Dullahan has to jump up to win.  He might not, regardless of the stupid workout they gave him the other day.

In any case, when TG agrees COMPLETELY with Jim Scully on BRIS, I know there\'s not much value in the horse you both pick.  If I\'m right about this analysis, it\'s going to be very embarrassing for both of you to have miscalculated the form of a Triple Crown winner.

[fasteddie]

There are so many factors that have changed the face of racing since 1960, that it would take me a YEAR to rant about it all. Racing suffers the same malaise as other sports, namely, dilution of talent due to expansion....of EVERYTHING!

Foal crop sizes, tracks, race dates, insane commercial breeding, etc.

When I am king of the \"sport of kings\", the following rules will take effect immediately.

1) The KY Derby will remain the 1st Sat in May, BUT, limited to 14 horses; I am putting an end to this nonsense of 20 horse fields. We can discuss modifying the earnings rules later.

2) The Preakness will move to Memorial weekend Sunday, and will be contested on the grass. I like that the Canadian triple does this, and I think this will pay dividends to breeders.

3) The Belmont will NOT be run on the 4th of July, but on Father\'s Day instead. I will also commission a songwriter to come up with a new song. I hate \"New York, New York\"!!

4) And final, if you win the Travers, as well as the TC, you get a 2.5M bonus; AND if you also win the BC Classic, an additional 5 million.

postscript: If MY horse accomplishes this, I get a date with Sofia Vergara (don\'t tell my wife) LOL!!

[Rick B.]

alm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I\'m right about this analysis, it\'s going to be
> very embarrassing for both of you to have
> miscalculated the form of a Triple Crown winner.

Some people get a little egg on their face; you just crashed
face first into the dairy counter and thoroughly scrambled
a week\'s worth of work from a hundred hens.

Wipe away the yolk and apologize to TGJB, is your next move.

[Rich Curtis]

Rick B,

  Posts like this one and your Ragozin one, and others of that sort, would be a lot more effective if you didn\'t lay it on so thick.

[Rick B.]

Rich Curtis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick B,
>
>   Posts like this one and your Ragozin one, and
> others of that sort, would be a lot more effective
> if you didn\'t lay it on so thick.

Is this the official \"Rich Curtis, Final Arbiter of TG Forum Writing Style\"
recommendation?

Do I need to run my future posts past you first for your approval?

Plenty of people \"lay it on thick\" here -- go back one more post to what
alm wrote, FFS.

You\'ve singled me out for admonishment in the past; I don\'t know what your
problem is, but unless you are speaking for TGJB,  you can get off my ass.
I\'ve had enough of you; don\'t care what you think of what I write.