Was it greed or ego???

[TGJB]

Look, I agree he figured to bounce, I said so in the seminar at length. But people get fooled all the time by \"easy\" wins, and by horses looking great coming out of top efforts. Michael Dickinson once told me that when they run big they often come out kicking the barn down, when you run them back they run lousy and come out looking like they ran much harder.

And no, I didn\'t turn that opinion about AP into a profit. Thought KI had no more moves in him short term, and even if I had been right about that AP would have beat me.

[Dana666]

You know for a fact no appearance fees? I\'d be a bit skeptical about that but whatever, you nailed it right, ego. I didn\'t realize Baffert was so against it, but that makes the whole situation even worse.

[TGJB]

Mike, stop. I didn\'t say AP ran his race, I said he ran the race he figured to run. And I have said pace makes a difference in extreme situations.

I\'m curious. If instead of 48+/46+/ 1:35 they went 47+/47+/1:35 you think it would have made a difference?

[miff]

Rob,

Pace guys, of course, had AP fastest by a point. In a very very odd race shape it looked:

Early: neutral/slow side

Middle: very fast

Late: very slow

Re the last quarter, one wrote that harness champ Jigglywiggly could have outrun AP/Frosted and nose KI.

Mike

[ringato3]

Dana,

As much as I hate the Zayats for a number of reasons posted on this board (by Frank D and others during the triple crown trail), I don\'t see your point at all.

It isn\'t like they tried something \"new\" and went from Haskell to the Travers.  For about 15 years now the best 3 year olds go either Haskell/Travers or Jim Dandy/Travers.  

Yeah, on this board, which is where we are, sheet readers read \"bounce\".  So be it.  

But let\'s face it, sheet reading isn\'t exactly mainstream.  A minority for sure.

I think the cross country trips may have had an effect.  (\"may\" - no assertion)

I have been reading sheets for a lot of years and reading a pattern \"as is\" without looking at how the figures were earned is pretty \"old school\".  And AP\'s pattern had more dimensions than most.  

1.  Derby was a fair race IMO.  No major bias no reason to question figure.

2.  Preakness was a sea of slop and he spread eagled the field.  Major question mark around validity of just calling it a \"3 point backward move\".

3.  Belmont a 1 1/2 race, which nobody runs on dirt and our breed isn\'t bred for.  Another anomaly type figure.  (not saying the figure wasn\'t accurate - just saying when you have things like strange distances and rainstorm/sloppy surfaces, there are OTHER reasons besides a horse\'s form that goes into reading a pattern.  

4.  A really big figure in the Haskell, run under a strangle hold late.

I don\'t think anybody disagrees that the Travers will be a backward move.  So, take your choice:

1.  He bounced off the negative 3 in the derby, ran 3 points off two races in a row and figured to bounce again off the big Haskell figure.  

2.  The cumulative effect of the triple crown, a number of cross country ships, the Saratoga racing surface being very different than Monmouth park, all worked together to have the horse run a sub par race.

I think #1 is WAY too simplistic and not correct in this case but certainly can\'t prove it.  And it likely doesn\'t matter going forward.  But I think looking at patterns without other factors doesn\'t work, at least when other factors exist.  Things like pace, trip, distance, bias and surface (grass/dirt) are all \"other factors that can exist and often do exist.

Rob

[miff]

JB,

Firstly I don\'t know if your example changes the outcome. But without question I know that 46+ head to head has a profoundly worse effect on a horse than a loose unchallenged 46+. The head to head battle caused the collapse not the time itself.Think if either AP or Frosted were alone in those same exact splits, they win.

They ALL look great out there alone unhooked, wayyyyyy different when eyeballed.

Mike

[Silver Charm]

Dana, Frank etc. I think a history lesson is in order for everyone. As I said late yesterday Secretariat lost TWICE after the Triple Crown and never defeated Older horses on dirt. No one questions his greatness.

Seattle Slew was absolutely drilled in the Swaps next out after the Triple Crown, running 4th by 16. They stopped on him for the rest of the year. He opened the next year with consecutive wins in ALLOWANCE races. He stepped into Stakes company next and promptly got beat. The Patterson Hdcp in September. His fall campaign was stellar except for when Exceller beat him.

Whirlaway? He beat 2 horses in the Travers. TWO!! He lost the Blue Grass and Derby Trial before winning the Triple Crown.    

You are right about Social Media and Blogs etc. Could you imagine if AP came back next year and ran in consecutive allowance races? It seems as soon as AP won the Haskel the Travers had to be next spot to prove he was anything. And then where was he going to run back next before The Breeders Cup Classic? At least according to the Tweets and the Blogs....

This horse has already had a tough campaign. He was tested from the bell yesterday , he fought back, he was emptied and got nailed. He wont need a mulligan like those others I mentioned above. I think that\'s the last we have seen of him.....

[TGJB]

Rob-- if you say you \"think\" you\'re off the hook re assertion charges, \"may\" is redundant.

[T Severini]

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did not see Bafferts opinion, did see two pace fig
> guys say middle half cooked top two and winner did
> 3rd most running. You see those?


I agree with you.

On figures AP was one length better than a couple others. One of his best figures was in a battle at Churchill where a challenging pace scenario made him very vulnerable. The other was in a cruise at Monmouth where Saturday\'s winner was quickly working into him.

Frosted was wide and beaten three lengths after taking it to AP. And he most certainly did take it to him as the fractions below indicate.

It wasn\'t a surprise and can be replicated.

I did not read Bris, but heres what you had

24:28
24:02
23:18
23:60
26:49 for the finish extrapolating to

Winner 26:09.........Revision...it was 25:49...a good fraction considering. Man, I\'m getting old.

AP     26:69

The track was a variable.

Am not going to put much stock in who said what, especially the losing camp. That camp had no issues until the 3/4 and mile marks where the fractions say the race was decided. That\'s when AP begin to rattle.

[TGJB]

Some day we\'ll get into a discussion of which is the cause and which is the effect. Not today.

[FrankD.]

NYRA was reorganized and its franchise to operate the three racetracks was extended through 2033 under legislation approved by the New York state legislature on February 13, 2008. The new authorization provided $105 million in direct state aid and forgave millions more in state loans to NYRA. The association also gave up its claim to ownership of the land on which the three racetracks are situated. In return, the state gained expanded oversight responsibility. The state comptroller won the power to audit NYRA\'s books. The conversion of NYRA from a non-profit association to a not-for-profit corporation also gave the state attorney general enhanced oversight authority. In addition, the state now appoints 11 of the corporation\'s 25 directors. By changing from non-profit to not-for-profit status, NYRA also gained flexibility in its financial management.

I don\'t think Clueless Kay sat behind the $50 window in the clubhouse first floor skimming the first 100K that came in yesterday for Zayat and Baffy and crept away with a suitcase putting a finger over his lips saying don\'t tell the state comptroller?

[beazley]

My opinion is AP was not the same for \"pick your reason\" and was going to regress off the -3 but that he might have still won if not for the pressure he endured for a sustained portion of the race.  It is hard on horses to run sustained like that between the rail and a horse looking him in the eye. Not to mention the bumping adds a lot of stress which we saw coming off the turn and according to jockey was happening repeatedly around the turn. If you believe the jockey (even if he can\'t count calendar days) that AP was not at his best (which I do) then it\'s also reasonable to believe that he was crowded and bumped.  An overhead view would have been nice post race.  Not a stretch to believe that sustained run and bumping could have cost him a TG point and the victory.

[ringato3]

Beazley,

You can watch the race head on and from other views.  They are all over the internet.

The bumping was as real as the boogey man and the loch ness monster.

As for being \"looked in the eye\", TGJB sort of hinted at this in his post, but said \"another day\".  I don\'t doubt that being hooked by Frosted took something out of the horse.  But since when in this horse\'s PPs does Frosted have the high cruising speed that it would have taken in prior races to sidle up alongside AP.  Watch the replay, Lezcano didn\'t exactly whip his horse to go on a suicidal attack.  He asked for some speed, but the \"A game\" of AP would normally have been too quick for Frosted to make that move.  His high cruising speed that previously had broken the backs of other contenders, wasn\'t there.

Sort of chicken and egg.  He lost because he got hooked early.  Or he got hooked early because he wasn\'t the same horse (bounced or regressed)

Rob

[TGJB]

That last part is pretty much it. And not just for this race.

[metroj]

Point Given won the Haskell in 2001 too....only 20 days prior to the Travers.   Maybe Baffert shipped straight to Saratoga that year.