Race of the Week

[beyerguy]

This has nothing to do with the race analysis itself, as one race doesn\'t mean much in the long run and I know there has been much success with the ROTW.

That said, could you have possibly picked a worse betting race in the country than this one?  You had 5 horses, two of which had zero chance, and the winner was your typical Frankel jump up, but that\'s another story.

I\'m just saying I expect better race selection for the ROTW, this one was about as weak as it gets.

[JAKE]

agreed.

With all of the big races at Belmont, one of those should have been selected.

[Saddlecloth]

I believe one of the goodwood horses was a client?  not sure, not that it might matter

[TGJB]

A number of things go into the decision of which race to choose for ROTW, some of which are business considerations. But mostly I try to choose races that are illustrative of something-- patterns, the impact of weight, ground loss, etc., in a case where we might view the horse differently than the public. I chose the race because I wanted to discuss Total Impact\'s pattern.

By the way, it\'s not clear whether it affected the outcome or not, but Supah Blitz was impeded.

[Saddlecloth]

Well I dont think Supah Blitz was getting by those horses given that they walked in 48 and change on the front end.  It looked dramatic but it would have been hard to get by, I think they came home in 13 seconds, so they were not slowing at all.

[JR]

For whatever reason you chose this race, if it was for \"business considerations\" it was not the business of attracting new customers. Not with a 6 horse field.

I was drawn to this product a few years ago when you correctly tabbed Subordination at a nice price, arguing he was a better horse on dirt than turf.

This race was of little interest.