rag to riches hurt - out?

[Street Sense]

Flighted Iron, sometimes you need to read between the lines and use a little common sense.  In addition, if you keep your ear to the ground, you can find out things about the horses that aren\'t reported in the press.

I was out at Fasig looking at horses in July when I got a call from a friend (my vet) who witnessed Rags to Riches come off the track lame.  A number of other people got similar phone calls, because the news didn\'t take long to spread among the salesgrounds.  The next day, the press reported Pletcher saying the filly came down with a fever and would therefore not be going out to the track.  The conversation around the salesgrounds that day went something like this:  \"Did you see how Pletcher reported it as a fever?\"  \"Yeah, right \".

After that, she was then reported pulled up by her exercise rider.  You read about that one.  After that, she was then reported to have gotten yet another fever and missed work.  Do the math.

It\'s clearly obvious something was up with the filly but they couldn\'t find what it was.  After multiple vet opinions, they decided to go forward with caution until such time as the problem presents itself in such fashion that it can be diagnosed.  The race pushed the problem to the forefront - they now see the fracture that was brewing.

This isn\'t uncommon, to not be able to find exactly what is ailing a horse, or to move forward cautiously with a horse despite knowing that *something* is there.  I know, I\'ve done it.  Know others who\'ve done it.  I wouldn\'t do it again though, not race, because my experience hasn\'t been positive as it\'s pushing your luck.

[TGJB]

CTC-- the problem Rags faced is that she gave seven pounds and ground loss to a filly with a 2 3/4 top and a good pattern. Nothing about this outcome was unlikely to TG users-- we put the winner up, I singled her in pick 3\'s-- and in no way does the result of the race in any way make it appear the Belmont figure or any others Rags ran are wrong (she in fact ran back to a figure she had run several times). As I made clear in detail (repeatedly) at the time, the Belmont fig is solid as a rock, and nothing that has happened since casts any doubt on it even slightly.

[miff]

\"This isn\'t uncommon, to not be able to find exactly what is ailing a horse, or to move forward cautiously with a horse despite knowing that *something* is there. I know, I\'ve done it. Know others who\'ve done it. I wouldn\'t do it again though, not race, because my experience hasn\'t been positive as it\'s pushing your luck\"


Street,

Agree it\'s done all the time, but not when they are worth 10-20 million, those get retired immediately.

Mike

[fkach]

TGJB,

I don\'t disagree with anything you said, but even you would have to concede that coming into a Grade 1 race off a 14 week layoff against a solid and fit opponent, having missed works due to lameness, having 2 setbacks due to a fever, not acting right in the stretch run, and coming out of the race with a fracture, all indicate that it\'s highly unlikely she was at her best Saturday.

You sort of made it sound like pairing her back efforts indicates she ran as well as expected or to her current ability.

While that\'s certainly some possiblity, it seems like a pretty remote one to me.

This filly was/is a very lightly raced horse. She was developing nicely when she capped it off with that huge performance in the Belmont. Not that I was expecting her to run that way again. In fact I thought it was a mortal lock that she would be short because the goal was the BC and she had all those problems (though I thought she might win anyway).  

I just think that tying the races of a developing 3YO in the spring to her race Saturday (many months later after she already demonstrated more) as a \"logical\" pair (if that\'s what you were implying) is not right. To me it was the accidental result of a superior and developing racehorse being short and having problems. She was also clearly winning with something in reserve in some of those spring races.

[stillinger]

I don\'t see how this can be disputed, although I\'m open, not being argumentative about it.
skip
fkach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TGJB,

> I just think that tying the races of a developing
> 3YO in the spring to her race Saturday (many
> months later after she already demonstrated more)
> as a \"logical\" pair (if that\'s what you were
> implying) is not right. To me it was the
> accidental result of a superior and developing
> racehorse being short and having problems. She was
> also clearly winning with something in reserve in
> some of those spring races.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Horses do talk to me. They talk very clearly through anecdotal experience. I can\'t count the number of horses that have won Grade I stakes and then retired due to incurring an injury in that last winning race. Add those that retired after finishing a game second or third and the evidence becomes overwhelming.

That said, horses talk very subtly about latent injuries pre race. They barely speak at all. I\'m not sure the hairline fracture was present during Rags to Riches delay in returning to the races post Belmont Stakes. I can\'t factor that. Street Sense says the underlying injury was already there. It may have been, if it was that doesn\'t change my view that top class, game, horses run through these injuries. If it was there then all the Kings horses and all the Kings men had less of an ability to discern it than one little 115 pound, horse loving, female exercise rider. She tried to tell them. Tim Richey was astute enough to discern Afleet Alex\'s issue. It wouldn\'t surprise me if it was there because I know Plech is not a real horseman and most vets aren\'t either. Plech is an organizer. He wouldn\'t know a horse was trying to signal him if it sent up smoke signals.

Street Sense Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Flighted Iron, sometimes you need to read between
> the lines and use a little common sense.  In
> addition, if you keep your ear to the ground, you
> can find out things about the horses that aren\'t
> reported in the press.
>
> I was out at Fasig looking at horses in July when
> I got a call from a friend (my vet) who witnessed
> Rags to Riches come off the track lame.  A number
> of other people got similar phone calls, because
> the news didn\'t take long to spread among the
> salesgrounds.  The next day, the press reported
> Pletcher saying the filly came down with a fever
> and would therefore not be going out to the track.
>  The conversation around the salesgrounds that day
> went something like this:  \"Did you see how
> Pletcher reported it as a fever?\"  \"Yeah, right
> \".
>
> After that, she was then reported pulled up by her
> exercise rider.  You read about that one.  After
> that, she was then reported to have gotten yet
> another fever and missed work.  Do the math.
>
> It\'s clearly obvious something was up with the
> filly but they couldn\'t find what it was.  After
> multiple vet opinions, they decided to go forward
> with caution until such time as the problem
> presents itself in such fashion that it can be
> diagnosed.  The race pushed the problem to the
> forefront - they now see the fracture that was
> brewing.
>
> This isn\'t uncommon, to not be able to find
> exactly what is ailing a horse, or to move forward
> cautiously with a horse despite knowing that
> *something* is there.  I know, I\'ve done it.  Know
> others who\'ve done it.  I wouldn\'t do it again
> though, not race, because my experience hasn\'t
> been positive as it\'s pushing your luck.

[stillinger]

> This isn\'t uncommon, to not be able to find
> exactly what is ailing a horse, or to move forward
> cautiously with a horse despite knowing that
> *something* is there.  I know, I\'ve done it.  Know
> others who\'ve done it.  I wouldn\'t do it again
> though, not race, because my experience hasn\'t
> been positive as it\'s pushing your luck.

I don\'t think this is possible in this TONE - there is no chance that they would take a chance past what logic would dictate,but they were worried for exactly the reasons you state. They had to do SOMETHING, and she is momre than vet cleared. You can\'t just stop at that point. A Grade One is a very \"sporting move\" though, as time to the BC is everything and treating the horse as a Ornament isn\'t on their menu, as it might have been for instance on Calumet\'s 60 years ago.

All I am saying is \"what could they do?\".

[stillinger]

I think that Chuckles is right on about the tone of Pletcher/Tabor as opposed to the Sheik who can afford in every way for the horse to wait or not play at all, unless he\'s right. I think he and Chuck and I \"hear horses\", and to show my apprecition, I wouldn\'t let them go to post in NY without me \"attending\" if at all possible. It seems from a far distance, in every way, that the family in Dubai loves horses, loves having the best horses, and that Bookmakers love horse racing and love horses that race.
skip

Tim Richey was astute enough
> to discern Afleet Alex\'s issue. It wouldn\'t
> surprise me if it was there because I know Plech
> is not a real horseman and most vets aren\'t
> either. Plech is an organizer. He wouldn\'t know a
> horse was trying to signal him if it sent up smoke
> signals.
>
> Street Sense Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Flighted Iron, sometimes you need to read
> between
> > the lines and use a little common sense.  In
> > addition, if you keep your ear to the ground,
> you
> > can find out things about the horses that
> aren\'t
> > reported in the press.
> >
> > I was out at Fasig looking at horses in July
> when
> > I got a call from a friend (my vet) who
> witnessed
> > Rags to Riches come off the track lame.  A
> number
> > of other people got similar phone calls,
> because
> > the news didn\'t take long to spread among the
> > salesgrounds.  The next day, the press reported
> > Pletcher saying the filly came down with a
> fever
> > and would therefore not be going out to the
> track.
> >  The conversation around the salesgrounds that
> day
> > went something like this:  \"Did you see how
> > Pletcher reported it as a fever?\"  \"Yeah, right
> > \".
> >
> > After that, she was then reported pulled up by
> her
> > exercise rider.  You read about that one.
> After
> > that, she was then reported to have gotten yet
> > another fever and missed work.  Do the math.
> >
> > It\'s clearly obvious something was up with the
> > filly but they couldn\'t find what it was.
> After
> > multiple vet opinions, they decided to go
> forward
> > with caution until such time as the problem
> > presents itself in such fashion that it can be
> > diagnosed.  The race pushed the problem to the
> > forefront - they now see the fracture that was
> > brewing.
> >
> > This isn\'t uncommon, to not be able to find
> > exactly what is ailing a horse, or to move
> forward
> > cautiously with a horse despite knowing that
> > *something* is there.  I know, I\'ve done it.
> Know
> > others who\'ve done it.  I wouldn\'t do it again
> > though, not race, because my experience hasn\'t
> > been positive as it\'s pushing your luck.

[spa]

She\'ll be back..............

[RICH]

Rags ran the big negative number in the Belmont. Lets say the Gazelle was 6 weeks later, all numbers are the same. No issues with Rags at all, no lameness?, no missed works, no issues. She is now 1/5, I hate to tell you this but most TG users would have thrown Rags out, and the result would have been the same. That\'s why we use the sheets, to throw ouy vulnerable favorites off BIG Negative tops.

[fkach]

I agree that many pattern readers would have tossed her anyway, but I don\'t see how you can certain the result would have been the same given that she may have been best Saturday anyway (ground loss) and IMO almost certainly would have run better if not for the training mishaps and the fracture. Of course we\'ll never know. This is just conversation. However, make those changes and I\'d take RTR.

[miff]

Beyer gave Lears Princess a 99.

[TGJB]

I do think she ran \"as well as expected\", which is to say there was no reason to expect her to run back to her top. As someone else on this string said (and as I said after the Belmont) there were plenty of reasons to bet against her next time out regardless, and all the other factors you mentioned (to say nothing of the weight spread and that Velasquez was sure to keep her ouside riding her as \"the best horse\") just made her an even better bet against. And yes, she did get the best figure-- but they don\'t pay off for that.

[fkach]

TGJB,

I didn\'t expect her to run to her \"current\" top (whatever that is) either, but I didn\'t use her prior speed figures as an indication of what I thought her current top was.

To me, prior to the Belmont she was a lightly raced developing spring 3YO that was winning with \"speed in reserve\". With the additional passage of time, I thought it was very likely that her \"current top\" was better than all the figures she had earned prior to the Belmont and maybe even equal to the Belmont.

Like I said, because of all those other training issues, I didn\'t expect her to earn her top Saturday.  But I did think that a performance somewhat better than anything other than the Belmont was fairly likely and that she could improve further from there.

I\'m not sure what the proper odds line was on the race. I didn\'t play because I didn\'t see enough value on the winner. I am just making the point that I think RTR is the better horse and could have won despite all the problems in her training and the probable trips if she didn\'t fracture her leg. (we can\'t know for sure)

Basically it took everything that could possibly go wrong plus more just to beat her a 1/2 length. That says something about what the probabilities actually were. Trips don\'t always turn out exactly the way they figure and suspect horses don\'t always fracture their legs. They both just happened this time.