well, at least we don't have to worry about Dutrow being overconfident

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

On the male side, Big Brown could not be bred any better to handle Belmont. (Caveat: there is always the chance a horse won\'t live up to his \"surface\" breeding\".)

On the female side, Big Brown is more of a mystery, but he\'s got a nice helping of Damascus tail female a few generations back. He liked Churchill too.

My guess is he takes to the strip. But I\'ll wait for the first work before committing.

My guess is you won\'t beat this horse at Belmont on surface breeding and I\'d certainly want much better than 4-1 or 9-2 against him.

Dudley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How well is he bred to handle a \'big sandy\' track?

[girly]

OOPS! Sorry the link didn\'t work- the page had the race with the jockey\'s commentary- It may be too old, but my point is that all this obsessing about the figures, and what if the jockey was just doing what Dutrow told him to do- win with the least amount of exertion possible?

[Dudley]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You might not believe it from the chit chat today,
> but this board is actually supposed to be mostly
> about numbers and form cycles.


Well Jerry this is your board and that may be your preference. But as with our brief discussion about Hey Byrn prior to the Preakness, surface conditions, imo, can effect the numbers. Forget HB on the slop, good, other...examine the poly/dirt and even turf number contrasts of runners. Imo, conditions- including surface- will effect the \'patterns\'.