I say we have a HOTY do over

[nyc1347]

i would gauge that RA probably ran around a 0, Zardana a Neg 1.5, and Manny Pacquiao a Negative 9.25?  =D

[mjellish]

I disagree.  I think Rachel\'s race was actually better than it looked.  She went very fast early for the day.  The winner got a dream trip stalking the speed.  And this is Rachel\'s first race back.  I\'m sure the stable wanted to win, but I don\'t think they were life and death to do it and to me Rachel was clearly not fully cranked for this.  I do agree that I think Z would have beat her today on almost any surface, but that may not be the case a month from now.  But I hope that remains the sentiment.

[Dana666]

That\'s what I\'m saying. I completely agree.

[P-Dub]

Rick B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Paul,
>
> I know you *shouldn\'t* have been talking about me,
> but I wasn\'t sure...so I responded coyly.
>
> Look, I think it should be over, too, but I\'ve
> been powdering and diapering Zenyatta crybabies
> for so many months now that it\'s automatic -- I
> don\'t even realize I\'m doing it sometimes.
>
> (And if you don\'t find the above offensive,
> congrats -- you know I\'m not talking about you.)
>
> Rick


Rick,

The diapers/crybabies comments weren\'t necessary. Zenyatta supporters have a right to voice their opinions. If you disagree, fine. Usually someone around here would come down on that type of comment.

We\'ll see what excuses Rachel supporters come up with if she loses next month.  You all had a nice head start with today\'s excuses for the loss.

[sekrah]

Rachel wanted to go and Borel stiffed her throughout the backstretch..  

I think Calvin Borel and perhaps the jockey instructions given by Asmussen had a large role to play in todays upset fighting Rachel for 6 furlongs.   They didn\'t want her to run a monster number first back off the layoff before the Apple Blossom and it cost them this race.

By the time they got to the top of the stretch Rachel was gassed trying to fight Calvin and had little left for the stretch run.  

Zenyatta certaintly relaxes much better early in her races than Rachel does, but those are just the different running styles of the two horses..  If Calvin lets Rachel go, she wins the race in a romp, there\'s not a doubt in my mind about that, but would also be in worse shape for the Apple Blossom if they let her romp.

One other thing that hasn\'t really been mentioned... This is Zardana\'s first career dirt race and it looks like a big number.   Shirreffs would be a big dope to bring her back to the dirty carpet.

[nyc1347]

sekrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rachel wanted to go and Borel stiffed her
> throughout the backstretch..  
>
> I think Calvin Borel and perhaps the jockey
> instructions given by Asmussen had a large role to
> play in todays upset fighting Rachel for 6
> furlongs.   They didn\'t want her to run a monster
> number first back off the layoff before the Apple
> Blossom and it cost them this race.
>
> By the time they got to the top of the stretch
> Rachel was gassed trying to fight Calvin and had
> little left for the stretch run.  




Coming from a sheets a natural point of view why would this make any sense?  I dont want to sound harsh or anything but wouldnt it be a great sign if Rachel came back to top or new effort to set her up to run even better?  She is only 4 years old!  If you remember a horse like ghostzapper he ran a neg 4 (got thru his 3 year old top first out) then IMPROVED next out to a negative 6 as a 4 year old and eventually won the Breeders Cup running consistent efforts with nice spacing in between.  And yes im making that comparison cause those horses have run negative 4s and are at the same level.  If she came out with a Negative 5 what was stopping her 30 days from now running a negative 6?  She is suppose to be in prime shape at 4 years old and improving running more consistent top efforts more often...NOT held back because they are afraid to improve the efforts. 4 weeks off is plenty of time for a championship horse to come back to a nice effort.

People seem to be missing the idea that theres a LOGICAL reason why she didnt run today and win and its most likely because she simply had wayyy too much rest coming into this race!  Give her some time and she should come around. To me she ran a very nice race and should be able improve next time out with no problems. (Asmussen 2nd off the layoff).  IF she does not improve and actually gets worse (by several points) dont be surprised if you hear about retirement.  I do not think so though and yes that is a pretty far fetched thing to say.  We will see!

[smalltimer]

Yeah...you\'re right, the fractions for the 8.5 furlongs were--- brutal??
The 1/4 in 23.84, 1/2 mile in 47.72, 3/4 in 1:12.86, mile in 1:37.1, and the final time of 1:43.55.  

1st quarter 23.84
2nd quarter 23.88
3rd quarter 25.14
4th quarter 24.24
Final 1/16th 6.45

Her time from the half mile pole to the mile marker was 49.34.  Blistering, huh?

[mjellish]

You can\'t look at the raw times.  Compare Rachel\'s race, 47.74, 112.86 to other times for the day:

MCCLM10000 49.66, 115.87
OCLM62500N3X 49.15, 113.64


Trust me, Rachel\'s race was very quick for the day.  In the OCLM62500N3X race, the pacesetter was King Dan, a GIII type that won nearly 200k last year and has shown he can run a 46 and change half and keep going up to 1 1/16.  The horse that was pressing him, Secret Getaway, is roughly of the same caliber.  

I don\'t have the final numbers crunched yet, but roughly speaking I would say after adjusting for the varient Rachel\'s race would look more like a 46 to the half, 110 to the 3/4.  Not being 100% fit, she had every right to tire in the lane after pressing those fractions.  What remains to be seen is if she will now move forward off that race, because the Rachel of last year would have still kept on going and drawn off anyway.

[Silver Charm]

Jellish that is a ridiculous statement and you KNOW it

[nyc1347]

according to last years figures, its also important to note that if she did not run a neg 4 top effort that her off efforts ranged from about a 0 to negative 1.  if she ran within that yesterday she would be right in line with last years efforts.  she is running against older more experiences horses this year so she will have to run more consistent top efforts than last year to win races.  Horses like Zardana, Zenyatta, etc are much better horses compared to last years 3 year old male and female crop.  Realistically, other than 2 efforts from last year a 0 to negative 1 range will generally not cut it in a graded 1 stakes race running against 4yo\'s and up.

[smalltimer]

I always respect your insights.

The thing we may need to get past...this isn\'t last year. Each time she steps on the track in \'10, she\'s likely to catch fields superior to last year. Her year may well be filled with hard-knocking, quality older horses that are used to being in dogfights.

With 45 head nominated to the Apple Blossom, there are gonna be some runners in there besides Zenyatta and Rachel.  

She may prove to be up those constant challenges, she may not, time will tell.

She\'s lost a lot of confidence, she doesn\'t know she wasn\'t fully fit, she just knows she got eyeballed and got beat.  

I\'m hopeful Rachel can rebound and get fit and make the starting gate.  Racing needs high profile animals like Rachel and Z on the track.

Peace out

[nyc1347]

How about this point of view no one seems to see.  Last year running undefeated she ran once at Fairgrounds running her WORST number, a 3.5, and it was 2nd off the layoff... she was still able to win!  Maybe she just doesnt like the track?  anything is possible.  Also important is that when we see what she ran why dont we compare that number to her first out as a 3 year old.  one could say that if she ran a negative 0.75 or better yesterday that she has started her 4 year old campaign much better than last years at 3yo and it may be a sign that she\'ll actually run better this year ESPECIALLY having 6 months off coming into yesterdays race.

[martoon]

I think Rachel never looked great in her breezes.  She looked so much bigger and her way of going looked different.  I posted before that if bigger was better she would be a lot better.  But bigger may not be better for her.  She looked more like a heavy pounding Curlin breezing than that sinewy Rachel from last year who skipped over the dirt and kicked those back legs out farther than any horse i ever saw...

[miff]

Rachel will need to get lots of that race and move forward to be anywhere near what she was last year. Hooked by a rather common slugette, Zardana, and outgamed. The pace, adjusted for track speed was not that fast and the final Beyer of 101 puts Rachel in the TG 1 range, extremely common for her. Don\'t buy she was rank or any other excuse, she was either short or not be the same horse as last year. I think the next few days/weeks will speak volumes as to whether Rachel comes back to last years ability.Rachel will not the first champion who was let down and not return to their best.

Z looked dominating beating up on the same Sisters of the Poor\"swallowing\" ahem, a 50-1 shot that has not won in two years.Z\'s figure not yet available will be ordinary. Z is brilliantly consistent and a total mismatch for those common female slugettes in Cali. Trivia question, quick, name one \"runner\"Z swallowed yesterday.

I doubt Z and Rachel will show up at their best at OP,maybe too far to come for Rachel and Z may not enjoy the closers bias of routes at Santa.As to who else shows up at OP, it\'s not relevant imo as no other fillys/mares are in the same area code with these two at their BEST!


Mike

[mjellish]

Re: Borel and Asmussen cost Rachel (55 Views)
Posted by: Silver Charm (IP Logged)
Date: March 14, 2010 11:12AM


Jellish that is a ridiculous statement and you KNOW it



Silver, I have no idea what you are referring to.

You do believe in the concept of track variants, correct?  I would have to imagine you do, or you probably wouldn\'t be on this board as the concept is embedded in the methodology behind TG numbers.

Coming up with the track variant is probably the most crucial aspect to calculating accurate figures.  I personally believe that very often there just isn\'t enough data there, and rather than go off the times you often have to go off of the times AND the horses.  But anyway, if you believe in the concept of track variants, then you can apply that same adjustment to the fractional times of any race, keeping in mind that there can often be a big difference between the variants of one and two turn races.  This is especially true when wind comes into play.

To me, this is what makes TG numbers so powerful.  Jerry and his team seem to get the most accurate variants, not to mention incorporating ground loss and weight into their figures.  Just ask Jerry how tough it is to get a variant you can feel confident in when you have a day that has one race run at 1 1/8th, or when the wind shifts halfway through the card, or it rains or they change the amount of water they are putting on the track.

So what exactly did you find ridiculous about my statement?