alm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most of us on this site knew there was no way the
> horse was going to win...but they felt rushing him
> up was their only chance, given the post. Right
> or wrong.
I vote wrong. Given the horrible post, SC’s connections were between a rock and a hard place in choosing a strategy from the start. However, after considering all the factors, the choice to send him for the lead early was the one that virtually assured that he would be nowhere to be seen at the finish.
The only way that it could have worked would be that he could clear a 20-horse field with several speedballs inside of him, some of which had also shown that they could sustain that kind of pressure on dirt despite fast early fractions, and still be vertical in the stretch. Given that the only race in which he indicated he was even a contender figure-wise had been the result of a very easy uncontested early lead on a synthetic surface, the only way this could have worked would have been if all the front runners and pressers would mysteriously run slower early fractions in a race where just the opposite is the rule, or if SC would turn in a performance like Secretariat did in the ‘73 Belmont. In short, virtually impossible.
Several alternatives were possible, all of which would be based on not taking him impossibly out of his early pace comfort zone. Ideally, there was the possibility that a gap would develop between the dueling leaders and 2nd or 3rd flight into which he could cut into, or close to, the rail. The energy cost of speed is exponential, so that at high speed the slight difference between the lead and just off it can be very significant. Even in the more likely case that some horses would populate this gap and he would be a few paths out, costing him between a few and several lengths,he would still be out of the suicidal early pace zone. No denying, he would likely lose a number of lengths, but might still have enough left to actually pass the casualties of the suicidal pace in the stretch. He might even be able to find a path even closer to the rail on the far turn and make a Borel–like move with the energy he saved earlier, if the horse had the ability.
Admittedly, the probabilities of either of these scenarios occurring by themselves are not good, and even if added, may still be small, however, they still give him a better chance than just throwing him into the teeth of a suicidal pace from the next county.
Interestingly, the connections of Big Brown had a similar decision to make when starting from the 20 hole in the ’08 Derby. I don’t recall the expected pace scenario, but I doubt it was as hot as this years race, and the actual pace did turn out to be more reasonable than the last renewal. Yes, BB was so much better than the rest that they might have decided to take the ground loss as insurance to avoid a pace meltdown. However, one must consider that despite BB’s proven ability to win despite setting a fast pace on dirt, something SC has not demonstrated, they still chose to not contest the pace from such an impossible position.
Getting back to the basic question, while SC was likely destined to a poor finish due to his post position, the strategy to go for the early lead at any cost, despite all the negatives in this situation, virtually assured he was doomed from the start.
Sorry about the lenghty post, but that\'s partly due to so many other more favorable outcomes than the one resulting from the strategy employed.
Bob
