Question for the board

[covelj70]

I will try to go back this week and do an archive study of this but what\'s the history of horses that looked good on the sheets heading into the Derby, didn\'t run their race in the Derby but came back to run their number in the Preakness.

I am thinking of horses like Lookin at Lucky and Jackson Bend for this weekend and trying to see if there is any precedent.

[Wrongly]

I understand looking for a price in the Preakness but history is against it.  The favorite (last 24) has Won 46% and ITM 83%.  Bernardini was the longest shot at 12-1 paying $27.80.  21 of the last 24 runnings have been won by a horse existing the Derby, only (Racehl, Bernadini, and Red Bullet) were new faces.  This might be a year that the derby winner gets no respect like Charismatic or last year Mine that Bird who went off at 6/1 and finished 2nd to Rachel.  Value looks to be underneath!

Exacta
2006 - Berandini & Sweetnorthen Saint - $172
2003 - Funny Cide & Midway Road - $121
2002 - war Emblem & Magic Weisner - $327
1995 Timber Country & Oliver Twist - $266

Jim - winner\'s that you might want to look at are 2007 Curlin (3rd in the Derby), 2001 - Point Given (5th in derby), 1996 Louis Quatorze (16th), 1995 Timber Country (3rd), 1994 Tabasco Cat (6th), 1993 Prairie Bayou (2nd), 1992 Pine Bluff (5th), 1991 Hansel (10th), 1990 Summer Squall (2nd).

[covelj70]

good thoughts and you could be dead right but SS is one of the slowest Derby winners in recent years and that makes him alot more vulnerable than a really fast derby winner who towers over the field.

He ran a 1 in the derby and with a different trip, that 1 could have had him finishing 5th and we wouldn\'t even be talking about him in the Preakness.

This isn\'t Smarty, Funny Cide, Big Brown, etc who towers over his competition heading into the race.  There are 5 or 6 others who are right there with him depending on the trips

That\'s why I think this Derby is particularly interesting.

[analizethis]

With Ice Box out of the Derby I think the one that is really vulnerable is Paddy O\'Padro. I believe that he will be a very good turf horse and was moved up by the slop, so fast dirt may not be his cup of tea and clearly he finished slowly in the derby. Weather his jockey stopped riding or he was, per KD, looking for a place to lie down, he was not coming home very quickly. This comes after he was also passed in the stretch in the Blue Grass. I would look for him to more likely show up in the Secretariat and the BC Turf than the Travers and the Classic.

As to Super Saver, I too believe that he may be ripe for the taking but that record of Derby winners in the Preakness can\'t be ignored. In the last ten years only 2 horses have finished out of the money with 4 firsts, 3 seconds and a third and when the Derby winner looked vulnerable enough to send another to the post as favorite (Point Given, Afleet Alex and Rachel) the favorite has won.

Lucky may deserve a look, if he goes, but otherwise Hurricane Ike and Aikenite is what I am going to emphasis in combination with SS.

[ajkreider]

Hasn\'t the record of Derby winners in the Preakness been flattered by field size.  How many of KD winners have faced a full field in the Preakness?

[mjellish]

I\'m a little concerned that Baffert isn\'t doing much with Lucky.  He usually trains them pretty hard and he knows what it takes to win this race.  The fact that he isn\'t doing much with Lucky tells me the horse probably came out of the derby a little spent.  Not saying he can\'t rebound in time, but he ran his eyeballs out to get up into 6th after the trip he had.

I\'ve heard next to nothing about how this horse is doing.

[smalltimer]

Jim,
Early on I\'m looking at Jackson Bend.  He and his siblings are now collectively
0 for 10 on the off tracks, so I wasn\'t the least bit surprised he didn\'t run much at Churchill.  I don\'t think he over exerted himself and he seems to fit well with this bunch if he likes the surface.

[cruzm73]

I usually read and don\'t post but have a question.  I believe strongly in the explosive theory of 2 to 3 year olds, which SS fit perfectly going into the Derby.  I know pattern is to regress after the big effort but does anyone think that SS being able to run 2:04 + and still win believe that was actually a positive, leaving room for another forward move?

[SoCalMan2]

cruzm73 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I usually read and don\'t post but have a question.
>  I believe strongly in the explosive theory of 2
> to 3 year olds, which SS fit perfectly going into
> the Derby.  I know pattern is to regress after the
> big effort but does anyone think that SS being
> able to run 2:04 + and still win believe that was
> actually a positive, leaving room for another
> forward move?


I agree.  His move was only one point better than his two year old top and was only a 1 which is usually not good enough to win a derby.  To me, that effort definitely leaves him a lot of room to top up again.  I would only be looking for a regression off a big top if his improvement had been to something solidly in negative territory (a la the study results on early three year olds running neg figs).

[RICH]

He has a nice line into the preakness, as he did into the derby, the 2 weeks don\'t help, but he can at least run back to the number with an inside trip. I have looked at some sheets of the contenders and at first glance the only one who sticks out to me is Schoolyard dreams off the pair and off race Wood, in which he had a couple of excuses. I like his 2yr top and pair up this year, has room for development and looks best to run the top needed.