Post Belmont Sarcasm

[jimbo66]

THis isn\'t redboarding, as I posted before the race that what McPeek was saying about going to the lead was stupid, but boy, does he get \"dumb trainer move\" of the month or what?  A hard send, into a 3 horse duel, and he gets beat 63 lengths, with a horse that had never been on the lead in his PPs.  What exactly was he thinking?  

On a more important note, as we look forward to horses coming out of the Belmont.  What do we make of the fact that NOBODY closed into a 27 and change last quarter?  

Do we just put a line through the Belmont and say that races run on dirt at 1 1/2 miles are just aberrational and not relevant looking forward?  (the way some people on the board talked about the figures pre-Belmont being less meaningful, which certainly turned out to be true).

Or does the slow come home time, combined with the fact we had three different classic winners, point to a very mediocre crop of 3 year olds?  

Thoughts?

[Fairmount1]

I think the three different winners of the triple crown combined with Pletcher\'s crazy arsenel and 6 different horses filling out the 9 triple crown trifecta spots creates an exciting 3yo season the rest of the way.  Medocrity leading to many rooting interests for serious fans....reminds me of modern college basketball:  Parity leads to great competition even if its not the best college basketball or horse racing we have ever seen.  I hope to see Oxbow, Orb, NI, Mylute, Revolutionary, Palice, Itsmyluckyday, Incognito, Golden Soul, etc etc battling out in the big 3yo races and maybe a few making the Classic or other BC races.  

As for the slow final time:  security was strict and vet records turned in and surveillance (by the way did anyone hear Laffit Pincay mention how \"distracting\" the video surveillance would be to a trainer/horse trying to run the biggest race of their lives---wow, that wasn\'t an endorsement for clean racing)...so is it possible that this race\'s slow result was due to the fact you were watching Clean Racing.  Or was it just the result of an unfair track at two turns that favored speed (although race 9 was an absolute pace meltdown esp when compared to race 2 although the track certainly dried and wasn\'t sealed by race 9---but then can you still argue the track was \"speed favoring\" for the Belmont after that race 9 result?--tricky read for me to say the track was biased although sometimes two turn races play differently than one turn races so...).  Or is the slow time a result of generation after generation of horses being bred after racing careers of sapped nutritional health from modern \"therapeutic\" medicine.  Is it a combination of all these things?  

I don\'t know the exact answer but despite the mediocrity this crop should produce some exciting races at Saratoga, Monmouth, and I hope some of the good ones don\'t try to just go pick up a win check at Prarie Meadows or Indiana or Hoosier...let\'s see them square off head to head.

[richiebee]

First 3/4s in 1:10 and change, last 3/4s in 1:19 and change? What does this mean?
(I am not being facetious, I really don\'t know what it says about these horses)

Was Orb exposed as a \"flash in the pan\" who got good for three plus months, or will
he return to a prominent spot at the Spa and in a fall campaign vs older?

[clemsonjc]

it may have to do with the fact that farms just don\'t breed for stamina like they used, which i know has been discussed plenty on this board.

There is a reason most of the winners are decedents of Raise a Native (with fewer entrants in the race from him every year), seems to be the only sire line that gets the distance.  while i completely understand that track variant changes from year to year as does the pace of the race here are the times for the last 5 Belmont winners:

2:30.70
2:30.42
2:30.88
2:31.57

vs
2:27.54
2:29.65
2:28.74
2:27.81
2:28.75 for the 5 prior (which all 5 seem more in line with history)

i believe speed figures have reflected this as well, with the Belmont winner receiving slower numbers than the other stakes winners on the card.

[Dick Powell]

27 and change with the wind at their back!

[Rick B.]

Dick Powell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 27 and change with the wind at their back!

I joked to my brother that if we were standing by the
1/8th pole with 14 stall blankets, we could have coaxed
every one of those horses to lay down and take a nap
right on the racetrack.

[FrankD.]

Jimbo,

I have to vote for a very disappointing and mediocre group. There seemed to be a few by early TG numbers that had a bit of potential and many early posts about this group being much stronger than last years very mediocre group.

I\'m wondering if we have diluted and drugged the breed in the US to the point we cannot produce classic distance horses at all?

You could put an asterisks on this years whole triple crown with a sloppy Derby track, a dead Preakness strip won in a boat race and a drying out Belmont track where they ran the last 6 furlongs in 1:19.

Then again; what do I know I was alive with 5 in the Brooklyn/Belmont double and 7 for the pick 4 without cashing. The Belmont 12th made my day!

Good luck,

Frank D.

[Boscar Obarra]

Look at that horse from Argentina.

 Run AllDay.

[Bet Twice]

No reason to give up on Orb in my mind.  Give him 5-6 weeks off and let\'s see what we get.  Assuming his string of negative numbers didn\'t knock him out for the long haul the Travers could be his for the taking.

[catcapper]

One thing horseracing must  acknowledge, is that there is a point of diminishing returns on the everyday drug use that has now been going on for generations of thoroughbreds. This is common sense and we don\'t need more studies to prove it.

For example, if we give clenbuterol and Lasix to an even mildly asthmatic horse and/or one that bleeds which then has some success and then breed them to each other, we are breeding any genetic predisposition to that relative weakness into the breed. Like any drug, the more you use it, the more you become dependent upon it. And ultimately, it physically takes more than it gives. This is common sense.

The very first horserace ever in history no doubt happened because someone took a bet. Horseracing has always been about gambling on who has the fastest horse. Now,  there are alternative choices for those gambling dollars. If the potential fan believes that horses get drugged and pumped, they why wouldn\'t they choose the mesmerizing flashing buttons and lights of VLTs. Another consequence of long term drug use on racehorses.
 
Horseracing is being circled by casino-mogul buzzards now and the politicans that have gotten into bed with them.  They have no personal incentive to save this sport. We must save ourselves.

[rezlegal]

With respect to the bizarre  last 6 furlongs I offer the opinion of a published professional handicapper- Steve Davidowitz- who sat next to me at the Belmont. He can only explain what occurred by labeling the track as speed favoring for the Belmont ( dusty and no cushion according to him at post time) with a no passing lane. Oxbow was done after a pressured grueling half but other than PM no one was able to pass him. He believes the track should have been watered and harrowed again after the turf race. IT is an interesting theory. For those of you old enough to remember the last time a saw a final quarter time like that Cardigan Bay was racing against Bret Hanover.

[magicnight]

Rez, how did he square that with the Woody Stephens, where the exacta horses came from way back? Or, did the two-hour difference mean he didn\'t have to (the track changed).

What happened in the last quarter squares with his view. Do you know how many of the other 13 gained any ground on PM in the last quarter? None of them. Vyjack held his position, and the others ranged from losing about a length - Incognito, Overanalyze and Orb - to Oxbow and Golden Soul losing about 3 each (and on). In the last quarter nobody gained more than 1 placing, with 3 horses losing two placings.

I\'m more inclined to think that the race just fell apart, and there wasn\'t even one Birdstone or Sarava there to take advantage. Like Rick said, they all wanted to lie down.

[Tavasco]

After all what does not being able to get the distance mean?

1) Late runners unable to pass fading horses in the stretch.

2) Front runners unable to maintain position and dropping anchor somewhere in the 2nd half of the race

3) Same result with a ho hum pace.


Curlin! I\'ve got my eye on yours..

[Rick B.]

rezlegal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For those of you old enough to remember the last time
> a saw a final quarter time like that Cardigan Bay was
> racing against Bret Hanover.

Classic. I wanted to make a reference to the buggies, but
now that I\'ve read yours I\'m glad I didn\'t try.

(Cardigan Bay was the first standardbred to tip the $1
million mark in career earnings, by the way. In 1968.
That\'s pretty darn impressive.)

So...how long before there is some sort of \"t-bred vs. sulky\"
gimmick race?

[kekomi]

it\'s not fair to compare horses racing on steroids to horses not racing on steroids--even if they are racing on EPO and lasix, etc. the greatest value of steroids is that they aid and speed recovery times.

every time you exert yourself, you actually tear your muscles. if they can heal before your next exertion, you become stronger; if they can\'t, you become weaker--the body protects itself by slowing you down by causing more and more physical distress as muscle strain increases, so that you will stop doing whatever you are doing and rest...

successful doping is a synergistic cocktail of substances that have different but complimentary effects: increase aerobic capacity, buffer lactic acid, speed recovery time, burn glycogen instead of glucose.... each alone can help, esp. against clean competitors, but it is the combination that really puts you over the top.

pretty much every horse from the 1980s to the early to mid-2000\'s was running on steroids, and probably many of the 1970s horses too--that\'s when those big-muscled bulky horses really started to replace the true thoroughbred form. of this year\'s crop--oxbow\'s build looks the most like a horse on steroids. before the steroid age, the thoroughbred was a much slighter-framed horse...lithe, not robust (which makes since when you consider that the beyerly turk was probably very closely related to modern akhal-tekes).

you can\'t really blame 2:30 on the breeding out of stamina: assault finished in 2:30 4/5, whirlaway in 2:32, omaha in 2:30 3/5,gallant fox 2:31...no one would suggest these horses had distance limitations.

it wasn\'t really until about 1983 that sub-2:28 became common. the belmont was very rarely run under 2:29 from 1926-1979 (before 1926 it was a shorter race).

maybe what we are seeing are a more natural times, not weak crops (genetically speaking).

personally, i would try never to breed to any horse with raise a native within five generations, or at all if i could help it...raise a native was the horse that introduced the glass legs into the modern breed...but that being said, my dream is to acquire sea poppy and breed her to mizen mast--she has raise a native once within 4 generations, but it is worth it, because she has dr. fager top and bottom, as well as his sister ta wee.

i personally feel that dr. fager was the fastest dirt horse to ever live, and i believe that his speed was likely the result of a very high natural tolerance to lactic acid--which seems to be passed down through the forestry and fappiano lines. mizen mast has no inbreeding for a least four generations (and sea poppy\'s inbreeding is restricted to dr. fager). but it will never happen...alas...

fwiw, i believe that the big heart gene, and secretariat\'s large heart are a red herrings. tht larg heart gene is carried by lots of horses on the tracks these days, but there aren\'t any new secretariats...