TLG and Andy Beyer analyze the Preakness

[dilanesp]

Thought y'all might be interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZJ4J74PAPw

[whodoyoulike]

Thanks for posting. I would have missed it otherwise.

Listening to it, I was repeatedly thinking both of these guys know how to watch replays.

[rsetup]

Serling is a significantly better race watcher than Beyer.

His analysis of the Gotham is :ThmbUp:elite.

[DeltaLover]

Thx for posting! :):ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

[Tom]

Dittos! :ThmbUp:

[Thomas Roulston]

I used to run into Andy at Belmont occasionally. One time, in 1987, Harvey Pack related that Andy said "No Groovy" in a race on a Saturday. Well Groovy won - and I saw Andy on the elevator on Sunday morning and said to him, "No Groovy, huh?" And he just laughed.

[dilanesp]

Serling just nailed the Preakness exacta.

[PaceAdvantage]

He was on the winner since before the Derby was declared official...hope he crushed this race as he should have...

[RunForTheRoses]

I Couldn't understand Beyer's dis of Chad Brown as a Turf trainer.To me Brown is Frankel Jr-mainly turf horses but competent all around. Also, I do believe the obverse is true, some dirt track hot shot trainers can't get the job done on the turf and are good bet against, but if you show competency on the weeds you are set.

[RunForTheRoses]

All the same have to give Beyer credit for throwing out AD.

[Fager Fan]

I Couldn't understand Beyer's dis of Chad Brown as a Turf trainer.To me Brown is Frankel Jr-mainly turf horses but competent all around. Also, I do believe the obverse is true, some dirt track hot shot trainers can't get the job done on the turf and are good bet against, but if you show competency on the weeds you are set.

He's won a gazillion graded turf races, and I think this is either his second or third G1 on dirt. Turf and dirt horses are trained differently, and I think Chad has been learning how to train dirt horses and probably got his diploma today.

[thespaah]

Serling just nailed the Preakness exacta.

yes he did. I watched his piece on the NYRA channel analyzing the all stakes pick 4 at Pimlico....He was spot on the Preakness...Congrats TLG!!!!!

[Dahoss9698]

He's won a gazillion graded turf races, and I think this is either his second or third G1 on dirt. Turf and dirt horses are trained differently, and I think Chad has been learning how to train dirt horses and probably got his diploma today.

Brilliant stuff here. Turf horses and dirt horses are trained differently? Quite a revelation.

The facts are that Brown has had mostly turf horses in his barn. But anyone who has been paying attention knows he can train a horse to win on anything.

Love guys that owned 5% of a horse once that are experts on every single subject online. Cue the bullying whine in 3....2....1

[dilanesp]

Brilliant stuff here. Turf horses and dirt horses are trained differently? Quite a revelation.

The facts are that Brown has had mostly turf horses in his barn. But anyone who has been paying attention knows he can train a horse to win on anything.

Love guys that owned 5% of a horse once that are experts on every single subject online. Cue the bullying whine in 3....2....1

Honestly, I think there are very few trainers who "can't train" on one surface or the other. Among other things, trainers ask each other for advice in unknown situations. And there isn't a lot you can do to "train" a horse for a grass race anymore anyway-- they don't even let horses workout or gallop on turf courses at many tracks.

The usual reason you see a trainer excel on one surface has to do with what's in his barn. I remember Wayne Lukas for years had no turf horses to speak of. Then Daniel Wildenstein started getting him some grass horses, and Lukas did fine with them (and did a great job with Steinlen). He later ended up winning the San Juan Capistrano with Marlin.

[Fager Fan]

Brilliant stuff here. Turf horses and dirt horses are trained differently? Quite a revelation.

The facts are that Brown has had mostly turf horses in his barn. But anyone who has been paying attention knows he can train a horse to win on anything.

Love guys that owned 5% of a horse once that are experts on every single subject online. Cue the bullying whine in 3....2....1

You're such an ass.

Exactly what do you have to offer to the subject? Right, nothing, except to be an ass.

Talk to an actual trainer sometime, Einstein, and you might find out a few things.

[Dahoss9698]

You're such an ass.

Exactly what do you have to offer to the subject? Right, nothing, except to be an ass.

Talk to an actual trainer sometime, Einstein, and you might find out a few things.

What did you add to the subject? That turf horses and dirt horses are trained differently? Wow. You deserve some kind of special eclipse for that brilliance.

What's your next big revelation....that water is wet?

He's not learning to train dirt horses as you incorrectly stated. He's just getting more dirt horses in his barn, thus better dirt results.

Try following the game a little more. The 5% of a horse you owned years ago doesn't make you an expert but it is amusing watching you act like one. :lol:

[Fager Fan]

What did you add to the subject? That turf horses and dirt horses are trained differently? Wow. You deserve some kind of special eclipse for that brilliance.

What's your next big revelation....that water is wet?

He's not learning to train dirt horses as you incorrectly stated. He's just getting more dirt horses in his barn, thus better dirt results.

Try following the game a little more. The 5% of a horse you owned years ago doesn't make you an expert but it is amusing watching you act like one. :lol:

Whatever percent I've owned or not owned of a horse is far more than the penny you have in the bank and the ass-end you wouldn't know in a horse but which you see every morning in the mirror.

[NTamm1215]

Whatever percent I've owned or not owned of a horse is far more than the penny you have in the bank and the ass-end you wouldn't know in a horse but which you see every morning in the mirror.

This is the message board equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?"

[thaskalos]

Thought y'all might be interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZJ4J74PAPw


So...Beyer theorizes that a powerful pro-rail bias materialized just for the race of the Derby...and Serling agrees that this bias "came out of nowhere". Is there a rational explanation for such an unexpectedly brief bias appearance?

[Fager Fan]

So...Beyer theorizes that a powerful pro-rail bias materialized just for the race of the Derby...and Serling agrees that this bias "came out of nowhere". Is there a rational explanation for such an unexpectedly brief bias appearance?

Sealing the track?

Then there was Casse who commented in the walkover that the rail looked the place to be, and sounded as though he was instructing the jockey to get to it.

I think biases are more often imagined than real, though I stress that sometimes they are indeed real.

[thaskalos]

Sealing the track?

Then there was Casse who commented in the walkover that the rail looked the place to be, and sounded as though he was instructing the jockey to get to it.

I think biases are more often imagined than real, though I stress that sometimes they are indeed real.

Was the track "sealed" just prior to the running of the Derby, though?

[Dahoss9698]

So...Beyer theorizes that a powerful pro-rail bias materialized just for the race of the Derby...and Serling agrees that this bias "came out of nowhere". Is there a rational explanation for such an unexpectedly brief bias appearance?

I don't agree with them that it was brief. It was there earlier and Casse had his sprinter rally up the rail (name escapes me right now) in the 7F sprint stake for males to just miss.

The rail was pretty good at Churchill yesterday as well, and the track was off.

[thaskalos]

I don't agree with them that it was brief. It was there earlier and Casse had his sprinter rally up the rail (name escapes me right now) in the 7F sprint stake for males to just miss.

The rail was pretty good at Churchill yesterday as well, and the track was off.

I don't remember the details of the prior races on Derby-day either...was that Casse sprinter a rank OUTSIDER in that race? Because, if the Casse sprinter was a CONTENDER, then a rally up the rail doesn't really signify that a pro-rail bias was in affect.

[Dahoss9698]

I don't remember the details of the prior races on Derby-day either...was that Casse sprinter a rank OUTSIDER in that race? Because, if the Casse sprinter was a CONTENDER, then a rally up the rail doesn't really signify that a pro-rail bias was in affect.

He was a contender but I don't see why that matters. If a part of the track is better than another...or if a track is kind to speed it helps whoever is riding it, regardless of their chances pre race on paper.

[PaceAdvantage]

He was a contender but I don't see why that matters.It should matter when trying to decipher something as esoteric as track bias.

[thaskalos]

He was a contender but I don't see why that matters. If a part of the track is better than another...or if a track is kind to speed it helps whoever is riding it, regardless of their chances pre race on paper.

It matters because legitimate contenders rally up the rail to win on a regular basis...day after day. Isn't the rail the best place to be...even on an AVERAGE day?

[Fager Fan]

Was the track "sealed" just prior to the running of the Derby, though?

I heard that it was.

[Dahoss9698]

It matters because legitimate contenders rally up the rail to win on a regular basis...day after day. Isn't the rail the best place to be...even on an AVERAGE day?

Doesn't that depend on the track?

[Dahoss9698]

It should matter when trying to decipher something as esoteric as track bias.

I don't agree. If a bias exists, it exists. Whether a 3/5 favorite rides it or a 99-1 shot, the point is recognizing it. Once recognized....use it to your advantage now and in the future.

Some of my biggest scores have been betting back horses that were against a bias last time and fading horses that rode it last time. It's not an exact science but if you're able to detect it, you can reap the benefits going forward.

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't agree. If a bias exists, it exists. Whether a 3/5 favorite rides it or a 99-1 shot, the point is recognizing it. Once recognized....use it to your advantage now and in the future.

Some of my biggest scores have been betting back horses that were against a bias last time and fading horses that rode it last time. It's not an exact science but if you're able to detect it, you can reap the benefits going forward.No disagreement here.

My point is, there is a lot more guesswork involved when a contender uses the rail to his advantage then when a non-contender does and reaps the rewards.

When a contender uses the rail, you're like, ok...maybe it was the bias but maybe it was because he was a solid horse.

When a horse you think has little shot turns in a surprising performance on that same rail, you're left with less doubt.

It's really a simple point, and should be a no-brainer, and I'm sure you've used this line of thinking yourself.

[dilanesp]

I don't agree. If a bias exists, it exists. Whether a 3/5 favorite rides it or a 99-1 shot, the point is recognizing it. Once recognized....use it to your advantage now and in the future.

Some of my biggest scores have been betting back horses that were against a bias last time and fading horses that rode it last time. It's not an exact science but if you're able to detect it, you can reap the benefits going forward.

You would have lost out on Aloma's Ruler in the 1982 Preakness with this reasoning. Two big favorites managed to win against the rail bias early in the card because they were so far superior.

[AltonKelsey]

There was little question that the Derby was a bias aided win. What made it tricky was the horses overall record was also good enough to possibly win the Preakness.

I do think taking short odds was a bad idea , and many bet against using CE.

[Robert Fischer]

These guys were both right, and they did an excellent job handicapping the race.

I disagree with some of the models, and I don't fully understand some of the models, to the point that I can agree or disagree.

I am very impressed. Much respect.

[Parkview_Pirate]

So...Beyer theorizes that a powerful pro-rail bias materialized just for the race of the Derby...and Serling agrees that this bias "came out of nowhere". Is there a rational explanation for such an unexpectedly brief bias appearance?

I believe Beyer based some of his opinion on the Derby bias based on Lookin At Lee's second place finish, and the fact that horse hadn't won a race "in forever". Now that Lookin At Lee has run 2nd, 3rd and 4th in three G1 races, perhaps that horse is just a bit better than Beyer thought, and maybe the bias wasn't so prevalent.

I didn't think Lookin At Lee was much, but he keeps blowing up my exotic tickets.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I am not knocking anybody's interpretation of these horses and races. Hell I have been tremendously influenced by Beyer and Watchmaker. But for me I just feel and know in my mind at least that 3yo form cycles are spurious. Finding consistency often means you find mediocrity. And greatness in performance could be teetering on the edge of the abyss, at least for 1 race. It's a combination of fun and frustration with these 3yo's! Big grain of salt in evaluating what they did and might do.

[whodoyoulike]

Was the track "sealed" just prior to the running of the Derby, though?

According to Equibase historical charts the track was Wet Fast (Sealed) for the Derby.

[dilanesp]

I am not knocking anybody's interpretation of these horses and races. Hell I have been tremendously influenced by Beyer and Watchmaker. But for me I just feel and know in my mind at least that 3yo form cycles are spurious. Finding consistency often means you find mediocrity. And greatness in performance could be teetering on the edge of the abyss, at least for 1 race. It's a combination of fun and frustration with these 3yo's! Big grain of salt in evaluating what they did and might do.

This is a very good post. Someone commented in another thread that AD "bounced".

And sure, he may have.

But the years where there are Derby-Preakness winners (i.e., many times), the horse often has the exact same speed figure pattern that AD had. Because 3 year olds do this all the time-- they jump up, improve a lot, and then maintain that level. That's just SOP for 3 year olds (and is part of what makes handicapping 3 year old races so tough).

[cj]

According to Equibase historical charts the track was Wet Fast (Sealed) for the Derby.

That track was sloppy, don't care what the chart says.

[dilanesp]

According to Equibase historical charts the track was Wet Fast (Sealed) for the Derby.

I just looked at the chart and it did say that.

But I'm wondering if Equibase is gaslighting us. I was following the track condition on Derby day. I remember it being rated as sloppy. And I remember it being changed to muddy.

And indeed, I remember some humorous discussion here about the change of track conditions and whether it was an upgrade or downgrade. You can find that here:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=137950&page=2&highlight=tirico

I don't remember it being changed to wet fast during the card. If Equibase declared it retroactively to be wet fast and sealed and rewrote history, I don't think that's something that Equibase should get to do, especially on a race as important as the Kentucky Derby.

[Fager Fan]

I just looked at the chart and it did say that.

But I'm wondering if Equibase is gaslighting us. I was following the track condition on Derby day. I remember it being rated as sloppy. And I remember it being changed to muddy.

And indeed, I remember some humorous discussion here about the change of track conditions and whether it was an upgrade or downgrade. You can find that here:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=137950&page=2&highlight=tirico

I don't remember it being changed to wet fast during the card. If Equibase declared it retroactively to be wet fast and sealed and rewrote history, I don't think that's something that Equibase should get to do, especially on a race as important as the Kentucky Derby.

It was posted by people at the track that they saw the track being sealed prior to the running of the Derby.

[dilanesp]

It was posted by people at the track that they saw the track being sealed prior to the running of the Derby.

That's not what I mean. If Churchill listed the track as "muddy" at the time, I don't think Equibase should be messing with that.

[CincyHorseplayer]

This is a very good post. Someone commented in another thread that AD "bounced".

And sure, he may have.

But the years where there are Derby-Preakness winners (i.e., many times), the horse often has the exact same speed figure pattern that AD had. Because 3 year olds do this all the time-- they jump up, improve a lot, and then maintain that level. That's just SOP for 3 year olds (and is part of what makes handicapping 3 year old races so tough).

Thanks dilanesp. We have our moments but overall we are long time players. Good to connect on something!

[classhandicapper]

If Pletcher freshens up Always Dreaming and brings him back we'll learn more about his true ability.

As far as I'm concerned Lookin at Lee ran the same quality race in both the Derby and Preakness. He got an absolutely dream trip in the Derby saving all the ground and finished 2nd. He got a more average trip in the Preakness and barely missed 3rd. His Beyer figure only dropped 4 points which seems somewhat in line with the extra ground loss.

[classhandicapper]

That track was sloppy, don't care what the chart says.

What I'd like to know is whether they did significant work on the track just before the Derby because I'm pretty convinced the track changed on Friday before the Kentucky Oaks. There were reports on Thorograph (from customers) that they worked on the track before the Kentucky Oaks.

I'm not that big on making changing biases because it's sometimes hard enough to tell what's going on with a large sample. But if the change is extreme and there was work done of the track, they didn't water on a very dry day etc... I'm open to the idea. We know tracks change speed mid day so other aspects can change also.

[dilanesp]

What I'd like to know is whether they did significant work on the track just before the Derby because I'm pretty convinced the track changed on Friday before the Kentucky Oaks. There were reports on Thorograph (from customers) that they worked on the track before the Kentucky Oaks.

I'm not that big on making changing biases because it's sometimes hard enough to tell what's going on with a large sample. But if the change is extreme and there was work done of the track, they didn't water on a very dry day etc... I'm open to the idea. We know tracks change speed mid day so other aspects can change also.

They certainly have the time to mess with it in the 90 minutes before the Derby.

[cj]

They certainly have the time to mess with it in the 90 minutes before the Derby.

And the prior race was on turf, so even longer. It was more than 2:20 between dirt races.

[Tom]

What I'd like to know is whether they did significant work on the track just before the Derby because I'm pretty convinced the track changed on Friday before the Kentucky Oaks. There were reports on Thorograph (from customers) that they worked on the track before the Kentucky Oaks.

All they did was seal it up a bit.

[stlseeeek]

I don't know how anyone who watched the Derby, and looked at the Winners finishing 1/2 mile could even consider him to even hit the board in preakness.

Horses breeze faster than he finished.


He was an immediate throw out, yet the talking heads told you he had more, LOL

[cj]

I don't know how anyone who watched the Derby, and looked at the Winners finishing 1/2 mile could even consider him to even hit the board in preakness.

Horses breeze faster than he finished.


He was an immediate throw out, yet the talking heads told you he had more, LOL

Did that eliminate Classic Empire too, since he finished slower? How about Cloud Computing? He finished even slower than both in the Wood.

[delsully]

I don't know how anyone who watched the Derby, and looked at the Winners finishing 1/2 mile could even consider him to even hit the board in preakness.

Horses breeze faster than he finished.


He was an immediate throw out, yet the talking heads told you he had more, LOL

I'll cut the talking heads a little break. As you said, they crawled home but nobody gained on him in the stretch. And it's not like the Preakness had a star studded field.

Who knows, if he didn't have CE eyeballing him from the jump maybe he does wire them on an easy lead. Though, he certainly looked like a horse who wilted under the first sign of adversity.

[classhandicapper]

All they did was seal it up a bit.

I'm sure these guys know exactly what they are doing and why, but from a handicapping perspective changes to the track can make your head explode when you are trying to figure out bias.

[dilanesp]

Was the Derby the last race on the card? How did the rail play in any race after the Derby?

[Robert Fischer]

You mean to tell me that Always Dreaming securing tactical position, and running his race, free of kickback or pace pressure, was an advantage?

You mean to tell me that Lookin At Lee running 90 less feet than Classic Empire was an advantage?

You mean to tell me that Irish War Cry faltered the same as in the Fountain of Youth Stakes, after doing the same wide, pressing trip?

You mean to tell me that trying to circle a large field of horses in the slop and traffic, while closing into a moderate pace is a disadvantage?


I just fail to see what models are supposed to be raising red flags here.

I could certainly be missing something.

[cj]

Don't see how that was a moderate pace.

[Robert Fischer]

Don't see how that was a moderate pace.
You are right, 'moderate' isn't really correct.

Tough to do a Derby pace justice with one word.
Probably no one here, who could break down the pace more accurately than yourself.


The question that I'm trying to ask is whether there is anything unusual in the running of the race that raises suspicion of a path bias.

[cj]

You are right, 'moderate' isn't really correct.

Tough to do a Derby pace justice with one word.
Probably no one here, who could break down the pace more accurately than yourself.


The question that I'm trying to ask is whether there is anything unusual in the running of the race that raises suspicion of a path bias.

I personally think it was just the others getting really tough trips and losing a lot of ground than anything to do with a juiced rail.

[Ruffian1]

Was the Derby the last race on the card? How did the rail play in any race after the Derby?

There were 2 more races after the Derby. Both one turn races.


Rail horse won the 13th going 6 1/2F. Was on the rail for 3 furlongs and then went to the 5 path and won.
Second horse was in the 4 path all the way.
Exacta was 2-1A
Both were always close to the lead.
3rd horse closed wide from 7th early on.

14th race went 7/8ths. was an 11-13 exacta.

Winner in the 4 path all the way.
2nd horse in the 5 path all the way.
These 2 ran one, two all the way.
3rd horse closed from 10th while wide.

Both races were labeled wet fast sealed.

[Ruffian1]

I personally think it was just the others getting really tough trips and losing a lot of ground than anything to do with a juiced rail.


Ah, the voice of reason.

You are a breath of fresh air CJ.

IMHO.

[Robert Fischer]

I personally think it was just the others getting really tough trips and losing a lot of ground than anything to do with a juiced rail.

That was my impression as well.


Not taking a shot at TLG or Beyer. Both of those guys did a better job analyzing the Derby, and betting betting the Preakness than I did.


I can see obvious path bias, such as Parx having days/meets where usually disadvantaged posts and/or trips are actually at an advantage, or some freak day on a turf course at GPW or somewhere, where every jockey happens to be riding in the 3 path or wider...

Subtle path bias is not something that I have any competence with. My strategy has basically been to ignore path bias unless it jumps off the screen.

If someone wants to make a case for path bias, I'm open to listening. Maybe I'll learn something.

[dilanesp]

There were 2 more races after the Derby. Both one turn races.


Rail horse won the 13th going 6 1/2F. Was on the rail for 3 furlongs and then went to the 5 path and won.
Second horse was in the 4 path all the way.
Exacta was 2-1A
Both were always close to the lead.
3rd horse closed wide from 7th early on.

14th race went 7/8ths. was an 11-13 exacta.

Winner in the 4 path all the way.
2nd horse in the 5 path all the way.
These 2 ran one, two all the way.
3rd horse closed from 10th while wide.

Both races were labeled wet fast sealed.

I think this seals it (bad pun). No bias.

[whodoyoulike]

...

:1: where every jockey happens to be riding in the 3 path or wider...

Subtle path bias is not something that I have any competence with. My strategy has basically been to ignore path bias unless it jumps off the screen.

:2: If someone wants to make a case for path bias, I'm open to listening. Maybe I'll learn something.

:1: I've been noticing this in a lot of races at different tracks and distances. I don't get it.

:2: I'm also interested. Since, I didn't get the memo.

[Dahoss9698]

There were 2 more races after the Derby. Both one turn races.


Rail horse won the 13th going 6 1/2F. Was on the rail for 3 furlongs and then went to the 5 path and won.
Second horse was in the 4 path all the way.
Exacta was 2-1A
Both were always close to the lead.
3rd horse closed wide from 7th early on.

14th race went 7/8ths. was an 11-13 exacta.

Winner in the 4 path all the way.
2nd horse in the 5 path all the way.
These 2 ran one, two all the way.
3rd horse closed from 10th while wide.

Both races were labeled wet fast sealed.

Youre twisting the facts to suit your argument. First, the winner of the 13th was on the rail for about 4 furlongs, tipped out to the 4 path and wore down a horse who was at worst in the 3 path. 3rd place finisher spent most of the race on the rail and was right on it while getting 3rd.

Winner of the 14th was not in the 4 path the whole way. He was in the 2 path. Watch the stretch run, he moved very close to rail into the stretch. Runner up in that race just romped this weekend. The top two in that race are good horses.

[Dahoss9698]

I think this seals it (bad pun). No bias.

Serious question for you....do you bet?

[dilanesp]

Serious question for you....do you bet?

Of course.

[dilanesp]

Youre twisting the facts to suit your argument. First, the winner of the 13th was on the rail for about 4 furlongs, tipped out to the 4 path and wore down a horse who was at worst in the 3 path. 3rd place finisher spent most of the race on the rail and was right on it while getting 3rd.

Winner of the 14th was not in the 4 path the whole way. He was in the 2 path. Watch the stretch run, he moved very close to rail into the stretch. Runner up in that race just romped this weekend. The top two in that race are good horses.

With all respect, that still sounds nothing like a rail bias.

Biases dictate results. You can't make a move in the 4 path on a rail biased track. You get out there and suddenly it's like running on a treadmill.

[Dahoss9698]

With all respect, that still sounds nothing like a rail bias.

Biases dictate results. You can't make a move in the 4 path on a rail biased track. You get out there and suddenly it's like running on a treadmill.

You guys are acting like there were horses on the rail. There were not. The only horse close to the rail in the 13th ran 3rd, after being way back and out finished the horses to his immediate outside.

The horse closest to the rail in the 14th was the winner. Guess who was next closest to the rail? The runner up.

Was it the most extreme bias ever? No. But it was there.

[bobphilo]

This is a very good post. Someone commented in another thread that AD "bounced".

And sure, he may have.

But the years where there are Derby-Preakness winners (i.e., many times), the horse often has the exact same speed figure pattern that AD had. Because 3 year olds do this all the time-- they jump up, improve a lot, and then maintain that level. That's just SOP for 3 year olds (and is part of what makes handicapping 3 year old races so tough).

I agree. What makes handicapping 3YOs so difficult is that they are still immature and developing at different rates. They have growth spurts which would explain how a horse who suddenly shows a big figure may have matured and running within his ability, or even on to increased development. On the other hand, may be a horse that has not really matured and just ran his eyeballs out in a a killing effort, making him a bounce candidate. Hard to figure which.

[cj]

I agree. What makes handicapping 3YOs so difficult is that they are still immature and developing at different rates. They have growth spurts which would explain how a horse who suddenly shows a big figure may have matured and running within his ability, or even on to increased development. On the other hand, may be a horse that has not really matured and just ran his eyeballs out in a a killing effort, making him a bounce candidate. Hard to figure which.

There was a difference with Always Dreaming in my opinion. He is usually the kind of horse I toss in the Derby...the one fig horse that got the figure in his last race. Those horses have performed really poorly over the years. I went with him this year because i thought his low figures in the few races before were due mostly to pace.

Looking back, I foolishly picked him the Preakness too. My guess is he really didn't have the seasoning he needed to come back on two weeks rest and run a third big race in a row. I don't really call that a bounce, but it doesn't matter what it is called. The two ridiculously easy wins before the Florida Derby just didn't give him the foundation needed for the Triple Crown series.

[classhandicapper]

Has anyone heard anything about the plans for Always Dreaming?

I initially heard that he came out of the race OK, but I'm not buying that he ran his race in the Preakness or that his Derby was bias aided.

[Tom]

Then he just sucked in the Preakness?

As to where he goes next, I really don't care. I am not the least bit impressed with him. He will not win another 3yo Gr1 this year. Quote me.

Two and through.

[classhandicapper]

Then he just sucked in the Preakness?

As to where he goes next, I really don't care. I am not the least bit impressed with him. He will not win another 3yo Gr1 this year. Quote me.

Two and through.

My opinion of him is probably closest to CJ's.

I thought his 2 early races in Florida were tough to figure out. He didn't run big figures, but the paces were very slow. That kind of soft pace against weaker tends to make bad horses look better than they actually are, but they also tend to make good horses look slower than they actually are. It's not always clear before the fact what you are dealing with.

I think his Florida Derby more or less revealed that he was a lot more talented than he looked up until that point. In the FD he stalked the pace of a pretty fast sprinter/miler and took over as he pleased. I don't think it was a tough trip by any means because most of the other speeds in the race did not send, but it was a good race.

After that, my opinion is probably different than most people.

I didn't use him in the Derby because I thought he'd get drawn into a fast pace that would compromise his chances. He did get drawn into that fast pace, but he put away all the other speeds and won.

To me, the Derby has always been the tricky race to analyze.

There was a lot of speed in the race, a lot of the other speeds got totally buried in the race, and the fractions were clearly very fast. But he was able to win and Battle of Midway hung around fairly well also.

Either

a). He was very good (and Battle of Midway not bad either)
b). There was a rail bias that carried him
c). The very sloppy track, ground loss by closers, etc.. helped him and compromised many of the other horses (especially closers than lost a ton of ground).

I thought it was a combination of A and C, but I'm still not sure.

I still think he's a good horse, but probably not quite as good as the Derby looked based on the fractions/pace figures.

I think he did not run his race in the Preakness, but that performance was probably not as bad as it looks either. He was hounded by another very good horse before he tired.

I have no idea how he's going to run next time, but I'd be more apt to try to beat him than automatically forgive his Preakness.

[Robert Fischer]

My best guess is that he'll run big with easy trips, and be vulnerable when pressured or taken out of his game.

It's always possible that he's 'done' and will never win another stakes, or that he just had a bad day and will dominate from here on out.

However, I'm leaning toward the theory that he has certain strengths and weaknesses, and in order for him to have all systems fire, he has to have things his way.

[classhandicapper]

My best guess is that he'll run big with easy trips, and be vulnerable when pressured or taken out of his game.

It's always possible that he's 'done' and will never win another stakes, or that he just had a bad day and will dominate from here on out.

However, I'm leaning toward the theory that he has certain strengths and weaknesses, and in order for him to have all systems fire, he has to have things his way.

That's what makes the Derby controversial.

There is no doubt at all the fractions of the Derby were quite fast.

There is no doubt at all that he put away all the chasers badly (some of which were pretty good horses)

Based on those 2 facts, he did not get everything his own way. He ran very well. That's the case that Mike Watchmaker at DRF made.

But countering that was the theory that "it was a golden rail that carried him".

Well, if you believe the rail was golden the conversation is over.

If you don't believe the rail was golden but think the slop and wide trips impacted some of the other horses negatively, you can think he ran better than the "gold rail" people think but not quite as good as Watchmaker initially thought. That's my position.

[Tom]

There is no doubt at all that he put away all the chasers badly (some of which were pretty good horses)

He didn't put CE away easily. CE got mugged early and lost a great deal of ground.

I don't see any controversy - he got a good trip up front and probably had a good strip of ground under him. Still CE was coming late and gaining.

[cj]

He didn't put CE away easily. CE got mugged early and lost a great deal of ground.

I don't see any controversy - he got a good trip up front and probably had a good strip of ground under him. Still CE was coming late and gaining.

CE had a horrendous trip, but he wasn't gaining late. He passed a few but Always Dreaming was pulling away from him.

[classhandicapper]

He didn't put CE away easily. CE got mugged early and lost a great deal of ground.

I don't see any controversy - he got a good trip up front and probably had a good strip of ground under him. Still CE was coming late and gaining.

CE obviously got mugged at the start - which is why he was not closer and potentially part of the pace. He also lost a ton of ground. He was good in that race.

But the other speed horses that WERE on the pace chasing Always Dreaming all fell apart and finished well up the track except for Battle of Midway, who was also tired and crawling late even though he hung around for 3rd. IMO, there's almost no way that was a soft pace given the number and quality of the speeds, the fractions, and how all the horses up front early finished.

The debate (in my mind at least) is why Always Dreaming outran the other speeds so badly.

1. He was very good.

2. Many were just bad and a few lost ground while chasing

3. He was riding a golden rail

4. Other