Hard Spun And Garrett Gomez

[losealot]

Just a hypothesis...I'd appreciate reading your take on it, fellow handicappers.

Like others, I felt that Mario Pino had moved prematurely against a fast pace. I agreed when Hard Spun's connections switched to Garrett Gomez.

Garrett took the mount not knowing that his horse, Rags To Riches, was going to run. A friend of mine told me after the Belmont that one of the commentators on TV said that when Rags was entered, Gomez asked Larry Jones to be released from riding Hard Spun. This is a courtesy that is usually given a jockey in Garrett's predicament. But Jones refused.

The race began with very slow fractions of 24.74, 50.14, 1.15.32...Here's the chart caller's description of Hard Spun: "raced erratically while fighting his rider and tucking in a bit in the early stages..."

My understanding is that when a horse with exceptional early speed such as Hard Spun is too hard held and fights his rider, he uses extra energy to fight his rider. Considering the very slow pace, I believe Garrett should have let Hard Spun run his natural style and taken the lead, sometime before the 1.15.32 six furlongs. He didn't.

My hypothesis follows...sometimes people subconsciously act in their own best interest. Garrett's future is with the kind of horses that Todd Pletcher and owners like Michael Tabor can and do provide. Larry Jones and Fox Hill Farm are not in the same league. Add to this that Larry Jones allegedly rebuffed Garrett's not uncommon request to return to Rags To Riches. Garrett was four for four with Rags.

Pino moved too quickly against a very fast pace. Gomez failed to move early against a very slow pace. I think Garrett's subconscious prevented him from giving Hard Spun his best ride. Your thoughts?

losealot

[Shacopate]

You just hit the nail on the head with a ball-peen hammer.

Inexcusable ride by a pro like Gomez.

[losealot]

I say nothing as to whether Hard Spun would have won had he opened up a lengthy lead. He may have lasted or got caught. Pure speculation...but I do think he would have at least finished closer to the winner.

[cj]

To think this horse would have finished closer to superior horses by racing faster early in pure nonsense.

[john del riccio]

To think this horse would have finished closer to superior horses by racing faster early in pure nonsense.

This horse may have been ruined in my opinion. He didn't belong in that race. A rest and a shot in the Haskell may have been money in the bank.

John

[DanG]

Of all the contending TC trainers / owners this year, Larry Jones & company were bordering on becoming unhinged IMO.

[Shacopate]

CJ,

You must have missed the Kentucky Derby. Spitting out fractions like that and still fighting for it at the end of a mile and a quarter race is called CLASS.

Superior horses? Please.

BTW, I checked your website and the numbers for HARD SPUN were better than either Curlin or Rags.

Startin' to doubt your own figs?

[GaryG]

This horse may have been ruined in my opinion. He didn't belong in that race. A rest and a shot in the Haskell may have been money in the bank.

JohnI agree.....He was a miler asked to do something that was beyond him. I just hope he comes back strong. Hope Jones gives him plenty of time.

[chickenhead]

lets not forget he got dusted by TIAGO. He was a very tired, empty horse in the final 2F. Running harder earlier would not have helped. Maybe he could have held third, maybe, though I honestly don't even see that.

His Derby effort won me over, unlike Dan I'm a big fan of throw down the gauntlet catch me if you can kind of horses, especially ones that show as much heart as he did. Hopefully he can have a good summer and win some races.

[point given]

Something, I've been wondering about . Did Pletcher intentionally reserve entry of R@R to the Belmont until after Gomez committed to Hard Spun ? While no one would admit to such a thing, it seems that Pletcher had been pointing her to the Belmont for a long time. He stated that he would not enter her if the Big3 all ran in the Belmont. Nafzger waited til the wednesday 2 weeks before the belmont to announce SS wasnot running. Pletcher didnot give Anderson/gomez word on it til the tuesday of belmont week after her final work, after Gomez committed to hard Spun. JR his goto rider gets R@R after getting a release from another trainer to ride her. Now Pletcher stated JR will retain the mount on her. It just left me wondering whether they did it in a way to ease Gomez off and JR on while keeping options open to ride Gomez in the future on others, and sorta owe him one. :confused:

[cj]

CJ,

You must have missed the Kentucky Derby. Spitting out fractions like that and still fighting for it at the end of a mile and a quarter race is called CLASS.

Superior horses? Please.

BTW, I checked your website and the numbers for HARD SPUN were better than either Curlin or Rags.

Startin' to doubt your own figs?

I actually picked Rags to Riches on my site. Numbers are but one part of the race. I was very anti-Hard Spun in both the Preakness and the Belmont.

Anyone using numbers from races 1/4 mile different in distance to predict the outcome is asking for big trouble.

[Greyfox]

He offered first call to Gomez. Jones wouldn't release him from the commitment.

[Hank]

I dont think so, Gomez's strengths fit her style perfectly.

[point given]

He offered first call to Gomez. Jones wouldn't release him from the commitment.

Yes, I realize that fact. However, like in showbizness, "timing is everything".
If you know that he won't be released beforehand, that it is a hard committment , but waffle until after the date for release, (which was one week before the belmont) Basically gomez had until one week before to bow out, then it was boilerplate, Plethcer waits until after the firm committment date and then decides to enter a couple days later. The jock can't get out of it and Jones holds firm, so Gomez is stuck. JR had a soft committment and easily gets out of it on his prior mount. Gomez agent, anderson is a pretty smart experienced guy. Pretty sad at how bad HS ran as well , being heldup . I think fountaine in the NY Post even wrote that he thought that Gomez was race riding Curlin, trying to keep him in . Jones was furious with Gomez ride after the instructions he gave him. The whole thing just was weird and I got a funny feeling from how it all went down, thats all.
In the end, we got a great race from two outstanding animals, and some renewed hope for a great summer and fall of racing. Lets hope we get to see them all run well and often.

[Millpond68]

I read this morning in a Equidaily article that Jones said he would release Gomez to ride Rags to Riches.. It was Porter (the wannta be trainer) that would not release him. Porter still cannot get over Smarty Jones.

[john del riccio]

Anyone using numbers from races 1/4 mile different in distance to predict the outcome is asking for big trouble.

I would say that races that differ by an 1/8 mile is asking for trouble; especiallyu sprints (ie. 6f horses with great figs trying 7f)

John

[point given]

I read this morning in a Equidaily article that Jones said he would release Gomez to ride Rags to Riches.. It was Porter (the wannta be trainer) that would not release him. Porter still cannot get over Smarty Jones.

Thanks for that. That makes perfect sense to me. Porter was pissed at Elliot for the Belmontt, then at Pino for the Preakness, then he finally makes a switch and wont let go, even when he knows that the new jock will be riding with a heavy heart, at not being able to ride Rags. Jones had said prerace that Gomez was a professional and would ride well.

Apparently, Porter is a real difficult owner to work for, as a hands on type , who won't let the trainer do his job as he sees fit, but double guesses him. I guess John Servis had his fill of him after Smarty. It must be pretty agonizing to want to train these top horses and have to deal with this kind of owner. Feel sorry for Gomez, at least he got the Kentucky Oaks with her.

[cj]

I would say that races that differ by an 1/8 mile is asking for trouble; especiallyu sprints (ie. 6f horses with great figs trying 7f)

John

I agree with that also.

[candystripes]

Fact of the matter is, Hard Spun's connections suffer from visions of grandeur with their horse.

Hard Spun is a fast colt, like most Danzig's best at the middle distances. He folded in the final furlong in both the Derby and Preakness, and the Derby setup perfectly for him as none of the so-called pacesetters wanted or were good enough to get the lead, i.e. what if Stormello would have run his first 1/2 Derby mile according to his preferred style (see Saturday's Woody Stephens race).

Jones is coming off like a true idiot (IMO) as the horse simply does not have the stamina to kick in the final furlongs beyond 1 1/8; regardless of ride or tactics.

Hope to not see him in the BC classic and in the mile race on the BC program instead.

[ryesteve]

the Derby setup perfectly for him
If it was such a perfect set up, how is it every other horse that was near the pace ended up finishing 15th thru 20th?

[classhandicapper]

This horse may have been ruined in my opinion. He didn't belong in that race. A rest and a shot in the Haskell may have been money in the bank.

John

:ThmbUp:

I also think it would have been a better plan of attack.

[classhandicapper]

I would say that races that differ by an 1/8 mile is asking for trouble; especiallyu sprints (ie. 6f horses with great figs trying 7f)
John

It's always a tough call.

Sometimes you don't have any information about the horse's ability to handle today's distance.

Sometimes a performance at a different distance than today's race tips you off that a horse is doing better than he was the last time he raced at today's distance.

[classhandicapper]

If it was such a perfect set up, how is it every other horse that was near the pace ended up finishing 15th thru 20th?

That's exactly what I said in the debates about his trip after the Derby.

The first 1/2 mile was quick numerically and the other horses close to him early dropped dead and ran very subpar final time figures. So from both directions it appeared that he ran very well (at least that day).

The very fact that Stormello and Teuflesberg came back and ran so well Saturday after Hard Spun dusted and detroyed them further verified that he ran very well in the Deby.

[candystripes]

The only true pacesetter that could have exposed HS early on in the race was Stormello, but due to a decision to change tactics by Bill Currin, the horse was held back in the first 1/2 mile despite the outside post and the fact his only shot was to go for the lead. Obviously, he'd have been toast if Desourmeaux would have gunned for the lead anyway, but point is, he would have taken HS down with him.

The only other horses near the pace were Teuflesberg and Cowtown Cat, both having achieved success in their preps on a lone lead in moderate to very sloooow fractions (recall weirdly run Blue Grass). Point being, HS inherited the lead with nothing willing or able to challenge him early on.

Don't get me wrong, HS is a classy and very fast horse. But he has serious distance limitations at the classic distances, and the connections are just fishing for excuses trying to explain what the horse himself is telling them, i.e. I fold the towl in the final furlong beyond 1 1/8 miles.

[point given]

That's exactly what I said in the debates about his trip after the Derby.

The first 1/2 mile was quick numerically and the other horses close to him early dropped dead and ran very subpar final time figures. So from both directions it appeared that he ran very well (at least that day).

The very fact that Stormello and Teuflesberg came back and ran so well Saturday after Hard Spun dusted and detroyed them further verified that he ran very well in the Deby.

I recall that Stormello was dusted on the front end in the Belmont undercard and the only reason teufelsberg won the race is that he had a terrible start and was left in last place and not rushed up by his jock. Speed was dying all day and Teufelsberg had he run his normal race and been up with the lead, would have been toast as well. The race sort of fell in his lap after a heady ride by his jock. OTOH, I had to shake my head on the ride Bejarano gave Street Magician. There was plenty of pace and I expected him to take back and circle like he did in his last race at Pimlico. Must have been trainers instructions to go I guess. Then my 10/1 shot Most Distinguished gets caught by T. , AYE ! ! Sanders couldn't manage a checkbook much less a horse ! ( 2 % wins , 117 starts in 2007 ) I want to step in what she did last saturday. :faint:

[Ivan]

Hard Spun is being mismanaged. IMO despite his breeding, I think his running style and apparant stamina issues make him an ideal 7f-1M horse

I would like to see him in a 1M stakes on Turf

I just think the connections are putting him "Out of his League" right now

:cool:

[DanG]

His Derby effort won me over, unlike Dan I'm a big fan of throw down the gauntlet catch me if you can kind of horses, especially ones that show as much heart as he did.
Chick…

I never said I wasn’t a fan of that type of runner. I just don’t have this pre-conceived notion of what the pace time has to be in order to evaluate the effort > 9f.

[chickenhead]

I misread you then..apologies.

[JustMissed]

I would say that races that differ by an 1/8 mile is asking for trouble; especiallyu sprints (ie. 6f horses with great figs trying 7f)

John

John, It would have been nice if you had stated the above at the Bris figs thread.

I tried to tell the boys that they should not be comparing races with too much difference in distance but they would have no part of that. Oh well.

I always appreciate you input.

Thanks,

JM :)

[DanG]

I misread you then..apologies.
No need for apologies my friend.

I think I’m the only guy left on the planet without a digital camera, or I would send you a picture of the bulletin board in my office. A yellowing photo of Eillo winning the first BC sprint at Hollywood park. I loved that crooked legged freak.

I think its time to shop for some dinner and stop posting for a while. I’m getting aggravated too easily. It’s really weird regarding the printed word sometimes. People who know me would say I am very difficult to upset or anger, but there is something about the printed word when I can’t see a persons eyes that causes an immature reaction sometimes.

Take care CK.

[Zman179]

Personally, I think that Gomez purposefully stiffed Hard Spun; the trainer should have let Gomez take off the mount. It's better to have a jockey who wants to ride for you over a jockey who doesn't.
With that said, it's time for a trainer change. Maybe to Pletcher? :lol:

[point given]

Personally, I think that Gomez purposefully stiffed Hard Spun; the trainer should have let Gomez take off the mount. It's better to have a jockey who wants to ride for you over a jockey who doesn't.
With that said, it's time for a trainer change. Maybe to Pletcher? :lol:

Nah - Give him to that 2 % trainer jaimie sanders. the way she manages horses is just sublime. :lol:

[rcknhrse]

Is it possible that Hardspun is a horse that does not run well when bracketed by horses,ie having horses on both sides of him or does not run well at all in company.I have not watched any of his races leading up to the derby so this is just guessing.In the preakness when Mario made that move ,maybe he felt the pack closing in and it was his only shot to get out of running with horses on both sides.I wish that gomez had shot to the front in the belmont and given Hardspun the chance to run alone on the lead or at least in the company of only 1 other horse in which case he may have duplicated his derby run.I dont think he would have beaten either Rags or Curlin that day but might have been closer at the finish.

[Shacopate]

Just venting of course.

I had HARD SPUN...$200 wps in the Derby. He ran BIG for me...and almost got it ALL, so of course...I'm biased. But I still feel that he is just as good as Rags, Curlin and Street Sense.

The things I liked about him before the Derby still hold up today.

But please, will someone watch the REPLAY of the Belmont and explain to me what GG was doin' on the FIRST TURN?

CJ,

I would like to pick your brain. What made you so anti-HS for the Preakness and Belmont?

Did you like his chances in the Derby better, if so...why?

[46zilzal]

How about the reality that his pace ratings said he had nothing left late in races that required it when it was obvious the front end would be a busy place?

No anti bias, just reality as his percent median was climbing, a sure sign that the longer distances are not his forte.

[santanajimi]

Hey....Hard Spun is a very nice horse, but he just wasnt as good as his rivals in the Preakness and Belmont....As a few people have already said, the distances were just a bit long, considering the whoelse was in the race.

[Shacopate]

46,

What the hell are you trying to say?

Speak ass, mouth won't!

[46zilzal]

46,

What the hell are you trying to say?



The logic of dismissing this colt in the Preakness and Belmont was sound and shown over and over in previous years. LOGIC not anti-bias.

Big favorite last year Bob n John same pattern.

[Shacopate]

46,

You know what...I like u, because you're truely weird. And you are true to your weirdness.

Just kidding.

You're a snappin' turtle that won't let go 'til it thunders. Persistent and consistent...wish all my salespeople had your drive.

[losealot]

In my youth, I learned the hard way NOT to take a girl to the Prom if she'd rather be there with someone else.

[DanG]

Personally, I think that Gomez purposefully stiffed Hard Spun;
This is it…Now I’ve officially read all I can read on the Hard Spun debate…

Gomez “stiffed” a mount in a grade one race, so his former mount could win. “Stiffed” to me means “fixed”…Is this what you’re really saying?

Brilliant…





Purposely lose the race…
Hope she can run down a monster colt in Curlin and all the rest…
Most likely lose the mount on R2R in the process…
Risk his livelihood by essentially ‘fixing a race.
No offense Zman, but this is ridiculous IMHO.

BTW: Pletcher told Ron Anderson before the event that if she wins I’ll have a hard time taking JR off her. This makes this conspiracy theory even more…shall we say…incredible.

[Zman179]

This is it…Now I’ve officially read all I can read on the Hard Spun debate…

Gomez “stiffed” a mount in a grade one race, so his former mount could win. “Stiffed” to me means “fixed”…Is this what you’re really saying?

Brilliant…





Purposely lose the race…
Hope she can run down a monster colt in Curlin and all the rest…
Most likely lose the mount on R2R in the process…
Risk his livelihood by essentially ‘fixing a race.
No offense Zman, but this is ridiculous IMHO.

BTW: Pletcher told Ron Anderson before the event that if she wins I’ll have a hard time taking JR off her. This makes this conspiracy theory even more…shall we say…incredible.

When I mean "stiffed," I don't mean by taking money on the side, or by placing a bet on the race, or by letting Pletcher win. What I mean by "stiffed" is that Larry Jones wouldn't let Gomez off of the horse when he could have easily picked up another top name, big race rider. Rags, after all, was Gomez's horse. So, Gomez got his payback by giving the horse a messed up ride.
Larry Jones doesn't get to grade 1 races often. Garrett Gomez, a rich man, rides in Grade 1's all the time, so all he has to do to ride in a grade 1 is wait a week or two. Pardon my vulgarity, but I feel that Gomez simply wanted to f**k Larry Jones in the @$$. :eek: :liar:

[DanG]

When I mean "stiffed," I don't mean by taking money on the side, or by placing a bet on the race, or by letting Pletcher win. What I mean by "stiffed" is that Larry Jones wouldn't let Gomez off of the horse when he could have easily picked up another top name, big race rider. Rags, after all, was Gomez's horse. So, Gomez got his payback by giving the horse a messed up ride.
Larry Jones doesn't get to grade 1 races often. Garrett Gomez, a rich man, rides in Grade 1's all the time, so all he has to do to ride in a grade 1 is wait a week or two. Pardon my vulgarity, but I feel that Gomez simply wanted to f**k Larry Jones in the @$$. :eek: :liar:
Of course, neither of us will ever know if you’re right. You might very well be for all I know. It sounds awfully far fetched, but stranger things have happened I suppose.

The rider choice on a horse like HS is critical IMO. Jock’s like to talk about animals with a “kind mouth”. They can drop their reigns and allow the animal to gallop at a natural clip. HS by nature wants to be into the bridle. (See the first turn when he fought Gomez and veered into R2R) Jones tried to match him with riders who could get him to relax on the bit and still finish against top company.

Pino is NOT the first choice of trainers when they have a horse that sends hard and Gomez is certainly by nature not that type of rider.

Where I agree with you is the choice of passenger was questionable from the start, but to say it was a premeditated act of revenge, is a bit much IMO. Gomez / Anderson have been threw a thousand of these negotiations and we are talking about top professionals here.

Got to go Z…They don’t call Florida the lightning capital of the world for nothing. Time to unplug and wait it out. :eek:

[losealot]

In the post I started this thread with, I said "sometimes people subconsciously act in their own self interest".

I do not think that Garrett deliberately stiffed Hard Spun.

losealot

[46zilzal]

How do any of us know that the trainer told him to hold back and make one run? A dumb ploy, but this is a contract rider and he would never get another ride for that trainer if he rode it otherwise. I remember a time when Gary Stevens (about the era of Criminal Type) was riding in the Nassua County stakes and got into a long, excessive and ultimately debilitating speed duel. Lukas screamed at him on the dsimount

[Shacopate]

46,

He (GS) also got an earfull from Baffert after one of his rides on Point Given.

The Haskell...maybe?

[ELA]

This is it…Now I’ve officially read all I can read on the Hard Spun debate…

Gomez “stiffed” a mount in a grade one race, so his former mount could win. “Stiffed” to me means “fixed”…Is this what you’re really saying?

Brilliant…




Purposely lose the race…
Hope she can run down a monster colt in Curlin and all the rest…
Most likely lose the mount on R2R in the process…
Risk his livelihood by essentially ‘fixing a race.
No offense Zman, but this is ridiculous IMHO.

BTW: Pletcher told Ron Anderson before the event that if she wins I’ll have a hard time taking JR off her. This makes this conspiracy theory even more…shall we say…incredible.

DanG -- I agree 1000% with you, this is absolutely outlandish. Is it possible? So remotely possible, it's minute! Like him or not, Gomez is a professional and he is represented by the consumate professional -- Ron Anderson. People tend not to understand the relationship and dynamic of the jockey/agent. Gomez hasn't yet reached the pinnacle of his career. He went from being out of the business -- and sitting in a jail cell -- to having none other than Ron Anderson, take his book and position him to become the leading jockey in the country. Yes, Gomez had to ride the horses himself, and I would never trivialize that -- but he doesn't get the chance he gets without Ron Anderson. Ask any jock about Ron and listen to what they tell you.

In this case, there was even more at play. Look at when the decision was made to enter RTR -- Gomez was given the call well in advance, had already been on the horse, gotten to know him, etc. Who could Jones have secured to ride, and more so, what jock could he even consider that would satisfy Porter? Some new jock, on this horse -- Jones and Porter wanted a jock who had been on the horse, gotten to know him, etc. Regardless -- let's say that wasn't a factor -- who was available? Who that would satisfy -- not people on this board -- but first Jones, and then Porter?

There is a massive difference between Gomez giving a bad ride, making an error in judgement, not giving his horse the best chance to win, etc. -- and "stiffing" or "tanking" the horse, ride, or whatever you want to call it.

Eric

[Robert Fischer]

1.) Did Gomez think he was actually going 12 seconds a furlong and just grossly misjudged the pace, or did he make a conscience decision that it was a good idea to rate a 1:16 pace?

2.) (a silly question)- Do they have anyone/anything that calls out the fractions a la nascar after each quarter or furlong ("24 and 3"!!! and 50!!50!!! 50:confused::mad::confused: @$%!!) lol ??

3.) and What the heck was Guidry thinking running 6 furlongs in 1:17 ? What possible advantage could he think he was gaining from being 10 lengths behind that pace? If just a slow start why wasn't he making any headway on the backstreatch?? (he actually ran a decent final quarter)

3.a)*related to the Guidry question - is Mike Smith that astute that he was keeping Tiago close to the slow pace and earning the 3rd place finish? Maybe he deserves some credit here?

4.) Do jockey instructions ever come as a time such as " gimmie 1:12!" or "give me 12 second furlongs!" ??


thanks

[ELA]

Very interesting questions. Interestingly enough, when it comes to instructions -- trainer to jock -- specifics, generic, etc., I often wonder how many people have actually been present during these conversations. Once? Twice? Several times? In this case, I am not saying I believe one or the other, however, regardless of instructions -- a jock has to ride his/her race. I've seen jocks call audibles and be complimented and I've seen them chastised as well. It doesn't surprise who each comes from either.

As far as pace, sense of pace, etc. -- I can't tell you how many times I've seen trainers ask a jock to work a horse, and the trainer gives them a final time goal, what he wants at the end, etc. -- and the jock is most often very, very close (and no, they are not carrying a stop-watch). However, I am not proposing that an actual race is the same situation.

I am sure you will get plenty of opinions -- just how many of them are qualified, I would think very, very few. I think it's a perfect conversation to have with a jockey.

Eric

[DanG]

Just my take here…(and I'll give you good people a break on the Belmont) :eek:

Hard Spun is a great example of a spirited animal that you can’t turn on and off. Gomez saw his last effort (and all the fallout Pino took) when Mario showed him daylight on the backside, he took off prematurely. Gomez “attempted” to shut him down going into the first turn and HS resisted violently throwing his head and bearing out into R2R. After that his goal was to settle into stride and not fire him up until it was money time.

The pace was then a function of Prado on CP West and Slew’s Tizzy who knew full well they needed a miracle to get the distance and went as slow as they could trying to accomplish it.

If Gomez chirps to HS on the backside, he goes off like a roman candle and Larry Jones is chasing Gomez around the parking lot after commiting the same mistake Pino did in Maryland.


Curlin on the other hand is a remarkably professional animal that can be shut down…used for position…shut down again and still burst mid stretch. HS is a very talented & complicated horse to ride who has made a “villain” out of two riders who have about 10,000 winners between them and will probably be a challenge for at least one more high caliber rider before he’s through.

PS-I: Again…Just my opinion, but I think Gomez is a brilliant rider on several different types of animals / surf etc…I don’t hear many kind words about him for some reason and I just don’t see it. When he is on his type of animal that man can finish the deal and has tremendous hands and balance.

PS-II…Watched the stretch again today…Friggin Curlin is all racehorse…That SOB pinned his ears and came back like a true champion. Nothing better in this sport when top class animals hook up and don’t give an inch. This was a GREAT / MEMORABLE triple crown in every way IMHO. :ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

[john del riccio]

Very interesting questions. Interestingly enough, when it comes to instructions -- trainer to jock -- specifics, generic, etc., I often wonder how many people have actually been present during these conversations. Once? Twice? Several times? In this case, I am not saying I believe one or the other, however, regardless of instructions -- a jock has to ride his/her race. I've seen jocks call audibles and be complimented and I've seen them chastised as well. It doesn't surprise who each comes from either.

As far as pace, sense of pace, etc. -- I can't tell you how many times I've seen trainers ask a jock to work a horse, and the trainer gives them a final time goal, what he wants at the end, etc. -- and the jock is most often very, very close (and no, they are not carrying a stop-watch). However, I am not proposing that an actual race is the same situation.

I am sure you will get plenty of opinions -- just how many of them are qualified, I would think very, very few. I think it's a perfect conversation to have with a jockey.

Eric

If I had a dollar for everytime a jock follwed my instructions, I may be able to buy a beer....well maybe bottled water.....

JOhn

[classhandicapper]

I can't believe this debate is still going on.

HS has a lot of speed and wants to run early. However, Gomez proved that he could be restrained given that he had him off a very slow pace, let alone a blazing pace like in the Preakness. Sure the horse tugged a little, but he remained in a relaxed stride the entire time and made a very nice wide bid on the turn coming to the 10F point. He tired after that.

Is there anyone on the planet that didn't at least SUSPECT that this horse might not want to go 12F?

Adjusted for ground loss, Thorograph actually has his Belmont figure only a couple of legths below his Derby and Preakness efforts despite the fact that he obviously tired late.

He more or less ran his race.

Those that think he should have been sent in the Belmont because the pace was so slow have a reasonable point. However, they are assuming that if Gomez let him run on his own power on the backstretch when he first started tugging he would have cleared the other two easily. We don't know that. It's possible that if he picked up the pace the leaders would also have picked up the pace. Then all three would have suffered from the premature battle on the backstretch. There is no way to know how it would have developed, but you can't just assume a move there works out better.

Gomez saw what happened last time when Pino let him run prematurely and knew the horse wasn't going to get 12F if he moved too hard too soon. He probably didn't realize or expect the pace to be that slow, but he was trying to give the horse the best chance he had to get 12F.

That horse was not winning at 12F no matter how the race developed.

[classhandicapper]

I recall that Stormello was dusted on the front end in the Belmont undercard and the only reason teufelsberg won the race is that he had a terrible start and was left in last place and not rushed up by his jock.

Both Stormello and Teuflesberg got demolished chasing Hard Spun in the Derby. Both have reasonable records of both speed and quality. The fact that they ran 1st and 3rd in a decent stake on Belmont day coming out of the Derby demonstrates that they couldn't cope with the Derby pace that HS set. Both are/were still in decent form. It's not a matter of winning or losing etc.... They both ran well, but neither was on the same planet as HS when they tried to match strides with him on Derby day because HS was running a high quality race on the front end. He wasn't getting an easy loose lead.

[Hajck Hillstrom]

In the 1987 Belmont Stakes, Jack Van Berg instructed Chris McCarron to send ALYSHEBA to the front and not look back in an attempt to garner a Triple Crown. McCarron knew better, and tried to rate ALYSHEBA, discouraging him enough to finish 4th. McCarron admitted his strategy was a mistake, and Van Berg was left shaking his head and wondering what might have been.

I don't know what Jones instructed Gomez to do, but the Belmont Stakes is the ultimate test for the young professional racehorse. A horse needs to run relaxed, and the attempt to make a horse do something that doesn't come naturally will ultimately prove its undoing. To try and rate HARD SPUN was a mistake, and whoever devised the strategy, made that mistake. If Jones had planned this when he put Gomez up, than he needs to chalk up the experience as a lesson learned.

The Belmont Stakes is not a race one can consider like any other. It was obvious that skipping the Belmont would have been in HARD SPUN's best interest, but as a handicapper and a race fan, his entry into the race made for better theatre.

A tip of the cap to Todd Pletcher and Michael Tabor for the early campaign of this fine filly. I wanted to see her in the Derby, but her win in the Kentucky Oaks set the table perfectly for the finale of a fascinating 2007 Triple Crown Series. If she runs in The Travers, I might have to make the trip.

Carry on, Carry on,

Hajck

[cj]

There was nothing Gomez could have done that was going to change that result.

As for Van Berg, did he really think different tactics were going to reverse a double digit length loss?

[classhandicapper]

From NY Post

HARD SPUN HAD NO KICK - GOMEZ




By ED FOUNTAINE


June 14, 2007 -- Following Saturday's Belmont Stakes, a chorus led by trainer Larry Jones wondered what jockey Garrett Gomez was thinking when he wrangled Hard Spun, the expected frontrunner, back off one of the slowest paces in Belmont history.

But yesterday, his first day back riding at Belmont since the race, Gomez - who took over the mount on Hard Spun after Jones and owner Rick Porter thought his regular rider, Mario Pino, moved too soon in the Preakness - offered no apologies or excuses, saying he got a good trip but didn't have enough horse to get the job done.

"[Jones] left it up to me," Gomez said. "My instructions were to do what I thought was best.

"If [Hard Spun] breaks a length in front, sure, I'm going to let him go ahead. But that isn't the way it worked. When I got outbroke by a length and a half by Prado [riding C P West], pretty much my hands were tied, unless I sent him, and the whole idea was to get him to settle. Once you get him going, you're not going to get him slowed down. If I wanted to go any faster, the pace was just going to wind up hurting me in the end.

"So I took back a little, dropped in for a second because [Prado] was going to take [Hard Spun] out to the parking lot, and once he started to drop back in, I moved back to the outside. I didn't want to be down inside, and I had Curlin trapped down inside. It was an ideal situation.

"I was in a great stalking position. The race was in my hands from that point on. At the half-mile pole, we're head and head for the lead, and I'm waiting to press the 'go' button. But when it came time to race for the money, there was nothing there."

Pino, reached at the Delaware Park jocks room, declined to comment, except to say: "Everybody tried to do the right thing. [Gomez] was trying to get him to go long. That's horse racing. Just like in the Preakness when I rode my horse. It's just blown up a bit because it's in the bigger races. "I'd love to have the mount back," Pino said. "I think he's a great horse. But that's all in Larry's hands and Mr. Porter's. They're good people. If I'm lucky enough to get back on him, it would be a blessing."

[Hajck Hillstrom]

As for Van Berg, did he really think different tactics were going to reverse a double digit length loss?He and I both....

The effort that McCarron made discouraging ALYSHEBA to run naturally ultimately cost him any run whatsoever. It is interesting listening to VanBerg describe the strategy in an episode of TVG's "Legends." You can hear, and feel, his genuine disappointment in the outcome of that race. McCarron admitted to making a serious error in judgement, and mentioned that it was one of his few regrets in life.

It is one thing to rate a horse, it is another to choke (or throttle) it down. I believe when you overly discourage a horse early, and then ask for something late, the chances of you getting it are slim. I don't think reversing a double digit loss by allowing a horse to run is even remotely impossible. (IMHO)

Carry on, Carry on,

Hajck

[46zilzal]

In the 1987 Belmont Stakes, Jack Van Berg instructed Chris McCarron to send ALYSHEBA to the front and not look back in an attempt to garner a Triple Crown. McCarron knew better, and tried to rate ALYSHEBA, discouraging him enough to finish 4th. McCarron admitted his strategy was a mistake, and Van Berg was left shaking his head and wondering what might have been.

You forgot that Pincay tricked him into a blind switch at the head of the stretch using Crytoclearance to force him to take back again, while Bet Twice took off right about the time Laffit did.

[Robert Fischer]

Gomez
"I was in a great stalking position. The race was in my hands from that point on. At the half-mile pole, we're head and head for the lead, and I'm waiting to press the 'go' button. But when it came time to race for the money, there was nothing there."

So he really thought he was in good position...
Pretty clear that he didn't know the animals in the race if he thought Hard Spun had any chance to out-kick Curlin or Rags To Riches from that position...

We can not expect them to be perfect, it really shows that we have to be prepared for unexpected scenarios especially in a race like the belmont or following a jockey situation like Pino-Hardspun. It can sometimes be tough to predict.

[point given]

Quote:
Originally Posted by point given
I recall that Stormello was dusted on the front end in the Belmont undercard and the only reason teufelsberg won the race is that he had a terrible start and was left in last place and not rushed up by his jock.


quote: classhandicapper
"Both Stormello and Teuflesberg got demolished chasing Hard Spun in the Derby. Both have reasonable records of both speed and quality. The fact that they ran 1st and 3rd in a decent stake on Belmont day coming out of the Derby demonstrates that they couldn't cope with the Derby pace that HS set. Both are/were still in decent form. It's not a matter of winning or losing etc.... They both ran well, but neither was on the same planet as HS when they tried to match strides with him on Derby day because HS was running a high quality race on the front end. He wasn't getting an easy loose lead"

comment:
My original post was clipped by you to make your point and taken out of its original context. My comment in regards to them was that I didnot like them in the stakes race on Belmont day they were running in , NOT as to their quality based on the derby and in relation to Hard Spun. I donot appreciate being quoted out of context to make the point you wish to make. You can do that on your own.
I didnot like Stormello and Teurfelsburg in the Belmont undercard race , because 1) Stormello was cutting back to 7F after being trained /running in 2 turn races and i projected a hot pace and speed wasnot holding 2) Teufelsburg would also be up near the pace and I don't like how his trainer Jaimie Sanders managed him and her 2 % win record.
As it turned out in this race, Stormello tired late , and Teufelsburg had gate trouble and had to run from the back of the pack, which turned out quite well for him , as Albarado didnot rush him up and gave him a good ride. As it turned out, he was fortunate to get the trip he did. No one can forcast these trouble lines. He is a talented colt, maybe they will rethink how he is placed in races now , to run from off the pace in the 7F - 1 1/16 races, don't think he wants much more. ALSO, he never should have been entered in the Derby, and Stormello either. Bill Currin mismanaged his horse , twice shipping to florida, then once to Kentucky.
BTW - I heartily concur with DanG s' assessment of Hard Spun. Its really too bad that he will be retired at the end of this year, because I think we will never have seen the best of him due to his being so high strung and immaturity in racing. Curlin OTOH is mature beyond his years.

It also will be interesting to see whether the owner / trainer combo of Porter and Jones will stay intact. Porter dumping Pino after the Preakness and Jones dumping on Gomez after the Belmont. Maybe we will see Joe Bravo on him in the Haskell at Monmouth. :eek:

[classhandicapper]

point_given,

You quoted my post where I suggested that both Stormello and Teuflesberg ran well on Belmont day. I made that post in response to someone else specifically to make the point that Hard Spun had destroyed them on Derby day, yet they came back fine efforts.

So I assumed your response TO ME where you quoted ME was suggesting that you didn't think they ran that well. That was the impression I got. I disagreed and responded.

I didn't quote you out of context. If you were trying to make an unrelated or different point, maybe I misunderstood you, maybe it wasn't communicated well, or maybe you shouldn't have quoted me.

[point given]

point_given,

You quoted me where I suggested that both Stormello and Teuflesberg ran well on Belmont day. I made that post in response to someone else specifically to make the point that Hard Spun had destroyed them on Derby day, yet they came back fine efforts.

So I assumed your response TO ME where you quoted ME was suggesting that you didn't think they ran that well. That was the impression I got. I disagreed and responded.

I didn't quote you out of context. If you were trying to make an unrelated or different point, maybe I misunderstood you, maybe it wasn't communicated well, or maybe you shouldn't have quoted me.

I'm getting too old and confused on this. Sorry . :blush:

[classhandicapper]

I'm getting too old and confused on this. Sorry . :blush:

:lol:

No problem. I thought you were pissed off at me, but we just miscommunicated.

[Wiley]

You forgot that Pincay tricked him into a blind switch at the head of the stretch using Crytoclearance to force him to take back again, while Bet Twice took off right about the time Laffit did.
46, By this time in the race Bet Twice was off by 5 or 6 lengths and the race was done. The reality is BT was a better horse on that day and even if McCarron had let Alysheba roll out of the gate when he broke well, it would have compromised his normal running style of late kick he showed in virtually every other race he ran prior to and thereafter. I think BT runs by him either way, the two were pretty close in ability to each other at three.

The idea that McCarron taking a hold for a few moments in a mile and half race were enough to discourage this horse from running his best race is a head scratcher when you look at the courage and gameness this horse displayed in getting up from his knees in the stretch to run down BT in the Derby just two races earlier.

Another factor, Aly needed lasix and couldn't use it in New York in '87. Sounds like sour grapes from Van Berg, it's not like his horse came anywhere close to winning that day.

Similarly, Hard Spun was not good enough to beat RTR and C last Saturday regardless of how the race played out - of course in a perfect world being clear on an uncontested lead off by five within himself, where I think this horse prefers to be, would have helped his cause as opposed to the stalking trip he got. In Gomez's defense he was able to bottle Curlin up on the rail behind horses so if he did have horse he was in a position to compete to the wire. Gomez also makes a valid point in that he was outside on the break and needed to push to get a clear lead and thus compromising his horses ability to get the mile and a half.

[cj]

Alysheba ran very well in the Haskell, his very next race, without Lasix. I remember it well because I had a $250 exacta Bet Twice over Lost Code.

[Wiley]

Alysheba ran very well in the Haskell, his very next race, without Lasix. I remember it well because I had a $250 exacta Bet Twice over Lost Code.
Ouch!!! That's a tough one to lose by a nose or so.
I'll take your word on the NJ rules on lasix but I seem to remember New York as the last hold out state. I know at four Aly romped in the Woodward in New York as well. That Haskell was one heck of a race and I remember playing Lost Code in there as well though not as hard. I hope you played that same exacta next year when they all met again in the Pimlico Special. :)

[cj]

I think I did, but you remember the losses better, at least I do!

I scored nice on Lost Code in the Alabama Derby as well at 7 to 1. I was there in person at old Birmingham Downs.

[Hank]

Ahh Lost code,nothing warms my heart and gets me fired up like a tough speed.:ThmbUp:

[pandy]

It was an awful ride by Gomez in the Belmont, he choked the run out of Hard Spun, who could've went to the lead and finally got a chance to set a realistic pace. In the Preakness, Pino did move a bit soon but the reality is, he could not have waited much longer, horses were coming up on his right flank. You can't let horses go by you when you leave for position. Also, even if Pino had waited longer, there is no way that he outkicks Street Sense and Curlin, anyway, so it's a moot point. Hard Spun was close to that wicked :45 and change half and that's what did him in, not Pino.

[KingsLaw]

It was an awful ride by Gomez in the Belmont, he choked the run out of Hard Spun, who could've went to the lead and finally got a chance to set a realistic pace. In the Preakness, Pino did move a bit soon but the reality is, he could not have waited much longer, horses were coming up on his right flank. You can't let horses go by you when you leave for position. Also, even if Pino had waited longer, there is no way that he outkicks Street Sense and Curlin, anyway, so it's a moot point. Hard Spun was close to that wicked :45 and change half and that's what did him in, not Pino.

I have been reading these forums for a bit now, and being recently activated I wanted to throw my 2 cents in on the Hard Spun debate as my inaugral post ;)

I agree with Pandy ... when Gomez slowed Hard Spun down, and Hard Spun fought back, it took too much fight out of the horse. Not only was Hard Spun racing against other horses, but also fighting his jockey. If anything, I should have trusted my handicapping instincts and figure the jockey change would have a negative impact ("Who is this stranger on my back on race day?").

Given the slow pace of the Belmont, Hard Spun out front of the pace, relaxed, expending a minimum amount of energy to maintain the pace would have had a far better chance at contending down the stretch than trying to force a horse into a strategy that doesn't fit the horse and the horse itself is fighting. Hard Spun wasn't able to run like the horse wanted and not able to be relax in his stride.

Thing is, we'll never know and the peeps who say that Hard Spun didn't have the stamina can point to the race, all I can do is shake my head.

That being said, I am sure Gomez rode Hard Spun according to instruction and according to his best instincts to give Hard Spun a chance to win. There was a huge purse waiting for Gomez if he won. I would say the subconscious drive to survive (i.e., earning a living) is much more dominating than any subconscious tendencies to give a metaphorical middlefinger by losing.

[jotb]

There was a huge purse waiting for Gomez if he won. I would say the subconscious drive to survive (i.e., earning a living) is much more dominating than any subconscious tendencies to give a metaphorical middlefinger by losing.

Hello Kinglaw:

Have to agree with you about the big purse on the line for Gomez and I'm sure Gomez wouldn't intentionally "stiff" the horse because he was not on the horse he would of liked to ride but I'll tell you a jock that I felt would do something like that because other things were more important to him than money and that rider was Jerry Bailey in the Belmont Stakes several years back when he rode Eddington. Smarty Jones should have been a TC winner that year but Bailey made sure that this would not happen. Most people believe or feel that Stewart Elliott was to blame for Smarty's loss.

Jerry Bailey riding Eddington a horse that to me, ran his best when coming off the pace but on that day was much closer to the pace running no more than 1.5 lenghts behind Smarty Jones half the race. Here's a jock that probably had one of the best clock's in his head but on that day at the distance a 3yo will see for the first time in it's career each 1/4 mile up to the 1 mile point of the race was run in 24.33, 24.32, 23.11 and 23.68. As you can see the 3rd quarter was run in 23.11 which if I'm not wrong was the fastest 3rd quarter in the Belmont Stakes ever. Eddington and Jerry Bailey were done after the mile 10 lengths behind while coming home the last 1/2 mile in 52.06 (25.08 and 26.98). Through these eyes it looked as if Bailey leaned over as Birdstone and Prado rolled on by Eddington and said he's all yours now and Baileys mission was accomplished. Bailey never rode Eddington after that and Eddington went on to win 4 of 9 races the rest of his career and only missed hitting the board once.

Just to give you an idea how fast those 1/4 miles were run early on, this years Belmont Stakes were run in 24.74, 25.40, 25.18, and 24.91. This years 3rd quarter was a tad over 10 lengths slower than Eddington's race. This year the last 1/2 mile was run in 48.51 (24.68 and 23.83) compared to that staggering 52.06 (25.08 and 26.98). I would think at a distance like this a jock would want to reserve as much energy as possible in order to get the distance.

Best regards,
Joe

[aaron]

Jotb,
Let me get this straight,Jerry Bailey stiffed Eddington because he was close to 48.65 half mile and 111.76 6f. These are Grade 1 horses running for a triple crown. If memory serves me correct Angel Cordero on Bold Forbes went about a 47 and change 1/2 mile and stole the Belmont.The pace of the last 2 Belmonts is not an indicator that these horses are Grade 1's. Gomez's ride was a joke. I don't think he would have won in any case,but he did take away Hard Spun's only chance.
By the way,what were the things more important to Bailey than money and winning the Belmont ?

[aaron]

For the record, Bold Forbes ran fractions 23.4/5 47 111.1/5 136 201.4/5 229.
Obviously when a horse runs faster early he will come home in slower fractions.

[john del riccio]

Alysheba ran very well in the Haskell, his very next race, without Lasix. I remember it well because I had a $250 exacta Bet Twice over Lost Code.

Thats funny, I had a 150.00 exacta ALYSHEBA over BET TWICE
and I still say McCarron could have driven a damm truck through the opening they gave him at the top of the lane but instead he goes wide.....

I was really bumbed out that day.

John

[classhandicapper]

I have to repeat myself on Gomez's ride one more time because IMO people are missing an important point.

Hard Spun did not break on top and then get restrained. The assumption being made is that if Gomez allowed Hard Spun to run either early or on the backstretch when he first started tugging a little (making a premature move), he would have cleared the other two horse with little or no effort.

That may not be the case.

It's very possible that the other two horses/jocks would have responded to his bid and all three would have been used harder before HS cleared them. The very reason the pace was so slow was because HS did not get involved. If he did get involved, it may have been faster or resulted in a premature fast quarter or two that doomed him like in the Preakness.

Ideally, given a very slow pace, HS would probably do his best on a loose lead, but I don't think anything in that ride caused his loss. He was not getting 12F no matter what. He made a very nice wide bid near the 10F point before tiring and earned a figure on TG (adjusted for ground loss) that suggests he more or less ran his race there but didn't want 12F.

[DanG]

I have to repeat myself on Gomez's ride one more time because IMO people are missing an important point.

Hard Spun did not break on top and then get restrained. The assumption being made is that if Gomez allowed Hard Spun to run either early or on the backstretch when he first started tugging a little (making a premature move), he would have cleared the other two horse with little or no effort.

That may not be the case.

It's very possible that the other two horses/jocks would have responded to his bid and all three would have been used harder before HS cleared them. The very reason the pace was so slow was because HS did not get involved. If he did get involved, it may have been faster or resulted in a premature fast quarter or two that doomed him like in the Preakness.
Bada Bing Class,

Nailed it IMHO. :ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

[jotb]

Jotb,
Let me get this straight,Jerry Bailey stiffed Eddington because he was close to 48.65 half mile and 111.76 6f. These are Grade 1 horses running for a triple crown. If memory serves me correct Angel Cordero on Bold Forbes went about a 47 and change 1/2 mile and stole the Belmont.The pace of the last 2 Belmonts is not an indicator that these horses are Grade 1's. Gomez's ride was a joke. I don't think he would have won in any case,but he did take away Hard Spun's only chance.
By the way,what were the things more important to Bailey than money and winning the Belmont ?

Hello Aaron:

You missed the point I was making because you are looking at the fractions. My point was that 1/4 mile was run in 23.11 and it was the fastest ever in Belmont Stake history. Bailey sacrificed his horse to make sure there would be no TC winner. This was important to Bailey and was his main goal. If he rode Eddington so well then why was he taken off the rest of Eddington's career? Bailey was a jeolous crybaby that year because he and agent were unable to ride the best horse for those races. In regard to Bold Forbes 47 and 111.25 that 1/4 was run in 24.25. A rider's job is to run each 1/4 mile reserving as much energy as possible to finish. A horse that runs at that distance the way Bailey rode Eddington is never going to finish up strong running the middle of the race as fast as Eddington went. Remember they came home in 26.98 and the cause for this is because of what transpired early on. Believe what you want Aaron. This is fine with me but I know what Bailey's intent was.

Joe

[john del riccio]

Hello Aaron:

You missed the point I was making because you are looking at the fractions. My point was that 1/4 mile was run in 23.11 and it was the fastest ever in Belmont Stake history. Bailey sacrificed his horse to make sure there would be no TC winner. This was important to Bailey and was his main goal. If he rode Eddington so well then why was he taken off the rest of Eddington's career? Bailey was a jeolous crybaby that year because he and agent were unable to ride the best horse for those races. In regard to Bold Forbes 47 and 111.25 that 1/4 was run in 24.25. A rider's job is to run each 1/4 mile reserving as much energy as possible to finish. A horse that runs at that distance the way Bailey rode Eddington is never going to finish up strong running the middle of the race as fast as Eddington went. Remember they came home in 26.98 and the cause for this is because of what transpired early on. Believe what you want Aaron. This is fine with me but I know what Bailey's intent was.

Joe

BINGO !

[KingsLaw]

Looked to me like Gomez was doing something going into the first turn.

Could be just the shadows, but after Gomez takes Hard Spun towards the rail and then back towards the outside before the first turn, it looks as if Gomez is leaning back pretty hard.

Hard Spun disappeared quickly in the stretch, so in the end who knows - ifs and buts. Anyways, great race (although I am getting a bit tired of the girlfriend reminding me of her win bet on Rags to Riches).

Check out this link to the race on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URl70KylKZg)

[aaron]

Joe-
Eddington had no shot in the race,no matter what Bailey did. I guess Bailey knew someone would come along and beat Smarty Jones. Whatever, Bailey's intent was,if Smarty Jones was a great horse,he still would have won the race. Three quaters of the way down the stretch,nobody seem worried about Bailey's ride or Stewart Elliots ride for that matter. We all have seen great horses get the worst of it and still win.Smarty Jones didn't deserve to win the triple crown,if he couldn't overcome adversity-case closed.
The 26.98 quarter coming home was obviously a product of early fast fractions,but a "great" horse has to win a race when they come home that slow.

[jotb]

Joe-
Eddington had no shot in the race,no matter what Bailey did. I guess Bailey knew someone would come along and beat Smarty Jones. Whatever, Bailey's intent was,if Smarty Jones was a great horse,he still would have won the race. Three quaters of the way down the stretch,nobody seem worried about Bailey's ride or Stewart Elliots ride for that matter. We all have seen great horses get the worst of it and still win.Smarty Jones didn't deserve to win the triple crown,if he couldn't overcome adversity-case closed.
The 26.98 quarter coming home was obviously a product of early fast fractions,but a "great" horse has to win a race when they come home that slow.

Hello Aaron:

So, what you are saying is since Eddington had no shot in the race it makes it ok for what Bailey did. Remember something Aaron, in races like that you try everything you can to win and if you can't win then picking up a second or a third is better for the owners. I'll say it a hundred times over, Bailey was not worried about the horse, trainer and owner. In this particuliar race Bailey rode someone else's horse which was Smarty. I'm sure Bailey was smooching between those fast quarters. Watch the race if you get a chance and keep an eye on Smarty Jones ears during that part of the race.

How can you say that Smary didn't deserve to win the TC since he couldn't overcome adversity? This horse went into the Belmont underfeated and losing the Belmont by a length. He put away Eddington and Rock Hard Ten (keep in mind that Rock Hard Ten only lost 1 race the rest of his career winning 5 of 6) in a race that was extremely demanding early on at a distance that a 3yo would see for the first time. He win at 5 different racetracks in his 9 races and win at 8 different distances. He buried Rock Hard Ten and Eddington in the Preakness winning like a champion should and then put them both away once again in the Belmont only to lose because of Bailey's tactics. This horse Aaron was a great horse.

Joe

[john del riccio]

Hello Aaron:

So, what you are saying is since Eddington had no shot in the race it makes it ok for what Bailey did. Remember something Aaron, in races like that you try everything you can to win and if you can't win then picking up a second or a third is better for the owners. I'll say it a hundred times over, Bailey was not worried about the horse, trainer and owner. In this particuliar race Bailey rode someone else's horse which was Smarty. I'm sure Bailey was smooching between those fast quarters. Watch the race if you get a chance and keep an eye on Smarty Jones ears during that part of the race.

How can you say that Smary didn't deserve to win the TC since he couldn't overcome adversity? This horse went into the Belmont underfeated and losing the Belmont by a length. He put away Eddington and Rock Hard Ten (keep in mind that Rock Hard Ten only lost 1 race the rest of his career winning 5 of 6) in a race that was extremely demanding early on at a distance that a 3yo would see for the first time. He win at 5 different racetracks in his 9 races and win at 8 different distances. He buried Rock Hard Ten and Eddington in the Preakness winning like a champion should and then put them both away once again in the Belmont only to lose because of Bailey's tactics. This horse Aaron was a great horse.

Joe

Joe,

If this was a debate, you would be declared the victor. SJ was as deserving A TC winner as any of the others that have come close in recent years.

John

[DanG]

SJ was as deserving A TC winner as any of the others that have come close in recent years.

John
While I’m not 100% on board with the Bailey / Eddington theory…I do strongly agree on the merits of Smarty Jones…One of the few “hyped” horses I have seen who was actually underrated IMO.

I was doing my own #’s at the time and I had his Rebel win so much faster than Beyer (for example) it was frightening. One of the fastest 3yo’s in the last 30 years. :ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

[aaron]

Joe and John
Was the Zito horse Smarty lost to a great horse ? Did any of the horses Smarty ran against win Breeders Cup races or go on to be Horse of the Year ?
Smarty was never given the chance to prove his greatness. I think he beat up on an ordinary bunch of 3 year old's. I agree he was the best of those horses,but he couldn't finish the deal. I guess Bailey should have just let the horse loose on a uncontested lead.
Were Eddington and Rock Hard Ten great horses ? I'm not saying they were bad horses,but how good were these horses. I don't think you could compare them to other great horses like Alydar or Sham who pushed great horses to the limit.
Seattle Slew probably didn't beat any great horses in his Triple Crown,but went on to prove his greatness was no fluke in later performances.
As for Bailey,he has been accused of trying to get Smarty Jones beat,but wasn't there another horse also pushing Smarty ? I haven't watched the race in a while.
My opinion on Bailey,is that the last few years of his career,he was not nearly the jockey he was during his prime. Whether he intentionally went after Smarty is really of no consequence,we have to deal with the circumstances as they unfold.Maybe,he thought that was the only way he could win the race. Bailey,even then would not ride a race to pick up a piece,so I agree with you that, he could care less if he finished 2nd or 3rd.

[jotb]

Joe and John
Was the Zito horse Smarty lost to a great horse ? Did any of the horses Smarty ran against win Breeders Cup races or go on to be Horse of the Year ?
Smarty was never given the chance to prove his greatness. I think he beat up on an ordinary bunch of 3 year old's. I agree he was the best of those horses,but he couldn't finish the deal. I guess Bailey should have just let the horse loose on a uncontested lead.
Were Eddington and Rock Hard Ten great horses ? I'm not saying they were bad horses,but how good were these horses. I don't think you could compare them to other great horses like Alydar or Sham who pushed great horses to the limit.
Seattle Slew probably didn't beat any great horses in his Triple Crown,but went on to prove his greatness was no fluke in later performances.
As for Bailey,he has been accused of trying to get Smarty Jones beat,but wasn't there another horse also pushing Smarty ? I haven't watched the race in a while.
My opinion on Bailey,is that the last few years of his career,he was not nearly the jockey he was during his prime. Whether he intentionally went after Smarty is really of no consequence,we have to deal with the circumstances as they unfold.Maybe,he thought that was the only way he could win the race. Bailey,even then would not ride a race to pick up a piece,so I agree with you that, he could care less if he finished 2nd or 3rd.


Hello Aaron:

I don't know about Birdstone being a great horse. It was hard to tell because he only ran 2 other times after the Belmont. One of those races was a win in the Travers. Rock Hard Ten win the Santa Anita Handicap beating Borego and he won the Jockey Club Gold Cup. Rock Hard Ten also beat Saint Liam in that race and Saint Liam win the Breeders Cup Classic. Eddington won the Pimlico Special beating Funny Cide. We can't really say anything about Smarty Jones because his career ended as a 3yo. For me it was an average 3yo crop that year.

Eddington and Hard Rock Ten in the Preakness both came from off the pace and were no match for Smarty Jones that day. To my recollection, Lion Heart was the early pace setter so with Lion Heart out of the Belmont, I guess we have to say that Bailey and Solis both thought to themselves if we are going to win this race we need to put enough pressure on Smarty Jones early on or we have no shot of winning. They kept Smarty inbetween them early on (Solis on the inside of Smarty and Bailey on the outside of Smarty) making their horses do something they also were not capable of. Why didn't one of the two horses take back some? They knew that Smarty was not going to back off because Smarty was the type of horse that really didn't like horses in front of him. He would keep whatever pace was out there and when they ran that 3rd quarter in 23.11 both riders knew this would soften Smarty up going that distance. I keep telling you that 1/4 was the fastest in history. Do you think Solis and Bailey were not aware of how fast they were traveling that 1/4? We just have a difference of opinion here and like most people you feel that these jockeys were not vicious in any kind of way and they were trying to do their best to win the race.

Joe

[aaron]

Joe,
I just don't think you hand the Triple Crown to a horse without challenging him.
As for jockey's, I think the clock in the head is overrated. I feel most jockey's don't have a clue,but the jockeys we're talking about here are in the upper echelon, so I have to admit that they knew they were forcing the race.Both knew they couldn't win from off the pace,so they changed tactics.They weren't worried whether this would be good for Smarty Jones.

[jotb]

Joe,
I just don't think you hand the Triple Crown to a horse without challenging him.
As for jockey's, I think the clock in the head is overrated. I feel most jockey's don't have a clue,but the jockeys we're talking about here are in the upper echelon, so I have to admit that they knew they were forcing the race.Both knew they couldn't win from off the pace,so they changed tactics.They weren't worried whether this would be good for Smarty Jones.

Hello Aaron:


Changing tactics for a horse can be dangerous without training that horse to do it. Those two jockeys could have ruined those horses careers. If they were given instructions to ride that way then I say ok, but I can assure you that was not the gameplan for trainer and owner. Both riders were taken off both those horses after that. I'm surprised to hear from you that most jockey's don't have a clue. I know that in NY if a jock is asked to work a horse in such and such time then that jock better not be off that much. A length or 2 might be ok but if a jock goes a second faster that trainer is not a happy camper and will more than likely seek another rider for the afternoon. At the smaller racetracks jocks get away with work in the mornings but at the major circuits it's a different story. Trainers expect riders to know how fast they are going in a work or race. There is no room for error in this game if you want to make the winner's circle. Getting a horse prepared for a race is work and supposed to be done the right way.

Joe

[46zilzal]

Two drivers get into these cars respectively: a Chevy Nova and a Ferrari. How much is their driving going to change these automobiles potential? Not much.

Same with horses and their riders: not much.

[aaron]

Joe-
Just to get off the topic, I have a question,suppose a horse has been trained to rate off the pace and is accustomed to running 47 half miles and his usually about 5 lenghths back. Now the horse is in a race that the half mile goes 49,where should the horse be in this race ? I'm just asking the question,because from just looking at the pace,I would think this horse should be on or near the pace, no matter what his running style is. I am not saying, I am correct in this assumption,but wonder what others think.

[jotb]

Joe-
Just to get off the topic, I have a question,suppose a horse has been trained to rate off the pace and is accustomed to running 47 half miles and his usually about 5 lenghths back. Now the horse is in a race that the half mile goes 49,where should the horse be in this race ? I'm just asking the question,because from just looking at the pace,I would think this horse should be on or near the pace, no matter what his running style is. I am not saying, I am correct in this assumption,but wonder what others think.

If he's 5 lenghts back that means he is running a 48 half mile. If he's in a race where the 1/2 is run in 49, I would think he should be on or near the lead. Now if he's coming out of races where the 1/2 is usually run in 47 but the track is extremely fast on those days and now he's in a race where the 1/2 is run in 49 on a day where the track is dead then it's possible he still may not be close to the lead. It depends alot on the surface. For example you may see a horse that has run at Del Mar and is usually a front runner cutting 44 half miles in 6F races, I can assure you if this horse is shipped to a place like CT and ran at 4.5F, he probably would not be on the lead if they ran the 1/2 in 45. It all depends on the situation at hand.

Joe

[Greyfox]

Joe-
Just to get off the topic, I have a question,suppose a horse has been trained to rate off the pace and is accustomed to running 47 half miles and his usually about 5 lenghths back. Now the horse is in a race that the half mile goes 49,where should the horse be in this race ? .

Horses are herd animals. While the pace may be slower, the comfort zone will determine where they want to run in the pack. The jockey and trainer might think otherwise. Personally, I prefer them to run where they feel comfortable.
I think good jockey's know that, particularly at longer distances.

[JustRalph]

Hello Aaron:

You missed the point I was making because you are looking at the fractions. My point was that 1/4 mile was run in 23.11 and it was the fastest ever in Belmont Stake history. Bailey sacrificed his horse to make sure there would be no TC winner. This was important to Bailey and was his main goal. If he rode Eddington so well then why was he taken off the rest of Eddington's career? Bailey was a jeolous crybaby that year because he and agent were unable to ride the best horse for those races. In regard to Bold Forbes 47 and 111.25 that 1/4 was run in 24.25. A rider's job is to run each 1/4 mile reserving as much energy as possible to finish. A horse that runs at that distance the way Bailey rode Eddington is never going to finish up strong running the middle of the race as fast as Eddington went. Remember they came home in 26.98 and the cause for this is because of what transpired early on. Believe what you want Aaron. This is fine with me but I know what Bailey's intent was.

Joe

I agree, I think Bailey and Solis had one goal in that race..........get Smarty beaten no matter what it takes.