LOOKIN AT LUCKY !!!

[cuzimahustler]

Great ride from Martin Best horse won today SS a flop. thought? :)
sorry Calvin maybe next year.

[cj]

Super Saver was way too close to that hot pace. Borel stinks at anywhere not named Churchill or Oaklawn.

[thespaah]

Great ride from Martin Best horse won today SS a flop. thought? :)
sorry Calvin maybe next year.

Neumeyer made a call on Lucky. Said he had terrible traffic issues in the Derby. Once clear he made up 15 lengths.
Was enough to convince me to make some bets with the #7...Ok by me. Made a few sheckles.

[BluegrassProf]

Good finish; no disappointments for me. :ThmbUp:

At least no one was hurt when Gomez ran thru the first three rows of seats.

[thespaah]

Super Saver was way too close to that hot pace. Borel stinks at anywhere not named Churchill or Oaklawn.I was sort of wondering why Borel had SS up so close. Perhaps it was trainer's instructions?
However I don't think pace had anything to do with it. Look at the 11, First Dude. He went right to the lead and held for second on that very same hot pace, 46.2, 1.11 and change.
Borel just said SS didn't have it today.

[speed]

Super Saver was way too close to that hot pace. Borel stinks at anywhere not named Churchill or Oaklawn.

First Dude was onthe lead early and finished second while i believe Jackson Bend sat third early and finished third.

Not saying Super Saver may not be better a little more off the pace but dont think the pace was any excuse for such a poor performance given the results off the other pace setters.

[toussaud]

but first dude SET the pace, and lost by like a head.


he just didn't have it today

[thespaah]

Good finish; no disappointments for me. :ThmbUp:

At least no one was hurt when Gomez ran thru the first three rows of seats.Yeah., what was the #12 doing on the Balto-Washington Parkway?
And he finshed 5th!!!!!!

[bisket]

i should have seen the super saver bad race coming. pletcher's runners hardly ever repeat form. i got a little to caught up in the euphoria of his derby win. lucky certainly showed why i had all that confidence in him going into the derby. jackson and first dude beat me.

[Tom]

At least no one was hurt when Gomez ran thru the first three rows of seats.

I noticed he had a beer and hot dog when he was going down the backstretch! :lol:

[bisket]

Yeah., what was the #12 doing on the Balto-Washington Parkway?
And he finshed 5th!!!!!!
gomez may have gotten him a little to wound up?

[cj]

I understand the other pace setters still beat him, but I don't think it was the ideal place for him to be. His best race this year by far was from several lengths back, and I think that was his best chance today.

[GregReinhart]

Garrett Gomez probably shouldn't be allowed within 50 miles of a triple crown race. Great jockey but it's got to be a mental thing at this point. Baffert puts up the seventh or eighth best rider in CA and the horse gets a perfect trip.

[gm10]

Do I dare suggest that the synthetic horses did OK here? Lookin At Lucky wins and First Dude who comes out of career best at Keeneland finishes second?

[cuzimahustler]

Does LAL run in the Belmont or not ?? I think not.

[DeanT]

I'd like to see the Super Saver step on a scale. How much weight did that horse lose in two weeks?

[Mineshaft]

Garrett Gomez probably shouldn't be allowed within 50 miles of a triple crown race. Great jockey but it's got to be a mental thing at this point. Baffert puts up the seventh or eighth best rider in CA and the horse gets a perfect trip.





Dude its 2 different races. One was a 20 horse field which he drew the 1 hole the other was a 12 horse field which he drew the 7. Apples to oranges

[lamboguy]

congradulations to looking at lucky and bob baffert. that man really deserves respect because he treats his horses right and does not mislead the public, unlike other trainers that run horses in tripple crown races.

[cuzimahustler]

Do I dare suggest that the synthetic horses did OK here? Lookin At Lucky wins and First Dude who comes out of career best at Keeneland finishes second?

3rd surface? My ass if the horse is good enough it can win.

[jognlope]

Well Martin has his shot in the arm!!! 5 weeks out of Mexico. Yeah for Baffert. Lookin reminds me of Curlin. Yeah!!

[cj]

Do I dare suggest that the synthetic horses did OK here? Lookin At Lucky wins and First Dude who comes out of career best at Keeneland finishes second?

Is a synthetic horse one that races on the stuff once? You are just being ridiculous with this stuff.

Clearly, Lookin At Lucky is a versatile horse, but right now most would say he is a better dirt horse.

Career best for First Dude? He is tons better on dirt and has sucked rubber in his synthetic tries. Are we supposed to believe that running on the stuff somehow helped him today?

How did Caracortado run?

[Marshall Bennett]

He was beating that horse to death coming down the stretch , whatever it takes I guess . Good thing he had a whip . :)

[bisket]

Does LAL run in the Belmont or not ?? I think not.
he most likely won't be on my ticket in that race, but check back with me in a few weeks

[gm10]

3rd surface? My ass if the horse is good enough it can win.

i'm with you

[Cadillakin]

3rd surface? My ass if the horse is good enough it can win.
Yep.. As we have seen, many of the best Westerners are shipping to the East and holding their high class form on both synthetic and dirt.

Though some here like to misconstrue what I say.. I've always emphasized that the thoroughbred is an athlete first.. and as such, he will beat those he is superior to, under most circumstances..

[gm10]

Is a synthetic horse one that races on the stuff once? You are just being ridiculous with this stuff.

Clearly, Lookin At Lucky is a versatile horse, but right now most would say he is a better dirt horse.

:D

And you're calling me ridiculous??? When do you give up? Why don't you stop arguing until dirt horses start doing well on a different surface?


Career best for First Dude? He is tons better on dirt and has sucked rubber in his synthetic tries. Are we supposed to believe that running on the stuff somehow helped him today?

Any experienced handicapper who analyzes the Blue Grass for 30 seconds will realize what a super race he ran that day, and will acknowledge that it contributed a great deal to his development.

Furthermore, his speed rating that day was the best of his career (by my calculations anyway).

How did Caracortado run?

Caracortado ran very well for a moderately talented horse.

[Cadillakin]

I'd like to see the Super Saver step on a scale. How much weight did that horse lose in two weeks?
Donna Devarona commented on him losing his condition.. But I have him pegged as an off track horse. He had one other race in the slop and it was superlative. His main track form is not top class. Grade 2 or less.

[cj]

So what exactly is a "synthetic" horse?

I had forgotten about your Blue Grass figure. How did the winner run in the Derby, the one with the highest figure of the year? If that figure is your reasoning for First Dude running a career best, all I can say is good luck to you.

[Ocala Mike]

I needed Jackson Bend for second; thought that Mike Smith was a little timid down on the rail a few times in the running. Clearly wanted to get JB to the outside, but it wasn't to be until just a little too late in deep stretch. A more aggressive ride or some better luck, and I cash out, but that's the way it goes.


Ocala Mike

[toussaud]

1. caracatco needs some time off. he looked like a sore horse in the post parade, just my opinion. he really hasn't had a real break since he started racing. he needs some real time off. he has talent.

2. I don't think sitting off the pace, waiting on lal to make his move, then try to outkick lal was the game plan going in for him lol. would have been better suited sitting a tad closer to the pace and then trying to steal it. caratado has alot of natural speed, that was not used.

[DeanT]

Donna Devarona commented on him losing his condition.. But I have him pegged as an off track horse. He had one other race in the slop and it was superlative. His main track form is not top class. Grade 2 or less.
I don't know if he is a grade one, two or fifteen horse, but I do know with the way he looked he was a shadow of his Derby presence. Not uncommon in that barn because those horses work hard, but wow. I was pretty surprised.

Lambo mentioned he did not like the horse in works. I think he was bang on.

[JustRalph]

1st dude might have run the best race. Looked the Ky Derby Champ in the eye and took it to him and almost hung on........

Fractions were everything today and we may have seen some effects from the Ark Derby today. Two big races in row, and flattens out in the third one

[cj]

Donna Devarona commented on him losing his condition.. But I have him pegged as an off track horse. He had one other race in the slop and it was superlative. His main track form is not top class. Grade 2 or less.

So off tracks matter, but rubber/dirt differences don't? You are hilarious man.

[W2G]

Haven't read the statistic anywhere yet but when was the last Derby winner to finish so badly in the Preakness? I have to now side with those who have been saying this crop is terrible. Who will even run in the Belmont? On the bright side, Winslow Homer recorded an official workout this AM. Looking forward to the Travers.

[GregReinhart]

Monarchos? I don't remember where he finished but he was not good that day.

[Cadillakin]

Is a synthetic horse one that races on the stuff once? You are just being ridiculous with this stuff.

Clearly, Lookin At Lucky is a versatile horse, but right now most would say he is a better dirt horse.
He was a champion on synthetic and a multiple Grade 1 winner.. and he is now a Grade 1 winner on dirt... It remains to be seen if he will be best of his crop racing on dirt...

As of now, I see very little difference in his synthetic vs dirt form. He acts on both at the top level..

[johnhannibalsmith]

On another, but related subject - WAY TO GO MARTIN GARCIA!!!

[Cadillakin]

So off tracks matter, but rubber/dirt differences don't? You are hilarious man.
Well, the difference between you and I is this..

I wait until the horse shows a difference in his form between one surface versus another before I assess him. You, on the other hand, constantly assess horses with prejudice, insisting they are one or the other, NOT BOTH.

Months ago, Looking at Lucky was a fake synthetic horse.. TO YOU. Now he is a real dirt horse. TO YOU. In actuality, he has always been a fine racehorse at the top class that will act on any or most conditions.

Simple, huh?

[WinterTriangle]

Happy for Lucky and connections. They all worked hard for this.:jump:


My suspicions confirmed when I said Garcia an underrated rider.

Suspicions also confirmed that Dublin is a 2nd-stringer, and could have been making tons of $$ for his connections running in regular stakes races.

gomez gave dublin the ride he gave LAL in the derby. Glad LAL got rid of him this time. Probably not his fault, dublin was hot in the post parade, who knows what was going on. I have in my notes that Dublin is somewhat intractable, based on what I've seen, either that, or he just doens't "get it"

[Stevie Belmont]

Lookin At Lucky--There was no reason to think he was not going to run a big today after two miserable trips...

He looked good today...

Super Saver flattened out and that was it...

First Dude came in with 2 fast breezes and ran 2nd to Dwyer Winner Fly Down twice. He ran huge.

[Stevie Belmont]

He ran a huge race...

1st dude might have run the best race. Looked the Ky Derby Champ in the eye and took it to him and almost hung on........

Fractions were everything today and we may have seen some effects from the Ark Derby today. Two big races in row, and flattens out in the third one

[point given]

Does LAL run in the Belmont or not ?? I think not.

I had read a quote from Baffert last week that LAL would not run in the Belmont even if he won the Preakness. Of course that is before he gets all those phone calls. Could be like a Point Given thing losing the Derby and taking the other two races. we shall see.

[Investorater]

Does LAL run in the Belmont or not ?? I think not.

At the traditional alibi breakfast held this past Thursday, Baffert stated that he would rest Lookin At Lucky, after the Preakness, and not send him to the Belmont.

[gm10]

So what exactly is a "synthetic" horse?

I had forgotten about your Blue Grass figure. How did the winner run in the Derby, the one with the highest figure of the year? If that figure is your reasoning for First Dude running a career best, all I can say is good luck to you.

Stately Victor ran 8th, not far behind Lucky, following a very troubled trip.
Paddy O'Prado was second in the Blue Grass ran third in the Derby.
Make Music For Me was 6th in the Blue Grass and was 4th in the Derby.

And now First Dude who was third in the Blue Grass ran second in the Preakness.

All in all, it wasn't a bad race. But hey, you probably have another view and I look forward to hearing it.

[letswastemoney]

Until those So Cal horses ship out and actually try a dirt track, it's impossible to tell who is a synthetic horse and who isn't. The only reason most of them run on synthetic is because California connections bought the horse and they have no other option but synthetic tracks.

[Stillriledup]

but first dude SET the pace, and lost by like a head.


he just didn't have it today


He had it, he just got beat fair and square. FD is still 'learning the game' he likes to fight hard, his problem is that he seems to wait on horses and then comes back at them when he sees them, not a good trait to have at this level.

Great try by the dude and a super ride.

[gm10]

Well, the difference between you and I is this..

I wait until the horse shows a difference in his form between one surface versus another before I assess him. You, on the other hand, constantly assess horses with prejudice, insisting they are one or the other, NOT BOTH.

Months ago, Looking at Lucky was a fake synthetic horse.. TO YOU. Now he is a real dirt horse. TO YOU. In actuality, he has always been a fine racehorse at the top class that will act on any or most conditions.

Simple, huh?

It is very simple but this otherwise intelligent enough man refuses to accept straightforward facts. The possibility that the synthetic might be a fine surface to spot talented horses doesn't even enter his mind. He just says that they start running to their potential once they transfer their synthetic form to dirt form. It's the kind of attitude that held back scientific progress during the middle ages.

[SmartyParty]

Does anyone else think that it was strange that Calvin who loves the rail, didn't take that route this time?

[gm10]

Until those So Cal horses ship out and actually try a dirt track, it's impossible to tell who is a synthetic horse and who isn't. The only reason most of them run on synthetic is because California connections bought the horse and they have no other option but synthetic tracks.

Synthetic horses are versatile, plain and simple. There are more synthetic horses who do well on the dirt than synthetic horses who don't do well on dirt. And they stand their ground on the turf as well, of course.

A "synthetic" horse is probably a misnomer.

[toussaud]

Does anyone else think that it was strange that Calvin who loves the rail, didn't take that route this time?
no.

listen to his interview and he's dead on. the rail at the preakness is not the same as the rail at churchill. it's not as speed favoring.


he's calvin bo-rail at churchill becuase that's the way the track plays and he knows that track like the back of his hand.

[Greyfox]

Does anyone else think that it was strange that Calvin who loves the rail, didn't take that route this time?

In the pre-race interview, Calvin said the rail at Pimlico is a little heavier than the rail at Churchill.

[letswastemoney]

In the pre-race interview, Calvin said the rail at Pimlico is a little heavier than the rail at Churchill.
First Dude should proved that!!

[Shelby]

Good finish; no disappointments for me. :ThmbUp:

At least no one was hurt when Gomez ran thru the first three rows of seats. omg I spit wine out my nose laughing! :lol:

[FantasticDan]

I had a nice win bet on First Dude. :( I also threw together a quick TRI wheel which featured LaL alone on top (figured it was his race to lose) and included Jackson Bend 2nd and First Dude 3rd. :mad:

I don't know what the hell I was thinking sticking Dude in 3rd when I liked him well enuff for an upset win... :bang:

[Stillriledup]

I had a nice win bet on First Dude. :( I also threw together a quick TRI wheel which featured LaL alone on top and included Jackson Bend 2nd and First Dude 3rd. :mad:

I don't know what the hell I was thinking sticking Dude in 3rd when I liked him for an upset win... :bang:

I had a bunch of tri's with Dude to be 3rd, i thought he WAS 3rd when i watched the race, i wasnt too happy that he got 2nd. I caught the exacta, but the tri would have been more.

[FantasticDan]

Yeah, that TRI was very nice considering a 5-2 horse was on top :eek:

[Ocala Mike]

Yes, the tri and super were enormous; gotta figure SS being out made that. I lost the same way you did, Fantastic Dan; didn't have the Dude 2nd over JB.


Ocala Mike

[cj]

Well, the difference between you and I is this..

I wait until the horse shows a difference in his form between one surface versus another before I assess him. You, on the other hand, constantly assess horses with prejudice, insisting they are one or the other, NOT BOTH.

Months ago, Looking at Lucky was a fake synthetic horse.. TO YOU. Now he is a real dirt horse. TO YOU. In actuality, he has always been a fine racehorse at the top class that will act on any or most conditions.

Simple, huh?

Actually, I've never had a bad word to say about Lookin At Lucky. I've liked him for a while and was pretty confident he would handle dirt. I picked him in the Derby and today said he was the most likely winner. He is versatile. I've actually gotten a pretty good handle on horses that will switch and run well and those that won't. Feel free to keep making stuff up though.

[cj]

Stately Victor ran 8th, not far behind Lucky, following a very troubled trip.
Paddy O'Prado was second in the Blue Grass ran third in the Derby.
Make Music For Me was 6th in the Blue Grass and was 4th in the Derby.

And now First Dude who was third in the Blue Grass ran second in the Preakness.

All in all, it wasn't a bad race. But hey, you probably have another view and I look forward to hearing it.

My view is that race had very little bearing on how those horses would run on dirt.

[toetoe]

Garrett Gomez probably shouldn't be allowed within 50 miles of a triple crown race. Great jockey but it's got to be a mental thing at this point. Baffert puts up the seventh or eighth best rider in CA and the horse gets a perfect trip.



My source says that Dublin had an equipment change --- a special bit, maybe ? --- and maybe it backfired. That start was quarterhorse-bad. How about a flipping halter next time, D. Wayne ? :D .

[Cadillakin]

Actually, I've never had a bad word to say about Lookin At Lucky. I've liked him for a while and was pretty confident he would handle dirt. I picked him in the Derby and today said he was the most likely winner. He is versatile. I've actually gotten a pretty good handle on horses that will switch and run well and those that won't. Feel free to keep making stuff up though.
That's BULL. You have spent literally months-years demeaning the athletes who race over synthetics.. Now you want to step over to the other side.. and say, I picked him.. I knew he would do well on the dirt.. In fact, I'm sort of an expert at it now.. I've got a good handle...

What a crock of shit..

You and your buddy PA have done all you can to divide the racing community. Our sport is dying.. I just read that the poster "Dan".. I think it was DanG has left this forum for good because of the prevailing anti-synthetic diatribe. He couldn't stand it here.. All he ever wanted was to have a reasoned discussion.. That man was gentleman and elevated the level of this forum...

Now, we are left with you.. I'm out! No more posting for me.. You should be happy now.. Not many left to call you on your BS..

[Dahoss9698]

See ya!

[cj]

That's BULL. You have spent literally months-years demeaning the athletes who race over synthetics.. Now you want to step over to the other side.. and say, I picked him.. I knew he would do well on the dirt.. In fact, I'm sort of an expert at it now.. I've got a good handle...


It was posted on my site for all to see. I've never demeaned the athletes, just the surface itself. I don't like it. You do. Life goes on, or at least it does for me.

I actually enjoy debating the bs, regardless of which side I believe posts it.

[Hedevar]

That's BULL. You have spent literally months-years demeaning the athletes who race over synthetics.. Now you want to step over to the other side.. and say, I picked him.. I knew he would do well on the dirt.. In fact, I'm sort of an expert at it now.. I've got a good handle...

What a crock of shit..

You and your buddy PA have done all you can to divide the racing community. Our sport is dying.. I just read that the poster "Dan".. I think it was DanG has left this forum for good because of the prevailing anti-synthetic diatribe. He couldn't stand it here.. All he ever wanted was to have a reasoned discussion.. That man was gentleman and elevated the level of this forum...

Now, we are left with you.. I'm out! No more posting for me.. You should be happy now.. Not many left to call you on your BS..

I personally do not think fillies and mares should race against males, Additionally I am in favor of synthetics as Arlington is my home track and I believe it has become a safer track since poly was installed.

I realize my opinion is in the minority on this board but I still feel comfortable posting here.

I never found the manner in which you expressed your opinions to be civil or gentlemanly in any way at all.

Adios.

[Tom]

It is very simple but this otherwise intelligent enough man refuses to accept straightforward facts. The possibility that the synthetic might be a fine surface to spot talented horses doesn't even enter his mind. He just says that they start running to their potential once they transfer their synthetic form to dirt form. It's the kind of attitude that held back scientific progress during the middle ages.

How about this idea - synths are such lousy surfaces, only really good horses run well over them. When they get on real surfaces - dirt - they excel. I have the BG as a slow race, not impressive. POP ran a tiring third in the derby, over a wet track. Where was he today on a fast track? LAL ran his lifetime best first over dirt. FD showed a nice developing pattern on dirt - his only regression race being on plastic. He paired up his last tow dirt races and figure to move ahead today. And it had nothing to do with him being a synth horse - he was a developing young horse who figured today....and being back on dirt, he ran to form. Dirt form.

The fact that most horse improve moving to dirt just shows me that the synth surface hold them back.

[Fager Fan]

Do I dare suggest that the synthetic horses did OK here? Lookin At Lucky wins and First Dude who comes out of career best at Keeneland finishes second?

Should this be a surprise to anyone? After all, neither horse was bred to be a synthetic horse, they were bred to be dirt horses. So when the dirt horse moves to the dirt, voila!, we see an improvement.

[cj's dad]

Now, we are left with you.. I'm out! No more posting for me.. You should be happy now.. Not many left to call you on your BS..

AMF -we'll miss you !!

[bisket]

Actually, I've never had a bad word to say about Lookin At Lucky. I've liked him for a while and was pretty confident he would handle dirt. I picked him in the Derby and today said he was the most likely winner. He is versatile. I've actually gotten a pretty good handle on horses that will switch and run well and those that won't. Feel free to keep making stuff up though.
got a handle on horses that will switch and run well? how is zen gonna do against say rachel, and males this year at churchill? i can't resist :D

[Greyfox]

That's BULL. You have spent literally months-years demeaning the athletes who race over synthetics.. Now you want to step over to the other side.. and say, I picked him.. I knew he would do well on the dirt.. In fact, I'm sort of an expert at it now.. I've got a good handle...

What a crock of shit..

You and your buddy PA have done all you can to divide the racing community. Our sport is dying.. I just read that the poster "Dan".. I think it was DanG has left this forum for good because of the prevailing anti-synthetic diatribe. He couldn't stand it here.. All he ever wanted was to have a reasoned discussion.. That man was gentleman and elevated the level of this forum...

Now, we are left with you.. I'm out! No more posting for me.. You should be happy now.. Not many left to call you on your BS..

:lol: :lol: :lol: Doubtful.
See you in a couple of hundred posts down the road.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[cj]

got a handle on horses that will switch and run well? how is zen gonna do against say rachel, and males this year at churchill? i can't resist :D

I guess it depends on the males that show up.

[WinterTriangle]

Does anyone else think that it was strange that Calvin who loves the rail, didn't take that route this time?

The rail was dead yesterday, and he didn't win on Tidal Pool either (I didn't wager tidal pool, who was chalk, but figured if calvin TRIED the rail, he would lose yesterday, so I just didn't wager him in that race).

I'm sure he figured stuff out.

[Dahoss9698]

I'm not so sure the rail was dead. I didn't really think there was any kind of bias in the last 2 days at Pimlico. I have to watch the replays again, but it looked like the best horses won.

Considering the way First Dude ran, how could the rail have been considered dead? I think Borel is a man amongst boys at Churchill and pretty average at most other tracks.

[Bettowin]

Good reading but I wish all the posters who had money on First Dude would have said something before the race:) Great call by those who had him.

[DeanT]

Should this be a surprise to anyone? After all, neither horse was bred to be a synthetic horse, they were bred to be dirt horses. So when the dirt horse moves to the dirt, voila!, we see an improvement.
If it was that easy, wouldnt the exacta have paid like $20? Did you have it?

[xfile]

Bob Baffert's decision to remove Garrett Gomez and replace him with Martin Garcia is genius in nature.

[gm10]

My view is that race had very little bearing on how those horses would run on dirt.


Yes that's the problem. You still think that everything revolves around the surface rather than the horse. You need a private Copernican revolution when it comes to handicapping.

[gm10]

How about this idea - synths are such lousy surfaces, only really good horses run well over them. When they get on real surfaces - dirt - they excel. I have the BG as a slow race, not impressive. POP ran a tiring third in the derby, over a wet track. Where was he today on a fast track? LAL ran his lifetime best first over dirt. FD showed a nice developing pattern on dirt - his only regression race being on plastic. He paired up his last tow dirt races and figure to move ahead today. And it had nothing to do with him being a synth horse - he was a developing young horse who figured today....and being back on dirt, he ran to form. Dirt form.

The fact that most horse improve moving to dirt just shows me that the synth surface hold them back.


How about this idea? Stop using the numbers that have led to you believing all these misgivings in the first place? You are talking crap and you don't even realize it, because you have blind faith in those numbers.

This was the evolution of FD: 79 - 84 - 86 (the 86 being the Blue Grass)
Lookin At Lucky ran a 86 at Oaklawn, he had run a 88 and 92 before that.

These are the numbers as my model produces them. They are untinkered with. They show that FD had a lifetime best in the Blue Grass (following a very tough trip), and they show that Lookin At Lucky ran a good race but not his best on the dirt.

The synthetic 'holding them back' is total and utter bollox.

[keithw84]

Haven't read the statistic anywhere yet but when was the last Derby winner to finish so badly in the Preakness? I have to now side with those who have been saying this crop is terrible. Who will even run in the Belmont? On the bright side, Winslow Homer recorded an official workout this AM. Looking forward to the Travers.
It definitely seems like there is a lot of parity in this crop (now that Eskendereya is no longer running), but what do you look at to determine if a crop is strong or not?

[Audioslavery]

This crop is terrible IMO but Lookin' at Lucky is by and large the best horse in it! This horse usually gets into loads of trouble, but still manages to run bigger than Dublin and Jackson Bend had combined did today.

This horse is so modest and sweet off the track, but really lays his heart out there during the race, he's not all that big but boy was I cheering for him today! And Bob Baffert is one of the classiest trainers in the game.

I really liked his quote today "If Lucky doesn't win then I'm gonna be cheering for Super Saver down the stretch since it's always great for the sport when we have a triple crown contender."

I doubt they'll run him much till the Fall now, he deserves some time off! He could have smoked this field by a much larger margin but I'm sure he's really beat after that busy spring.

[pandy]

First Dude ran huge. The track seemed slow yesterday, no fast times, slow fractions in most of the races except for the Preakness. Dominguez had a big day overall.

[GARY Z]

I previously posted my selections confirming I'd be boxing
6-2 10-11, favoring those horses in order.

As post time approached, I was convinced JB was going to run huge
based upon his running style and the fact that SS ran a career
top and Calvin would not get the rail.

Anyone having Twinspires or any other ability to watch Head on
replays will see LAL gradually drifting towards JB and while
there was no apparent bumping It confirms my original thought
Smith did not belong on this horse.

I need to revisit this tape but at least twice, entering the final turn, it appeared Smith could have gone inside or even gone to the #2
path and instead elected to go to the five path losing valuable
ground.

I think , if Calvin rode JB the result would have been closer
and may be reversed...

So much for this venting.........

[gm10]

This crop is terrible IMO but Lookin' at Lucky is by and large the best horse in it! This horse usually gets into loads of trouble, but still manages to run bigger than Dublin and Jackson Bend had combined did today.

This horse is so modest and sweet off the track, but really lays his heart out there during the race, he's not all that big but boy was I cheering for him today! And Bob Baffert is one of the classiest trainers in the game.

I really liked his quote today "If Lucky doesn't win then I'm gonna be cheering for Super Saver down the stretch since it's always great for the sport when we have a triple crown contender."

I doubt they'll run him much till the Fall now, he deserves some time off! He could have smoked this field by a much larger margin but I'm sure he's really beat after that busy spring.


What remains of the crop is indeed terrible, but it could have been different had Eskendereya, Winslow Homer, Endorsement, Buddy's Saint, Brake Lights, etc not been injured.

[Bluto Blutarsky]

D Wayne Lukas, the windbag who never shies away from a microphone and the limelight had another "stellar" showing in a classic race.
When he talks about his horses chances in a race- they are absolutely meaningless.

[FenceBored]

The fact that most horse improve moving to dirt just shows me that the synth surface hold them back.

:ThmbUp: You said it.

[Vinnie]

First Dude ran huge. The track seemed slow yesterday, no fast times, slow fractions in most of the races except for the Preakness. Dominguez had a big day overall.

Pandy:

I must echo your sentiments. First Dude did run his eyeballs out yesterday and Ramon Dominguez had a superb day on the whole. :)

[tribecaagent]

Meanwhile, another Zito horse outruns his odds.

[Dahoss9698]

Yes that's the problem. You still think that everything revolves around the surface rather than the horse. You need a private Copernican revolution when it comes to handicapping.

I can't believe YOU are telling CJ what he needs to do when it comes to handicapping. Hilarious stuff.

[PhantomOnTour]

Thank the lord Martin Garcia gives a good interview. Well spoken kid with decent English. Some of these guys need a translator. They come across as being dumb because they can't speak English well (heck, sometimes I think Calvin needs an interpretor!). It's fine when Desormeaux or Mike Smith or Gomez wins a big race, but let's face it, an interview with Julien Leparoux is downright baffling....mumbling with a heavy French accent leaves me in the dark. Won't even mention Alan Garcia, Bejarano, Castellano, Prado and others who struggle to speak understandable English. I am not making fun, but a typical interview goes like this:

Reporter to foreign jock: "Tell us how your ride went."
Jockey: "Well, jou know. I jus try to ge a good posisha wish my horse, and he goin goo, so I say to him to go and he do it...berry goo horse. I happy and tanks to the trainer for dis ri...tanks you berry mush."

I think a translator could espouse the jocks thoughts better. Casual fans tune out for sure...no doubt thinking these guys are dumb when they're not (well, some of 'em are). No harm intended and hope no one is offended. My apologies if I have pissed anyone off.

[gm10]

I can't believe YOU are telling CJ what he needs to do when it comes to handicapping. Hilarious stuff.

And I can't believe anyone is buying that "he is running to his true potential now" crap. It's like reading propaganda for some obscure religious sect.

[gm10]

Thank the lord Martin Garcia gives a good interview. Well spoken kid with decent English. Some of these guys need a translator. They come across as being dumb because they can't speak English well (heck, sometimes I think Calvin needs an interpretor!). It's fine when Desormeaux or Mike Smith or Gomez wins a big race, but let's face it, an interview with Julien Leparoux is downright baffling....mumbling with a heavy French accent leaves me in the dark. Won't even mention Alan Garcia, Bejarano, Castellano, Prado and others who struggle to speak understandable English. I am not making fun, but a typical interview goes like this:

Reporter to foreign jock: "Tell us how your ride went."
Jockey: "Well, jou know. I jus try to ge a good posisha wish my horse, and he goin goo, so I say to him to go and he do it...berry goo horse. I happy and tanks to the trainer for dis ri...tanks you berry mush."

I think a translator could espouse the jocks thoughts better. Casual fans tune out for sure...no doubt thinking these guys are dumb when they're not (well, some of 'em are). No harm intended and hope no one is offended. My apologies if I have pissed anyone off.

I thought Garcia did well. He was really beaming - proud little man!!

[HTRFGuy]

Super Saver was way too close to that hot pace. Borel stinks at anywhere not named Churchill or Oaklawn.

Interesting that 1:11.22 was the SLOWEST Preakness time at the 3/4 call in the past six years of the Preakness. Same can be said of the 1:36.26 at the mile call! The 1/2 call at 46.47 compares with 46.71 in the 2009 Preakness where Borel had Rachel Alexander on the lead and stayed in the lead to win the race. Rachel Alexander led throughout and the times were 46.71, 1:11.01, 1:35.82, and 1:55.08!

To my way of thinking Borel was simply attempting to repeat his ride of last year on Rachel Alexander with Super Saver.

In no way was this year's Preakness out of the norm (i.e. a "hot pace" as you state), at least for the past six years. The final time of 1:55.47 the slowest recorded over this six-year period.

[cj]

Yes that's the problem. You still think that everything revolves around the surface rather than the horse. You need a private Copernican revolution when it comes to handicapping.

I think both are important. I've been routinely dismissing turf performances when horse move to dirt and vice versa. Why should this be any different? It seems to work. Now, when that is all you have to go by because they haven't run on anything different, you use other tools, but figures don't cut it in my opinion.

[cj]

Interesting that 1:11.22 was the SLOWEST Preakness time at the 3/4 call in the past six years of the Preakness. Same can be said of the 1:36.26 at the mile call! The 1/2 call at 46.47 compares with 46.71 in the 2009 Preakness where Borel had Rachel Alexander on the lead and stayed in the lead to win the race. Rachel Alexander led throughout and the times were 46.71, 1:11.01, 1:35.82, and 1:55.08!

To my way of thinking Borel was simply attempting to repeat his ride of last year on Rachel Alexander with Super Saver.

In no way was this year's Preakness out of the norm (i.e. a "hot pace" as you state), at least for the past six years. The final time of 1:55.47 the slowest recorded over this six-year period.

Personally, I think this is a very average group of horses. So the pace that was "normal" for the Preakness is too fast for this lot.

[gm10]

Interesting that 1:11.22 was the SLOWEST Preakness time at the 3/4 call in the past six years of the Preakness. Same can be said of the 1:36.26 at the mile call! The 1/2 call at 46.47 compares with 46.71 in the 2009 Preakness where Borel had Rachel Alexander on the lead and stayed in the lead to win the race. Rachel Alexander led throughout and the times were 46.71, 1:11.01, 1:35.82, and 1:55.08!

To my way of thinking Borel was simply attempting to repeat his ride of last year on Rachel Alexander with Super Saver.

In no way was this year's Preakness out of the norm (i.e. a "hot pace" as you state), at least for the past six years. The final time of 1:55.47 the slowest recorded over this six-year period.

Nice analysis.

[gm10]

I think both are important. I've been routinely dismissing turf performances when horse move to dirt and vice versa. Why should this be any different? It seems to work. Now, when that is all you have to go by because they haven't run on anything different, you use other tools, but figures don't cut it in my opinion.

I don't think your approach works, personally. Turf to dirt isn't a bad angle. Synthetic to dirt isn't either.

[Fager Fan]

What remains of the crop is indeed terrible, but it could have been different had Eskendereya, Winslow Homer, Endorsement, Buddy's Saint, Brake Lights, etc not been injured.

Only the first one listed has been retired to my knowledge, so it'd seem premature to say that what remains of the crop is terrible considering that latter 4 plus Lucky plus Ice Box plus Jackson Bend plus First Dude plus some others who jump into the picture are on the track in the future.

[DeanT]

Interesting that 1:11.22 was the SLOWEST Preakness time at the 3/4 call in the past six years of the Preakness. Same can be said of the 1:36.26 at the mile call! The 1/2 call at 46.47 compares with 46.71 in the 2009 Preakness where Borel had Rachel Alexander on the lead and stayed in the lead to win the race. Rachel Alexander led throughout and the times were 46.71, 1:11.01, 1:35.82, and 1:55.08!

To my way of thinking Borel was simply attempting to repeat his ride of last year on Rachel Alexander with Super Saver.

In no way was this year's Preakness out of the norm (i.e. a "hot pace" as you state), at least for the past six years. The final time of 1:55.47 the slowest recorded over this six-year period.
That's well done. If Super Saver went a second slower to the half he probably would have come sixth or seventh instead of 8th. Jackson Bend and First Dude who were on the pace came second and third, but SS, not so much. He was brutal and when called on he had nothing. Borel was even needling at him at the half. Data points and rider nuances mean nothing when a horse is completely flat. We'll probably see the same thing six times today before 5PM while handicapping.

[cj]

I don't think your approach works, personally. Turf to dirt isn't a bad angle. Synthetic to dirt isn't either.

Sure it isn't, but using figures earned on one surface when switching to another doesn't work in my opinion. There are other ways that do, however.

[cj]

That's well done. If Super Saver went a second slower to the half he probably would have come sixth or seventh instead of 8th. He was brutal and when called on he had nothing. Borel was even needling at him at the half. Data points and rider nuances mean nothing when a horse is completely flat. We'll probably see the same thing six times today before 5PM while handicapping.

I'm not saying the horse could have run better, even by a spot. What I am saying is the horse has been routinely beaten this year when racing up close and won his biggest race when rated several lengths back. It seemed odd Borel chose to revert to a losing strategy.

As to the pace, if the 102 Beyer came up with is close (I haven't done mine yet), the pace will be about 110. Is 110 fast for Rachel and Curlin and other recent Preakness winners? No, of course not. Is it fast for the this group? Certainly, in my opinion.

[Fager Fan]

If it was that easy, wouldnt the exacta have paid like $20? Did you have it?

What does anything I said have to do with what the exacta paid? If someone had First Dude, it's not from some great insight they had in his past performances - the horse was a deserving longshot considering he'd not done very well when stepping up before. And those unremarkable races were run over both dirt and synth.

What I said was that it's puzzling to be puzzled when good horses run even better on the dirt. They're very likely bred for the dirt, so, if I could put it so succinctly: No duh they run better on dirt.

[Fager Fan]

How about this idea? Stop using the numbers that have led to you believing all these misgivings in the first place? You are talking crap and you don't even realize it, because you have blind faith in those numbers.

This was the evolution of FD: 79 - 84 - 86 (the 86 being the Blue Grass)
Lookin At Lucky ran a 86 at Oaklawn, he had run a 88 and 92 before that.

These are the numbers as my model produces them. They are untinkered with. They show that FD had a lifetime best in the Blue Grass (following a very tough trip), and they show that Lookin At Lucky ran a good race but not his best on the dirt.

The synthetic 'holding them back' is total and utter bollox.

What numbers are you looking at? Looking at Lucky's best number prior to yesterday came on the dirt at Oaklawn, where he got a 98 in his return race for this year (not a bad number for a return race and one in which he had some trouble).

Lucky's 2nd best number was a 94, which he recorded over the dirt slop at Churchill.

First Dude's best number prior to yesterday was the 90 he got in an allowance on dirt at Gulfstream, and his 2nd best an 89 again on the dirt at Gulfstream.

[gm10]

Sure it isn't, but using figures earned on one surface when switching to another doesn't work in my opinion. There are other ways that do, however.

half-agreed
figures can work, but there are other ways, too

[cj]

half-agreed
figures can work, but there are other ways, too

No real argument. But there are plenty of times horse's figures on one surface don't mean squat on another, though I'm sure you realize that too. Figures alone won't do it, you have to dig deeper. Just my two cents and it works for me.

[DeanT]

I'm not saying the horse could have run better, even by a spot. What I am saying is the horse has been routinely beaten this year when racing up close and won his biggest race when rated several lengths back. It seemed odd Borel chose to revert to a losing strategy.

As to the pace, if the 102 Beyer came up is close (I haven't done mine yet), the pace will be about 110. Is 110 fast for Rachel and Curlin and other recent Preakness winners? No, of course not. Is it fast for the this group? Certainly, in my opinion.

All I am saying is whatever pace fig or final fig you give SS for the Preakness, we should throw it in the trash because it is meaningless.

As for his Ark Derby, that was used for fitness, and Pletcher said so. That colt has had issues and the Derby was his prime event that he was getting fit for, unlike other Pletcher horses whom were on a perfect schedule. I would not look at the Arkansas Derby to judge that horse by a figure, or to judge a preferred running style. The Super Saver that hung like a chandelier in Arkansas (who could not even get by Sadler's piece) was not the same horse that raced at CD. And the horse that raced at CD was nothing like the horse that ran in Pimlico. The horse that ran yesterday was a physical mess. He'll now get time in the barn, thank goodness.

Data points work long term and in blanket fashion we all know that, but they dont work every time. It's horse racing, and horses have issues and bad days that are completely un-modelable. Saying anything blanket about Super Saver as a horse, or running style, or what he will become, using only yesterday as a barometer is not wise, imo.

[cj]

All I am saying is whatever pace fig or final fig you give SS for the Preakness, we should throw it in the trash because it is meaningless.

As for his Ark Derby, that was used for fitness, and Pletcher said so. That colt has had issues and the Derby was his prime event that he was getting fit for, unlike other Pletcher horses whom were on a perfect schedule. I would not look at the Arkansas Derby to judge that horse by a figure, or to judge a preferred running style. The Super Saver that hung like a chandelier in Arkansas (who could not even get by Sadler's piece) was not the same horse that raced at CD. And the horse that raced at CD was nothing like the horse that ran in Pimlico. The horse that ran yesterday was a physical mess. He'll now get time in the barn, thank goodness.

Data points work long term and in blanket fashion we all know that, but they dont work every time. It's horse racing, and horses have issues and bad days that are completely un-modelable. Saying anything blanket about Super Saver as a horse, or running style, or what he will become, using only yesterday as a barometer is not wise, imo.

I agree his figures are meaningless yesterday, he didn't have it. But there is no way Borel knew that passing the wire the first time and he was engaging the early leader. He gets praised for being a great rider at Churchill, so lets be honest about his rides other times at different venues.

As far as Pletcher, when he is talking he is usually lying to the public. That is true for most trainers, and it is in their best interest. I do just fine assuming they are not telling the truth.

Again, the only thing real thing I'm debating is that Borel just won the biggest race of the year with one style and changed it up yesterday. I think that is questionable. In the end it didn't matter, the horse wasn't winning in any case. But then again he said he was winning the Triple Crown, so maybe he thought he was on Secretariat reincarnate. I tend to think according to my numbers, even if SS had his A game yesterday, he wasn't winning with that ride.

[DeanT]

Again, the only thing real thing I'm debating is that Borel just won the biggest race of the year with one style and changed it up yesterday. I think that is questionable. In the end it didn't matter, the horse wasn't winning in any case.
No quarrel from me on that thought - it's a decent point. Your original quote that HRF linked to above was read by me and a couple of others as not what you state above, so I'll take responsibility for not understanding your initial meaning.

[gm10]

What numbers are you looking at? Looking at Lucky's best number prior to yesterday came on the dirt at Oaklawn, where he got a 98 in his return race for this year (not a bad number for a return race and one in which he had some trouble).

Lucky's 2nd best number was a 94, which he recorded over the dirt slop at Churchill.

First Dude's best number prior to yesterday was the 90 he got in an allowance on dirt at Gulfstream, and his 2nd best an 89 again on the dirt at Gulfstream.

I suppose you are refering to BSF? As good as they can be, I think the makers are struggling a bit with the new surface - so I prefer to use my own. They are still up on the website if you want to have a look.

The speed figures for the Preakness are there, as well (just click on a horse to see its PP's). Lucky got a 83 which is pretty much what I expected.

[Fager Fan]

I suppose you are refering to BSF? As good as they can be, I think the makers are struggling a bit with the new surface - so I prefer to use my own. They are still up on the website if you want to have a look.

The speed figures for the Preakness are there, as well (just click on a horse to see its PP's). Lucky got a 83 which is pretty much what I expected.

I don't mean to sound insulting, but doesn't it appear that with these two horses at least, the Beyers seemed to more accurately peg these horses then did your figures?

I've got nothing to really say about First Dude - congrats to those who saw that one stepping up yesterday, because I certainly didn't - but I don't find Lucky a surprise at all performing at the top level on dirt.

[Deepsix]

Pre-race Borel engaged in a conversation with the NBC person. She asked him IF he intended to settle and go to the rail like he has in his recent big races. He said no, that that was not his plan. He was very firm (take from that what you will). Then, as Super Saver was loading the gate Donna Brothers (I believe it was her) mentioned that SS was "tucked up and looks like he's lost some weight since CD"... meaning she noticed that he looked a bit off.

[cj]

No quarrel from me on that thought - it's a decent point. Your original quote that HRF linked to above was read by me and a couple of others as not what you state above, so I'll take responsibility for not understanding your initial meaning.

I'm not always the best at expressing what I think.

[Tom]

The synthetic 'holding them back' is total and utter bollox.

The word you are looking for is "demonstrable." :D

I think maybe your numbers are the ones I should avoid.
I have a conversion from synth to dirt I use on horse that should do better on dirt. I works quite well. Nothing in the BG was worth the bother. It was a slow race. All it was good for was conditioning, since poly is more a training track surface than a racing surface, like wearing ankle weights. You take them off and put on running soes and off you go.

[DeanT]

What does anything I said have to do with what the exacta paid? If someone had First Dude, it's not from some great insight they had in his past performances - the horse was a deserving longshot considering he'd not done very well when stepping up before. And those unremarkable races were run over both dirt and synth.

What I said was that it's puzzling to be puzzled when good horses run even better on the dirt. They're very likely bred for the dirt, so, if I could put it so succinctly: No duh they run better on dirt.
I should have used a smiley in my original post. It was late :)

Synth to dirt and dirt to synth is really not all that puzzling, and no great conspiracy. As others have stated on this and other threads (sometimes shouted down, but that's the way it goes sometimes), it happens often and good horses can and do do well on both.

If it was such a big part of things, other than to stir our emotions, trainers would not be able to make a move with success, and there would be no fig correlations when doing it, with pos IVs. Go to Turfway and watch Joe Woodard; he knows what to do, and what he is doing is not by accident; he is sharp. A guy like him would more than likely have a chuckle at all the dirt to synth hand wringing that goes on in this world. When someone goes 6 for 14 with a top fig horse and runs a fig top with some on 1st time poly, it aint the track, its the horse. When he brings them back they do just fine on dirt too. Sometimes as cappers we look for bogeymen who simply are not there, imo.

[gm10]

I don't mean to sound insulting, but doesn't it appear that with these two horses at least, the Beyers seemed to more accurately peg these horses then did your figures?

I've got nothing to really say about First Dude - congrats to those who saw that one stepping up yesterday, because I certainly didn't - but I don't find Lucky a surprise at all performing at the top level on dirt.

I couldn't say, as I don't have the BSF.
But they would have to be pretty darn accurate. Lucky ran 83 - and his most comparable races would be the Rebel Stakes (86) and the Juvenile (80). Three points is 1 length, so I'd say Lucky ran bang in the middle of a narrow range of 2 lengths.
First Dude had run 84 86 before yesterday and ran 82 in the Preakness: three performances that are less than 1.5 lengths apart.

Do you have the BSF for the races that I am using?

[Deepsix]

Tom, that is interesting. I recall reading here a couple weeks ago- someone posted split/final times for races at SA. The approach was to take a specific equal sample size of SA races at each distance (dirt/poly, routes/sprints) and from the data that was posted poly times were pretty uniformly faster that historic dirt times at the same distances. I didn't see much comment/followup concerning this person's post. Maybe that person will recognize this topic.

[gm10]

The word you are looking for is "demonstrable." :D

I think maybe your numbers are the ones I should avoid.
I have a conversion from synth to dirt I use on horse that should do better on dirt. I works quite well. Nothing in the BG was worth the bother. It was a slow race. All it was good for was conditioning, since poly is more a training track surface than a racing surface, like wearing ankle weights. You take them off and put on running soes and off you go.

Well, the second was third in his next race (Derby), the third was second in his next start (Preakness), and the sixth was fourth in his next start (Derby). You don't a PhD in speed figure making to come to the conclusion that it wasn't that bad a prep. What odds will you give me on Victor if he shows up at Belmont in three weeks?

[gm10]

Tom, that is interesting. I recall reading here a couple weeks ago- someone posted split/final times for races at SA. The approach was to take a specific equal sample size of SA races at each distance (dirt/poly, routes/sprints) and from the data that was posted poly times were pretty uniformly faster that historic dirt times at the same distances. I didn't see much comment/followup concerning this person's post. Maybe that person will recognize this topic.

Yes that was me. Nearly all the synthetic tracks are faster than they used to be.

I'm not talking track records, they tell you nothing. You want to look at how the bad animals fare. And they are running quicker than before.

[Fager Fan]

I couldn't say, as I don't have the BSF.
But they would have to be pretty darn accurate. Lucky ran 83 - and his most comparable races would be the Rebel Stakes (86) and the Juvenile (80). Three points is 1 length, so I'd say Lucky ran bang in the middle of a narrow range of 2 lengths.
First Dude had run 84 86 before yesterday and ran 82 in the Preakness: three performances that are less than 1.5 lengths apart.

Do you have the BSF for the races that I am using?

Gray is synth, brown is dirt.

Lucky:
Ky Derby - 94
SA Derby - 89
Rebel - 98
Cash Call - 83
BC Juvy - 91
Norfolk - 89
DM Futurity - 82
Best Pal - 85
MSW - 78

First Dude:
Blue Grass - 85
FL Derby - 89
Allow - 90
MSW - 83
MSW - 66
MSW - 61

[gm10]

Gray is synth, brown is dirt.

Lucky:
Ky Derby - 94
SA Derby - 89
Rebel - 98
Cash Call - 83
BC Juvy - 91
Norfolk - 89
DM Futurity - 82
Best Pal - 85
MSW - 78

First Dude:
Blue Grass - 85
FL Derby - 89
Allow - 90
MSW - 83
MSW - 66
MSW - 61

Thanks for that ... I think that the current problem with BSF is glaringly obvious from these numbers. First Dude did not regress in the Blue Grass as BSF would suggest, but improved instead. Give him a 95 and his 100-101 from yesterday becomes perfectly logical.

Lookin At Lucky's numbers look a bit better, though I'm not sure that I would had given him a bigger number in the KD than in the Juvenile.

[cj's dad]

Thanks for that ... I think that the current problem with BSF is glaringly obvious from these numbers. First Dude did not regress in the Blue Grass as BSF would suggest, but improved instead. Give him a 95 and his 100-101 from yesterday becomes perfectly logical.

Lookin At Lucky's numbers look a bit better, though I'm not sure that I would had given him a bigger number in the KD than in the Juvenile.

So, your figures BEFORE the race are posted where ????? and/or your selections ???

[racefinder2]

Im actually glad that Lucky ran his A race and won !!!!

I was completely fooled, thinking that the horse had so many bad trips and excuses, that maybe he WAS the excuse...ie, he was a great two yr old that
just wasnt panning out as a 3yo at this level. In retrospect, the JS might have been 'the answer', what a great move by Baffert...

I knew well enough not to make any kind of serious bet here, I was looking at Paddy but when he was at what, 7/1 ??? I said 'no way'. This was one of those situations when the odds are telling you what NOT to do. So I ended up with a few token exactas w Super Saver who I thought was clearly best. Yep-much the best - LAST RACE....

Another thing I noticed was the pace set up in this race is what usually happen s in the Derby--ie, it gets hot and heavy and the real contenders--winners--- come to the front/rise to the occasion>> And Im beginning to think the Ky Dby was not the race that separated out the good horses from the second tier ones, the Preakness was, simply because it was honestly run over a dry track.

[cj's dad]

LAL prior to the Preakness - 8 starts 6 wins 1 place 1 show - not 2 shabby

[depalma113]

LAL prior to the Preakness - 8 starts 6 wins 1 place 1 show - not 2 shabby

Umm...he didn't hit the board in the Derby.

[Hedevar]

Umm...he didn't hit the board in the Derby.

Hardly surprising after being slammed into the rail.

[cj's dad]

Umm...he didn't hit the board in the Derby.

Correction prior to the KD- 5-1-1

[gm10]

So, your figures BEFORE the race are posted where ????? and/or your selections ???


same place as they've always been
I'm not going to post that link again - just have a look you will find it on my website after 10 seconds

[PaceAdvantage]

Actually, I've never had a bad word to say about Lookin At Lucky. I've liked him for a while and was pretty confident he would handle dirt. I picked him in the Derby and today said he was the most likely winner. He is versatile. I've actually gotten a pretty good handle on horses that will switch and run well and those that won't. Feel free to keep making stuff up though.I'm still shocked that the "Eldorado Man" actually posted a follow-up reply...

BTW, anyone looking at speed figures would realize Lookin At Lucky is a much better dirt horse. He tipped his hand in the Rebel, his first dirt effort, and best race by far up to that point...heads and tails better than any of his synth efforts....

[PaceAdvantage]

I just read that the poster "Dan".. I think it was DanG has left this forum for good because of the prevailing anti-synthetic diatribe. He couldn't stand it here.. All he ever wanted was to have a reasoned discussion..This is a joke, right? I mean, seriously...no kidding around...you can't be serious, can you?

All of a sudden, reasoned discussions are code word for "you have to agree with me for it to be a reasoned discussion."

Tell Dan to come up to Saratoga this year. I'll make sure he gets all the food and drink he can handle on Saturday, August 21, and we can talk all day like the reasoned gentlemen that we are. I hate to see anyone leave here under a false impression like that...

[Stillriledup]

This is a joke, right? I mean, seriously...no kidding around...you can't be serious, can you?

All of a sudden, reasoned discussions are code word for "you have to agree with me for it to be a reasoned discussion."

Tell Dan to come up to Saratoga this year. I'll make sure he gets all the food and drink he can handle on Saturday, August 21, and we can talk all day like the reasoned gentlemen that we are. I hate to see anyone leave here under a false impression like that...

Dan G is a great poster and really nice guy, very knowledgable, too bad he's left. Dan, come back!

[PaceAdvantage]

And I can't believe anyone is buying that "he is running to his true potential now" crap. It's like reading propaganda for some obscure religious sect.Some might say the same thing when they read the posts of you promoting your own commercially available figures, and your lame attempts at putting down a potential rival to your business in the process....btw, I got your email, but had a PC crash and have been slow in getting back to you...

Are you going to pull an "I'm out of here" too? :lol:

Religious sect? Are you people serious? Scratch that...you ARE serious...way TOO serious...

[gm10]

Some might say the same thing when they read the posts of you promoting your own commercially available figures, and your lame attempts at putting down a potential rival to your business in the process....btw, I got your email, but had a PC crash and have been slow in getting back to you...

I didn't even know CJ had a website until last week. As you know, our fundamental disgreements go back a bit further.
And what lame attempts? At least I'm posting some of my stuff here.

Are you going to pull an "I'm out of here" too? :lol:
?

Religious sect? Are you people serious? Scratch that...you ARE serious...way TOO serious...

A bunch of you are constantly repeating some dogmatic view, without supplying any evidence. Why not? Because you can't. How do you prove that a horse starts "running to its potential" on the dirt. It's total BS. It reminded of those Jehova's witnesses who've been telling me for decades that I can only go to heaven if I buy their magazine and spread the word.

[Bobzilla]

I didn't even know CJ had a website until last week. As you know, our fundamental disgreements go back a bit further.
And what lame attempts? At least I'm posting some of my stuff here.


?



A bunch of you are constantly repeating some dogmatic view, without supplying any evidence. Why not? Because you can't. How do you prove that a horse starts "running to its potential" on the dirt. It's total BS. It reminded of those Jehova's witnesses who've been telling me for decades that I can only go to heaven if I buy their magazine and spread the word.


Is it dogmatic to believe the sun rises in the east and sets in the west? Seems to me to be self-evident. You appear to be arguing that the racing surface should never be a factor for consideration when handicapping a future racing event or analyzing a past event. I can understand there being a wide range of opinions over the weight to assign the surface factor or how to interpret the surface factor within the context of a given situation, assuming that there is universal acceptance it plays a role to some degree, but to stubbornly maintain that surfaces never have any bearing on how a horse performs relative to his performance capacity is, at least in my opinion, senseless.

My opinion is the majority of our horses competing over our main track ovals, regardless of venue, possess a background that's been influenced by the traditional American practice of racing over dirt. I understand there are variations of what we call dirt. Isn't it reasonable to assume that their bloodlines have been honed for this purpose for a very long time? Should anyone be surprised when an animal shows an improved performance when trying dirt for the first time after only been competing over AWSs, simply because its connections are based on an AWS circuit? Some performers racing over AWSs demonstrate a higher tolerance for the surface relative to their peers. Some of those performers might be helped by the energy dynamics of a typical race run over synthetic. On the flip side we've seen some horses with strictly a dirt background become more competitive when moving over to an AWS and that can be for any number of reasons. Each case is unique. But one thing is for certain, the surface does play a role in varying degrees depending on the individual horse and how he fits into each event he competes. That isn't dogma. It strikes me as axiomatic as (a + b = b + a).