Havre De Grace

[Jasonm921]

She just won pretty easily (equaled the stakes record)....with Blind Luck coming up for second. This is going to be a nice year to watch these mares knock heads in Delaware, Saratoga and once again in Churchill. Should be fun.

[point given]

Blind Luck ran 2nd for the 3rd straight rqce, not quite what she was last year I'm afraid . They might have squeezed the lemon dry.

[PaceAdvantage]

Why is it that human athletes...guys like Michael Johnson, Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson, etc. can have careers spanning five, six, even ten years winning medals but some of these horses can only run one or two years before we start claiming that "they squeezed the lemon dry?"

Perhaps she is simply meeting better competition...maybe the lemon wasn't actually squeezed dry...

Simply running a horse should NOT squeeze the lemon dry, UNLESS said running leads to injury.

I hear this phrase far too frequently these days...

[DeanT]

The harder they run, the tougher it is on them. Years ago, with fields not deep, horses could run a dozen times or more, because superior horses could run with very little stress. They are not human and cant pull up when they feel any pain; they just keep going because they run on instinct. That's when they get tweaked and start to be run down. Vets and injections can only do so much.

[RXB]

Where is the proof that fields are deeper now than they were years ago? I don't buy that at all.

Horses run less often now because they are physically incapable of it.

[PaceAdvantage]

Horses run less often now because they are physically incapable of it.Speaking of proof, where is the proof of this?

It's like the ol' "Which came first, the chicken or the egg..."

Is it truly that horses are physically incapable or is it that trainers have gotten it in their heads that they have to run their star horses less in order to be successful?

Until proven otherwise, it's my belief that it's the trainers who have become incapable of running more often and not the horses themselves.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Speaking of proof, where is the proof of this?

It's like the ol' "Which came first, the chicken or the egg..."

Is it truly that horses are physically incapable or is it that trainers have gotten it in their heads that they have to run their star horses less in order to be successful?

Until proven otherwise, it's my belief that it's the trainers who have become incapable of running more often and not the horses themselves.

Aren't claiming horses making fewer starts/yr than 30 yrs ago, too?

You don't think that the introduction of legal drugs into the sport has weakened the breed over the past 35 yrs?

[RXB]

Aren't claiming horses making fewer starts/yr than 30 yrs ago, too?


You got it. Don't have the precise stats in front of me but the average lifetime starts for geldings fell about 50% from 1950 to 2000. I believe it went from ~50-55 to something like 27 during that time frame.

[slew101]

Actually, it's five straight seconds for her, all as the favorite at 3-2 or lower each time. She's earning some good money for her owners, but killing those win bettors.

Blind Luck ran 2nd for the 3rd straight rqce, not quite what she was last year I'm afraid . They might have squeezed the lemon dry.

[DeanT]

Where is the proof that fields are deeper now than they were years ago? I don't buy that at all.

Horses run less often now because they are physically incapable of it.

Somewhere I read an article on the variance of speed figs (or est speed figs) in major stakes, yrs ago versus today.

However it is anecdotal for my opinion. Horse's can get lit up like a Christmas tree today, where subpar stock can run fast for one or two starts. Good horses have to knock heads with them, and have to push harder.

Years ago we would not see a mediocre colt like This One's for Phil running a 120 off a barn change. Today it seems commonplace. Running 1200 pound animals with tendons the size of a pencil, against a horse like that once every two months is not conducive to having long lasting animals, in my opinion.

[PaceAdvantage]

Aren't claiming horses making fewer starts/yr than 30 yrs ago, too?

You don't think that the introduction of legal drugs into the sport has weakened the breed over the past 35 yrs?Let's just assume for a moment Blind Luck hasn't been injured, which has never been reported, correct?

Why would the lemon be squeezed dry in her particular case? Let's tackle this one, since she was specifically mentioned as having her lemon squeezed... :eek:

[DeanT]

Let's just assume for a moment Blind Luck hasn't been injured, which has never been reported, correct?

Why would the lemon be squeezed dry in her particular case? Let's tackle this one, since she was specifically mentioned as having her lemon squeezed... :eek:

Running backs dont have reported injuries, they just have enough small tweaks that slow them down. The avg career of a RB now is 2 years rather than 8 three decades ago.

Maybe she has a nagging chip problem, or curbs, or sore feet or a thousand other things that the racing wars place on horses. Hoof testers, floroscopes and imaging do not catch everything. They are just sore.

We go through this conversation 100 times, and did so with Rachel 12 months ago this weekend. Sooner or later instead of pretending it does not happen, or thinking it is an anomaly, we must start to look at it as truth. Some horses get tweaked, some horses slow down because of them; it is what it is, and many people have vet bills or massive layoffs to prove it.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Let's just assume for a moment Blind Luck hasn't been injured, which has never been reported, correct?

Why would the lemon be squeezed dry in her particular case? Let's tackle this one, since she was specifically mentioned as having her lemon squeezed... :eek:

I'm not sure if she's injured or not. I suspect nothing serious. But do I think she's got more wear and tear on her now than a yr ago? Yes. For all we know, they tap her every other race (perfectly legal).

[Saratoga_Mike]

Let's just assume for a moment Blind Luck hasn't been injured, which has never been reported, correct?

Why would the lemon be squeezed dry in her particular case? Let's tackle this one, since she was specifically mentioned as having her lemon squeezed... :eek:

Could you now pls go back and answer my other questions? I think they're germane as your overarching point is horses have fewer starts because of their trainers.

[cj]

Where is the proof that fields are deeper now than they were years ago? I don't buy that at all.

Horses run less often now because they are physically incapable of it.

I don't buy this either. It is the trainers in my opinion.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I don't buy this either. It is the trainers in my opinion.

With claiming horses, too?

[PaceAdvantage]

Could you now pls go back and answer my other questions? I think they're germane as your overarching point is horses have fewer starts because of their trainers.Aren't all horses as a group making less starts today than 30 years ago? I didn't feel the need to answer such an obvious question about claimers.

And as for legal drugs weakening the breed...maybe...maybe not...has there been any empirical evidence linking the two?

You and I both know that if one trainer sees another trainer being successful at doing something, sooner or later a whole bunch of them are following suit.

If enough trainers get it in their heads that running their horses less is the way to go, soon all of them are pretty much going to go that route.

I think this whole "squeezing the lemon dry" is just some convenient excuse many people go to for whatever reason. I don't think it's necessarily based in reality.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Aren't all horses as a group making less starts today than 30 years ago? I didn't feel the need to answer such an obvious question about claimers.

And as for legal drugs weakening the breed...maybe...maybe not...has there been any empirical evidence linking the two?



Then why would claimers be making fewer starts? You're conceding it isn't the trainers. Why?

Let's take Lasix. Prior to Lasix, bad bleeders would never turn into stakes horses then be retired as stallions. Now, it can easily happen. So don't you think those bad genes are passed on? That's just one example.

[Shelby]

Why is it that human athletes...guys like Michael Johnson, Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson, etc. can have careers spanning five, six, even ten years winning medals but some of these horses can only run one or two years before we start claiming that "they squeezed the lemon dry?"

Perhaps she is simply meeting better competition...maybe the lemon wasn't actually squeezed dry...

Simply running a horse should NOT squeeze the lemon dry, UNLESS said running leads to injury.

I hear this phrase far too frequently these days...

I watched this race in person. IMO, Blind Luck did great...she came up on the outside and really looked good...I'm NO expert (as you all know), but it seemed to me like she started her big run a bit late??? Like she should have been moved up a bit quicker...but, again, just my opinion.

She is such a pretty horse, but is a lot smaller than I thought she'd be (in person)

[PaceAdvantage]

Then why would claimers be making fewer starts? You're conceding it isn't the trainers. Why?

Let's take Lasix. Prior to Lasix, bad bleeders would never turn into stakes horses then be retired as stallions. Now, it can easily happen. So don't you think those bad genes are passed on? That's just one example.Why would claimers be making fewer starts? Because they're trained by trainers. That's my whole point. It's trainers who have gotten it in their heads that these horses are better off racing less. Why is that?

As for Lasix. OK, so Lasix allows bad bleeders to turn into stallions, passing on their bleeding genes. Not good.

Then again, we have Lasix, as you point out. Lasix will prevent these "bad gened" horses produced from "bad gened" stallions from bleeding during a race. Problem solved, no? It's not ideal, I realize that...

Next.

[Learned Hand35]

To me HDG was the most visually appealing horse of the day. Watched her in the paddock and she is a beauty. Blind Luck was a nice looking filly, but HDG just seemed on another plane to my eye.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Why would claimers be making fewer starts? Because they're trained by trainers. That's my whole point. It's trainers who have gotten it in their heads that these horses are better off racing less. Why is that?

As for Lasix. OK, so Lasix allows bad bleeders to turn into stallions, passing on their bleeding genes. Not good.

Then again, we have Lasix, as you point out. Lasix will prevent these "bad gened" horses produced from "bad gened" stallions from bleeding during a race. Problem solved, no? It's not ideal, I realize that...

Next.

You're just off base on this front, imo. Ask a claiming trainer with a large string of horses about the durability of claimers today vs 30 yrs ago. I know you don't believe me. That's fine. I just ask that you talk to a few trainers about the issue.

No, the problem is not solved, as Lasix has other pharmacological properties that I think weaken the breed. Anyway, it isn't just Lasix. Clenbuterol is another drug. Why it hasn't been banned is beyond me. Over the past 30 yrs, my bet is the avg vet bill has increased 3-fold (adjusted for inflation). And it isn't Lasix (it's cheap).

What was the "next" anyway?

[PaceAdvantage]

What was the "next" anyway?Your Lasix example. Yes, it allows bleeders to pass on their bleeding genes, but again, that's why we have Lasix, so theoretically, it shouldn't cause horses to run less often.

Thus, next. Let's move onto the next cause of horses running less, other than simply trainers believing it's the right thing to do.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Your Lasix example. Yes, it allows bleeders to pass on their bleeding genes, but again, that's why we have Lasix, so theoretically, it shouldn't cause horses to run less often.

Thus, next. Let's move onto the next cause of horses running less, other than simply trainers believing it's the right thing to do.

I just told you it was one drug, then I mentioned clenbuterol. Never mind, you're so insecure that you could never accept that I (or most anyone) could ever teach you anything.

[PaceAdvantage]

I just told you it was one drug, then I mentioned clenbuterol. Never mind, you're so insecure that you could never accept that I (or most anyone) could ever teach you anything.WTF? Nice to have a discussion with you... :rolleyes:

You're obviously letting whatever personal issues you have with me get in the way of an adult discussion. I haven't done anything to deserve the above response.

You can rattle off the names of drugs...Lasix...Clenbuterol...where is the empirical evidence which shows racing on these drugs impacts the length of time that a Thoroughbred racehorse ran run competitively?

They did not have drugs (both legal and illegal) 30 years ago?

[Marlin]

"Lemon squeezed dry"? C'mon man. Blind Luck is a deep closer. Great effort spotting a super filly 8. I've got news for you. Last year's Blind Luck would be 0 for 3 this year too. Zenyatta spoiled us. Now we expect every deep closer to fly home in front regardless of a slow pace and/or a heavy early bias.

[cj]

Yes, I think even with claimers.

[nijinski]

Blind Luck could use a season off , I think she earned that and it wasn't
an unusual thing to see years ago freshening up top horses.
Doesn't happen much with the Dorf.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Yes, I think even with claimers.

This is just incorrect. Like Pace, I'd ask you to talk to claiming trainers with large strings of horses that have been training for at least 30 yrs about the matter.

[cj]

This is just incorrect. Like Pace, I'd ask you to talk to claiming trainers with large strings of horses that have been training for at least 30 yrs about the matter.

I'm not sure there are many of those guys left. Why does everyone assume people here have never been on the backside? You get differing stories from different trainers.

As with any profession, the cream of the crop tends to set the standards for others to follow. Sometimes the cream makes mistakes though.

[Saratoga_Mike]

WTF? Nice to have a discussion with you... :rolleyes:

You're obviously letting whatever personal issues you have with me get in the way of an adult discussion. I haven't done anything to deserve the above response.

You can rattle off the names of drugs...Lasix...Clenbuterol...where is the empirical evidence which shows racing on these drugs impacts the length of time that a Thoroughbred racehorse ran run competitively?

They did not have drugs (both legal and illegal) 30 years ago?

I'm using logic. Drugs - legal and illegal - have proliferated in the past 30 yrs. Over that time frame, I've observed a diminution in the number starts/horse. As a result, I believe drugs are the driving force behind the decline. Can I prove the causality with metaphysical certainy? No. But it makes ZERO sense to suggest that trainers want to race claimers few times/yr. That's the logic I'm applying. In addition, I'm relying on someone who has started over 15,000 races.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I'm not sure there are many of those guys left. Why does everyone assume people here have never been on the backside? You get differing stories from different trainers.

As with any profession, the cream of the crop tends to set the standards for others to follow. Sometimes the cream makes mistakes though.

I don't assume that about you at all. In fact, I know that to be false.

[cj]

I don't assume that about you at all. In fact, I know that to be false.

I'm not saying there isn't something to it, but the same "breed" can run a lot more often in other parts of the world, horses that were bred right here in the USA.

[cj]

I'll add that the best claimers are at slots tracks, and the purses are so big there is more reason to push horses when they shouldn't be pushed. This didn't happen 30 years ago. It is a very complex problem obviously with many possible reasons.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I'll add that the best claimers are at slots tracks, and the purses are so big there is more reason to push horses when they shouldn't be pushed. This didn't happen 30 years ago. It is a very complex problem obviously with many possible reasons.

Aren't you supporting my claim by saying "...when they (horses) shouldn't be pushed?" Why shouldn't they be pushed? I assume it's because they aren't as durable as they once were.

I agree it's a complex problem and I'm not saying drugs are the sole issue.

[JustRalph]

Havre De Grace is no slouch. I liked the horse last year at Toga. BLuck beat her in the Alabama? or something like that. But they knocked heads big time. I think the exacta paid like 18 bucks........and if you couldn't see it you were blind. of course I didn't bet it........ :lol: :bang:

[PaceAdvantage]

Aren't you supporting my claim by saying "...when they (horses) shouldn't be pushed?" Why shouldn't they be pushed? I assume it's because they aren't as durable as they once were.

I agree it's a complex problem and I'm not saying drugs are the sole issue.Not that you asked, but I don't think any horse should be "pushed." But I also don't think running a horse more often is necessarily "pushing" them.

[RXB]

I don't buy this either. It is the trainers in my opinion.

It is not in the trainer's best interest, or the owner's best interest, or the track operator's best interest to keep sound horses away from the races.

If Trainer X only gets twenty starts per horse, and Trainer Z can get forty starts per horse with minimal-to-zero loss of effectiveness per start, Trainer X will eventually find his owners transferring their animals to Trainer Z's care.

Also, if track management decides that Trainer X isn't keeping up his end of the bargain in terms of filling races, they will offer a reminder that his stall space is a privilege maintained only at their discretion.

There must be some reason, far beyond just trainers cumulatively having some silly bounce theories in their heads, as to why horses run so much less frequently and also for shorter career lengths compared to the past. This reason must be apparent to owners, trainers, the track operators and vets-- otherwise, the horses would be racing more often. Hard for me to imagine that soundness issues aren't the #1 reason.

[PaceAdvantage]

There must be some reason, far beyond just trainers cumulatively having some silly bounce theories in their heads, as to why horses run so much less frequently and also for shorter career lengths compared to the past. This reason must be apparent to owners, trainers, the track operators and vets-- otherwise, the horses would be racing more often. Hard for me to imagine that soundness issues aren't the #1 reason.If I am to accept this, I am to accept that virtually ALL horses are terribly unsound. That just can't be the case.

[RXB]

If I am to accept this, I am to accept that virtually ALL horses are terribly unsound. That just can't be the case.

If I were to accept the opposing theory, virtually ALL trainers/owners/track operators nowadays are letting sound stock idle in the barns for no good reason.

[PaceAdvantage]

Groupthink can be a very powerful thing.

[Delawaretrainer]

I run my claimers a couple of times a month if they are jumping around. Some take a little longer especially the nervous fillies and need extra time in between. I see a few barns that wait one month after a claim and consistantly run horses with one month in between. That is a difference of 12 starts per year. Although some may wait to get a horse right, I think some of these guys use some type of steroid that is not detectable at an illegal level after three weeks after injection so the horse still gets the benefit but they don't test. (out of competition testing would help here).

I have no idea what it is or how they do it, just a theory because these are the same barns everyone talks about with freaky numbers.

[Linny]

If Trainer X only gets twenty starts per horse, and Trainer Z can get forty starts per horse with minimal-to-zero loss of effectiveness per start, Trainer X will eventually find his owners transferring their animals to Trainer Z's care.

Also, if track management decides that Trainer X isn't keeping up his end of the bargain in terms of filling races, they will offer a reminder that his stall space is a privilege maintained only at their discretion.




If X = Todd Pletcher, they are not going to be threatening his stall space.

I speak with horsemen alot and they all seem to be part of a circular argument. Trainers say that horses just are not as durable as in the old days, thus they train them more softly (slower works, shorter works, less frequent works) and thus the full out exertion of a race knocks them out more than ever. When asked about meds they clam up, but speak to owners about the bills for pre-race treatment and they tell you that it's through the roof!
Many of the big name trainers can't get a horse out to breeze inside 10 days of a race. The idea of racing a horse into shape is all but unheard of at the top of the game today. Trainers have absorbed the "third of the layoff" mantra and thus Derby candidates get 2 pre-Derby starts. Since most top trainers are unused to running back in 2 weeks, they skip the Preakness with all but the Derby winner. Even the Derby winner might not even get more than one slow breeze leading to the Preakness.

As for Blind Luck, she's a tiny filly and as a deep closer, she is always at the mercy of the race shape. After seeing the way the new SA track was playing, I thought it was nutty of Hollendorfer to keep her in Cali. That said, I didn't like her at all in the BC because in the Cotillion she sawpped leads about 5x in the stretcjh. To me that's a very bad sign. She far outran my opinion of her at CD.
HDG was a very good filly at 3. She took advantage of a weakened late season BL in Philly yet couldn't hold her off at Louisville, so 'Dorf clearly got BL to move up to the BC. Maybe HDG has just continued to improve while BL, who was robbed of a 2yo Eclipse may have maxxed out and leveled off. It doesn't mean she's no good or needs a layup, it means she's running her A races but other fillies' A races have surpassed her best form.

BTW, the f/m division might actually be fun to follow this year with Zenyatta out of the mix. Too bad we lost Always a Princess, but east and west the 4^ f/m division looks pretty sharp.

[classhandicapper]

Several things are NOT is dispute.

1. The Blind Luck that was running at SA this year was NOT as good as the Blind Luck that ran in 2010. The only thing that was debatable was the extent of the decline. She raced on biased surface in her first start, then chased a slowish pace, and the races looked too slow to even believe (she was running approximately equal to a solid NW1 winner)

2. Blind Luck had a long hard campaign in 2010 that involved many ships back and forth from the west coast to the east coast and around the east coast.

Having watched top stakes horses for several decades, there is simply no doubt in my mind that some horses wear down as a season progresses unless they are freshened when need be. Many also do not make the turn from one year to next very well after an especially tough year.

Maybe it's an accumulation of minor injuries, maybe it's just being tired of giving so much, but it happens. That's what the form cycle is about.

Even in the 70s and 80s when horses had tougher campaigns than they do now, they were usually freshened up mid season and 4-5 starts in the hope they would continue running well into the fall. However, it was not unusual for some of the horses that were best in the spring and summer to fall by the wayside to fresher horses in the fall.

I'm not saying I know where Blind Luck's form is going to end up this year. If anything, yesterday's race was pretty encouraging because IMO she ran a little better yesterday than she did in CA. She may be coming back to her peak form just in time for the Apple Blossom.

However, I am saying there is no doubt she had a tough campaign last year and that some horse feel the impact and never recover from a tough year.

Trying to keep the very best horses fresh until the Breeder's Cup is why so many horses are given so much time between races, races in softer spots etc... these days. It's hard to peak in November if you are squeezing the lemon from February-September. It's not just now. It always has been. Now there is just a much bigger incentive to not run them into the ground prematurely.

[Jasonm921]

She ran into a very good Havre de Grace yesterday. She would have had to break the stakes record to beat her. Especially at a mile and a sixteenth she is vulnerable. Lets not forget...horses get beat (especially on dirt) and especially when they are stone cold closers. Havre de Grace will always have the jump on her and if that filly is right she should win. In my opinion, for that reason alone, I think she is always the play when they meet up. Blind Luck will probably get her revenge sometime this year but I will take my chances and money with Havre De Grace...based on running style.

[point given]

Garrett Gomez on Blind Luck per DRF .Still thinks the lemon has the juice.

"
Blind Luck put in her patented run, closing from last to finish second under jockey Garrett Gomez.

“The pace didn’t help her at all,” he said. “I mean that other filly was sitting in the garden spot the whole way. I do feel like [Blind Luck] ran back to her races here that she was running earlier, and throughout her year last year. She’s still good as she as ever was.”

[Bruddah]

She ran into a very good Havre de Grace yesterday. She would have had to break the stakes record to beat her. Especially at a mile and a sixteenth she is vulnerable. Lets not forget...horses get beat (especially on dirt) and especially when they are stone cold closers. Havre de Grace will always have the jump on her and if that filly is right she should win. In my opinion, for that reason alone, I think she is always the play when they meet up. Blind Luck will probably get her revenge sometime this year but I will take my chances and money with Havre De Grace...based on running style.

Your post is spot on. Add the fact that the surface at Oaklawn that day was strongly playing to speed and not closers. (it usually does) Blind Luck was a definite "play against" for that reason alone and at her odds coming off the layoff. Hd Grace was the only bet for a bettor. (JMHO)

[Some_One]

Blind Luck's connection are now 3 for 3 in blaming the race shape for her defeat in 2011...she ran in some slow races last year and still prevailed, maybe it's time to admit she's just not as good as last year.

[cj]

Aren't you supporting my claim by saying "...when they (horses) shouldn't be pushed?" Why shouldn't they be pushed? I assume it's because they aren't as durable as they once were.

I agree it's a complex problem and I'm not saying drugs are the sole issue.

What I'm saying is a few extra weeks rest could help a horse, but instead they are rushed back and injured missing months instead of weeks.

[cj]

If I am to accept this, I am to accept that virtually ALL horses are terribly unsound. That just can't be the case.

Of course it isn't. Many American bred horses are campaigned heavily in other parts of the world.

[gm10]

Of course it isn't. Many American bred horses are campaigned heavily in other parts of the world.

Just out of interest, which parts of the world?

[classhandicapper]

This is half on topic and half off topic, but I've been reviewing the figures Blind Luck got for her 2 races in CA. They always looked suspiciously low to me.

The winning figures for both races were well below PAR for Grade 2 mares, the horses did not look that bad on paper, and Blind Luck's figures in the mid 80s were approximately equal to a solid NW1 ALW winner.

It was somewhere between difficult and impossible for me to believe that she was that bad, but you never know.

In light of her performance/figure yesterday and further review of those mares, IMHO those races do not reflect the actual quality of those races. I'm not arguing the figures are wrong (though they could be). I am arguing they understate the quality of the races. Perhaps the pace of each race was an issue (not sure).

The ElEncino was a very fast paced race with fast internals and the La Canada was slow enough early that even Blind Luck was much closer than usual.

So perhaps both races were impacted negatively by both pace extremes.

I have upgraded both races between 8-10 points.

[classhandicapper]

I should add that if anything IMO Oaklawn was speed favoring yesterday so Blind Luck was probably disadvantaged by both the moderate pace and track conditions.

[Linny]

Just out of interest, which parts of the world?


Giant's Causeway was only raced at 2 and 3 but raced plenty at the highest levels and was bred here. Raven's Pass the BC upsetter at SA was also a hard raced 3yo when he won the Classic. he was foaled here. Good Ba Ba who has been one of the highest earning horses of all time while racing against some of Asia's best was bred here.

[nijinski]

Not sure we can compare our racing to European or Australian
racing . They are racing predominantly on grass , it could be
a whole other debate.

[cj]

I have upgraded both races between 8-10 points.

I think it is much more likely the figures are right and Blind Luck just had a lot going against her. If you are upgrading her 8-10 points, I get that, but not the races in general.

By the way, Havre de Grace was given a 105 yesterday.

I haven't done my final variant yet, but if I agree with Beyer the race would be about 87-97-105. Regardless of the final number, Blind Luck was up against it yesterday. That said, it isn't like Havre de Grace was on the lead. I think she has passed Blind Luck.

[cj]

Not sure we can compare our racing to European or Australian
racing . They are racing predominantly on grass , it could be
a whole other debate.

If our grass and synthetic horses were running ambitious schedules maybe not, but since they aren't, why not?

[Dahoss9698]

I think she has passed Blind Luck.

I agree and trainer change didn't hurt. That Larry Jones sure is something. :rolleyes:

[cj]

I agree and trainer change didn't hurt. That Larry Jones sure is something. :rolleyes:

Hay and oats, a good dentist, and a hind end man.

[gm10]

Giant's Causeway was only raced at 2 and 3 but raced plenty at the highest levels and was bred here. Raven's Pass the BC upsetter at SA was also a hard raced 3yo when he won the Classic. he was foaled here. Good Ba Ba who has been one of the highest earning horses of all time while racing against some of Asia's best was bred here.

I don't want to get into some big debate over this but you're not going to tell me that Raven's Pass and Giant's Causeway were heavily campaigned during their career.

Regardless, you will be of course be able to find American horses that will have been heavily raced in every corner of the world. I guess I am wondering whether the "many American bred horses" should be seen in a relative or absolute sense.

[cj's dad]

Last year at Saratoga, before the Alabama, with thanks to OTMAl and wife, I saw both up close in the paddock and believe me, HDG was the most imposing horse i"ve seen in many years.

[nijinski]

If our grass and synthetic horses were running ambitious schedules maybe not, but since they aren't, why not?

What I should have mentioned was the developing of their young
horses as well.
You say ambitiously run in Europe , in some cases yes but if you look at
some of the champions they are given a season off between their 2 YO
and three year old campaigns which end in the fall and many do not
start again until April. You don't have to go far back .Those were the schedules with Sea The Stars and Zarkava .
Probably due to monetary incentives that would not work here . But
it would be plus for the horses.

[LRL Racing]

I believe that Blind Luck ran a very good race and finished with some run but she wasn't going to beat Grace in the Azeri. Blind Luck's connections have nothing to be unhappy or ashamed of other than possibly avoiding Grace in the future. Of course if she gets better and Grace regresses then the table could turn. Obviously, the trainer change to Larry helped Grace become better with a few adjustments. She was very nice in 2010 but just better now. It will be hard to take her down based on where she is at right now.
As far as the number of starts I like to give my horses 4 - 6 weeks between races so they are fresh. If they come out of a race showing us they want to go again quick then so be it and they are back in. Basically my trainer lets the horse tell him when they are ready. Any signs or issues we back off until they are resolved. Unfortunately in this business there are alot of issues with injuries. As someone stated a 1200 lb. animal running hard just seems to create issues not even considering the horse's mental state.
Claimers just have physical or mental issues; period end of quote!
By the way all of my thoughts and opinions are a direct result of my ten years with the best trainer in the world in my opinion.

[classhandicapper]

I think it is much more likely the figures are right and Blind Luck just had a lot going against her. If you are upgrading her 8-10 points, I get that, but not the races in general.

By the way, Havre de Grace was given a 105 yesterday.

I haven't done my final variant yet, but if I agree with Beyer the race would be about 87-97-105. Regardless of the final number, Blind Luck was up against it yesterday. That said, it isn't like Havre de Grace was on the lead. I think she has passed Blind Luck.

I still think the races were slower than the quality of the horses and perhaps Blind Luck had the worst of it inside of them too. Degree is an issue.

I've looked at those horses back figures and performances and a very good case can be made that the races were better than the Beyer figures. I also checked with Jerry Brown and he has the races faster than Beyer (and if anything his CA figures tend to be on the slow side relative to Beyer).

I'm not saying those horses were superstars and that BL was running as well as last year, but those weren't limited ALW horses either.

As far as Blind Luck and Havre de Grace go, there wasn't much between them last year and the addition of Dominguez can't hurt the latter. I don't think the gap is as large as the Azeri race though. Blind Luck came back well short of her 3YO peak, seems to be heading in the right direction just in time for the Apple Blossom (I suspect that's not a coincidence now), and had the worst of the bias/pace this time. The other horse came back at her peak and we don't know where she's going yet. She may have fired the best she's got already.

I would only make HdG a mild favorite in the rematch.

[ArlJim78]

The way that race was setting up on Sat, I thought for a moment Blind Luck might not fire and get beat badly, but she rallied as usual. For such a small horse rallying from off the pace like she does, I think she is pretty impressive even though she is now usually only the runner-up to HTG who has moved forward no doubt.

[Stillriledup]

Why would claimers be making fewer starts? Because they're trained by trainers. That's my whole point. It's trainers who have gotten it in their heads that these horses are better off racing less. Why is that?

As for Lasix. OK, so Lasix allows bad bleeders to turn into stallions, passing on their bleeding genes. Not good.

Then again, we have Lasix, as you point out. Lasix will prevent these "bad gened" horses produced from "bad gened" stallions from bleeding during a race. Problem solved, no? It's not ideal, I realize that...

Next.

You raise a good point about trainers mindset. Now, i do believe that part of fewer starts is because of weakening breed and part is the new mindset, no doubt that current mindset is at least somewhat of a factor in less starters.

[Shelby]

Oaklawn has new queen in Havre de Grace


http://www.drf.com/news/oaklawn-has-new-queen-havre-de-grace

Also:
Afleet Deceit, who won the $50,000 Sam Houston Distaff with a Beyer Figure of 90 in her last start Feb. 26, is being pointed for the new $100,000 Redbud at Oaklawn, said her trainer, Scott Becker. The 1 1/16-mile race for fillies and mares was added to the stakes schedule earlier this month. It is to be run April 13.

Payton d’Oro will be considered for the Redbud, said Jones. Taptam is being pointed for the race, said her trainer, Bret Calhoun.

[toussaud]

the funny thing about all this.. blind luck, would have romped in the santa margarita. she wants 9F way more than anyone that ran in that race. Jerry believed his own bad track kool aid so bad he shipped out and skipped a hand me grade 1 race.