Bossert blames Z loss on schedule - I disagree

[highnote]

A lot of people seem to agree with you Tucker. We can't say for sure what the reason is. That is what makes horseracing so interesting.

However, it is not often a jockey blames himself for losing a race. He usually will say something like his horse didn't handle the track, didn't like dirt in his face, etc. But when the jockey admits it is his fault for losing the race then I am inclined to agree with him. Smith left her with too much work to do after the first 1/2 mile. She did well to almost win it and in my opinion she was the best horse, but was a victim of a bad ride.

Originally Posted by tucker6

Smith didn't lose it. Zenyatta lost it out of the gate. Blame the trainer for not shipping sooner and getting her acclimated to the surface. Also, moving sooner probably meant she would have lost by more. She was decelerating more than Blame at the wire, so if she had started sooner, it is likely she would be moving slower than him at the wire, thus giving him a bigger lead. However, it is impossible to say anything for sure, as a different set of circumstances (like an earlier run to the finish) will cause other things to change as well.

[joanied]

Originally Posted by cj

I watched the start of all her races this year a few times, especially the Apple Blossom, and I just don't see it as a big deal. She always starts like that, just usually the other horses are going a lot slower.

How does a horse hate the surface for 1/2 mile then suddenly like it? As I said in another thread, she doesn't need all these excuses, she ran great. She just lost to a slightly better horse.

This was not like her other starts, cj...and needless to say, I have also watched them all...it wasn't how slow she was going, and it had nothing to do with how fats the others were going...look at it again, it's painfully obvious she was not getting a hold of the surface, she was struggling with it.
And I didn't say, or imply that after 1/2 mile she decided she liked it...her class came out and she dealt with it, dug in and did the best she could...and if you look at the photo of her & Blame at the wire, she was already making that last stride...she's about a foot longer than Blame, that last stride would have taken her past Blame, by inches, but past him.

Oh, and I'm not really making excuses for her...just putting up the facts of it...yes, she ran great becuase she is great

[Cardus]

Originally Posted by joanied

This was not like her other starts, cj...and needless to say, I have also watched them all...it wasn't how slow she was going, and it had nothing to do with how fats the others were going...look at it again, it's painfully obvious she was not getting a hold of the surface, she was struggling with it.
And I didn't say, or imply that after 1/2 mile she decided she liked it...her class came out and she dealt with it, dug in and did the best she could...and if you look at the photo of her & Blame at the wire, she was already making that last stride...she's about a foot longer than Blame, that last stride would have taken her past Blame, by inches, but past him.

Oh, and I'm not really making excuses for her...just putting up the facts of it...yes, she ran great becuase she is great

I suppose that the notion that was floated repeatedly that Zenyatta runs as fast as she has to run to win, and that Zenyatta knows where the wire is (hence, the close finishes against ridiculous competition on synthetics in California), is shot to hell, no?

Obviously, she did not know where the wire was last week.

[highnote]

Zenyatta was 10-11 lengths in back of the early pace in the 2009 BC Classic.

In the 2010 BC Classic she was 18-20 lengths back! What was Smith thinking? Was he trying to factor in that the horses would decelerate more and run at a faster pace on dirt than on synthetic?

I understand that performance over a given distance of ground is a matter of a horse's genetic predisposition, but a jockey does have some control.

Smith made an error in judgement, he knows it, he admits it and when I watch replays of the two races it seems obvious.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by swetyejohn

Zenyatta was 10-11 lengths in back of the early pace in the 2009 BC Classic.

In the 2010 BC Classic she was 18-20 lengths back! What was Smith thinking? Was he trying to factor in that the horses would decelerate more and run at a faster pace on dirt than on synthetic?

I understand that performance over a given distance of ground is a matter of a horse's genetic predisposition, but a jockey does have some control.

Smith made an error in judgement, he knows it, he admits it and when I watch replays of the two races it seems obvious.

Weren't the first 4 horses (ie First Dude, Espoir City, Haynesfield, Quality Road), all of whom brought up the rear by the time they got to the wire, well clear of the rest, by about 8 lengths during the early stages?

They hounded each other into rapid 1/2 mile and 6f fractions before getting swallowed up immediately by the rest of the field.

If you ignore them, and take Etched as your frontrunner, Zenyatta was never more than 12 lengths or so from a rival with any real shot of winning.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by joanied

None of it was Mike's fault...IMO, although I am a huge fan, Shirreff's made a mistake not taking her to CD early to get used to the surface, she needed a work over it.

Joanied, I agree with you, but I not saying she would have beaten Blame. However she would have been into the race earlier.

[cpitt84]

Originally Posted by joanied

No...it's in the paper edition of the BloodHorse magazine, cpitt84...maybe I can scan it to my puter and post it or send it to you...I'll see what I can do...it's kinda sad because her eyes are half closed...very plain to see she was thinking.."what the hell is this"?

aww, that is sad. I have tried looking for Bloodhorse at a local Borders and you would think out of 100 magazines they would have it!

I did order the Zenyatta edition for $9.95 and am looking forward to it. Thanks for offering to scan the pic! If you cannot, no worries.

[ihatenyra]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I suppose that the notion that was floated repeatedly that Zenyatta runs as fast as she has to run to win, and that Zenyatta knows where the wire is (hence, the close finishes against ridiculous competition on synthetics in California), is shot to hell, no?

I can't comment on the knowing where the wire is part since none of us know what's inside her head. But she was beating her own sex by small margins and lost to G1 males by head. I'd say thats a horse who runs to the competition.

[cpitt84]

Originally Posted by joanied

This was not like her other starts, cj...and needless to say, I have also watched them all...it wasn't how slow she was going, and it had nothing to do with how fats the others were going...look at it again, it's painfully obvious she was not getting a hold of the surface, she was struggling with it.
And I didn't say, or imply that after 1/2 mile she decided she liked it...her class came out and she dealt with it, dug in and did the best she could...and if you look at the photo of her & Blame at the wire, she was already making that last stride...she's about a foot longer than Blame, that last stride would have taken her past Blame, by inches, but past him.

Oh, and I'm not really making excuses for her...just putting up the facts of it...yes, she ran great becuase she is great

I agree joanied about her stride. She is bigger than Blame and her stride is as long as Secretariats so theres no doubt she could have went past him..too bad she ran out of time!

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by swetyejohn

Maybe "slow" wasn't the right description. It was certainly slower than the best timed BC Classics.

10 of the last 16 KY Derbys have been run faster than the 2010 Breeders' Cup Classic. The Classic is supposed to be for the best 10 furlong horses in the world. I would expect it to be run faster than the Derby 6 times in 16.

I still agree with Mike Smith -- Zenyatta losing the Classic was the fault of the jockey. BUT -- the thing we'll never know is if any other jockey could have done any better.

There have been 7 BC Distaffs at Churchill and only one in quicker than 1:49.75. Now, maybe Churchill plays slower in the Fall, or maybe, by coincidence, every time the BC is at Churchill the Distaff field stinks. Side note: the year the Distaff went in 1:47.66 at CD, the Classic went 2:00.75. Hmmm.

[ihatenyra]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Smith didn't lose it. Zenyatta lost it out of the gate. Blame the trainer for not shipping sooner and getting her acclimated to the surface. Also, moving sooner probably meant she would have lost by more. She was decelerating more than Blame at the wire, so if she had started sooner, it is likely she would be moving slower than him at the wire, thus giving him a bigger lead. However, it is impossible to say anything for sure, as a different set of circumstances (like an earlier run to the finish) will cause other things to change as well.

What you say is true about moving sooner but where exactly are you getting that she was "decelerating more than blame at the wire"

[highnote]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

There have been 7 BC Distaffs at Churchill and only one in quicker than 1:49.75. Now, maybe Churchill plays slower in the Fall, or maybe, by coincidence, every time the BC is at Churchill the Distaff field stinks. Side note: the year the Distaff went in 1:47.66 at CD, the Classic went 2:00.75. Hmmm.

I thought about that. The track variant may be greater in the fall than the spring. It does seem like the track is souped up for Derby Day.

[BluegrassProf]

Nothing new in this BH blog from Avalyn Hunter, but scroll down and look through the comments section...one horsey-head rocket-spaz after another, posts stuffed to the brim with wacky hyperbole and - notably - just completely without substance.

Those convinced that her legacy will stand unquestioned oughta look long and hard at the dialogue and wonder what'll be left after the hype and mayhem die down (particularly amongst the non-horsey-head set)...

It's A Shame Zenyatta Didn't Lose Earlier (A. Hunter)
http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/marke...e-earlier.aspx

Hunter's point is perfectly legitimate, and one that many, many others have made. Shame it's too hyperemotional to discuss at the moment.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Smith didn't lose it. Zenyatta lost it out of the gate. Blame the trainer for not shipping sooner and getting her acclimated to the surface. Also, moving sooner probably meant she would have lost by more. She was decelerating more than Blame at the wire, so if she had started sooner, it is likely she would be moving slower than him at the wire, thus giving him a bigger lead. However, it is impossible to say anything for sure, as a different set of circumstances (like an earlier run to the finish) will cause other things to change as well.

The stretch at CD is about a 1/4 mile if I'm not mistaken. It should be possible to time the stretch run and calculate the FPS for Z and Blame. It should be simple to time the last 1/8 and last 1/16, too.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Also, moving sooner probably meant she would have lost by more. She was decelerating more than Blame at the wire, so if she had started sooner, it is likely she would be moving slower than him at the wire, thus giving him a bigger lead.

I just reviewed the video using a stopwatch and I calculated the deceleration. In the last 100 yards, Blame was decelerating more than Zenyatta.

Blame had the lead at the top of the stretch to the end of the race.

He ran from the 1/4 pole to the 300 yard marker in 7.49 seconds

He ran the next 100 yards in 5.5 seconds

The next 100 in 5.63.

He ran the last 100 in 5.91.

1/4 pole to 300 yards = 56.07 feet per second
next 300 feet = 54.55 feet per second
next 300 feet = 53.29 feet per second
last 300 feet = 50.76 feet per second.

Let's compare this to Zenyatta:

Z was 2 lengths back at the top of the stretch = 16 feet behind Blame.

next 300 feet she gained 1/2 length = 4 feet
next 300 feet she gained 1/2 length = 4 feet
last 300 feet she gained 1 length = 8 feet

1/4 pole plus 16 feet to 300 yards = 436 feet in 7.49 seconds = 58.21 fps.
next 304 feet in 5.5 seconds = 55.27 fps.
next 304 feet in 5.63 seconds = 54 fps.
last 308 feet in 5.91 = 52.12 fps.


Now let's compare deceleration:

1/4 pole to 300 yards -- Blame 56.07
...................................... Z 58.21


next 300 feet...........-- Blame 54.55
...................................... Z 55.27
difference B = 1.52
difference Z = 2.94 -- Z had to weave through traffic which delayed her

next 300 feet...........-- Blame 53.29
...................................... Z 54.00
difference B = 1.26
difference Z = 1.27 -- they're decelerating at the same rate here

next 300 feet...........-- Blame 50.76
...................................... Z 52.12
difference B = 2.12
difference Z = 1.88 -- Blame has spit out the bit and Z is passing him

It's clear that Zenyatta was running faster than Blame at the wire, though both horses were decelerating. In the last 100 yards to the wire, Blame was decelerating at a faster rate than Z.

I think it is almost irrefutable that had Smith moved earlier or kept closer contact with the pace Z would have won.