The Preakness Stakes - Page 2 - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

DrunkenHorseplayer · 05-03-2009, 01:01 PM

According to an article at ESPN, thirteen of the nineteen Derby horses are either definitely not running or possibly not running. This Preakness could be an entirely different race.

sonnyp · 05-03-2009, 01:31 PM

why not sell him to IEAH ? im sure they can promote some investors to come up with a few million for a derby winner with an open shot at a triple crown !

maybe the guy that just jumped in for a piece of I WANT REVENGE a few days before the morning line favorite was scratched from the derby ?

there are plenty of people with tons of $$$$$ who want to be "entered" in all the high profile races.

joanied · 05-03-2009, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj's dad

Well, another year like Giacomo's

No Triple Crown !!

YEP!!

ezrabrooks · 05-03-2009, 04:53 PM

My TC history is pretty limited..but, has a sound Derby winner ever skipped the Preakness? It sounded like they would rather just try the Belmont...but it is almost like MTB is obligated to go on to Baltimore.

Ez

kyle2227 · 05-03-2009, 07:12 PM

Big money to be had this year he will go off the favorite and the longshots will win big big money put the money on the longshot

Jinxed · 05-03-2009, 07:16 PM

The jocks and trainers of the million dollar horses definitely "want revenge", sorry for the play on words. The really bad ones like Atomic Rain and a few others will not go to the Preakness, but I bet you are going to see a lot of returnees coming back. Word is that FF may run, because he has superficial cuts and nothing serious at all. Rumors abound!!

oddsmaven · 05-03-2009, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toussaud

the more i thin about it.. man i dont'know. that race wasn't close whatsoever.....

I've seen a number of references made lauding the wide wargin of victory...have the people making them ever noticed how often fields spread out and produce whopping winning margins in the slop? It's not as impressive as winning by those kind of open lengths when it's fast...take Friesan Fire's LA Derby romp in the slop...it's fairly common...the first four races on the CD card were won by at least five lengths...and the race after the Derby was won by more than 6 too.

The victory was a shock, (though less so on an off track which also yields more improbable winners) but the winning margin should be taken with a grain of salt.

sonnyp · 05-03-2009, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ezrabrooks

My TC history is pretty limited..but, has a sound Derby winner ever skipped the Preakness? It sounded like they would rather just try the Belmont...but it is almost like MTB is obligated to go on to Baltimore.

Ez

in 1996, Grindstone was injured after a derby win and was retired before another race.

however, in 1985, Spend a Buck's connections opted for the Jersey Derby which, at the time, carried a much larger purse and a bonus to a kentucky derby winner than the preakness.

at that time it was believed by the powers that existed in racing, that no one would ever forsake the prestiege of winning the preakness, even with its relatively modest purse, to compete elseware for more money.

this event shocked them into recognizing the reality of a changing mentality and triple crown productions came into being. with its birth came a substantial increase in the purses of the triple crown races so as to offer some bit of assurance this would not happen again.

rastajenk · 05-03-2009, 10:19 PM

It also spawned at least a couple different versions of a bonus points system that never really caught on and worked like it was intended. A horse could finish fifth or sixth in the Belmont and win, because he won a leg and ran in the other, or something similar to that. It was never very productive.

ghostyapper · 05-03-2009, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinxed

I think again the Triple Crown is elusive for sure. This guy unfortunately can't take those other 2 races. I truly think the Preakness will be his undoing. He is a closer, and he isn't going to be able to do that with the shorter race. I hope people bet him like crazy, and then maybe I can make a few bucks again on longshots.

With the move he made yesterday, a 1/16 shorter would not change the result. It could be he freaked on the mud but I don't see the preakness distance having any affect on the outcome.

I really am not confident saying this horse is a fluke or he is as good as his derby. The preakness will tell us.

Relwob Owner · 05-03-2009, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghostyapper

With the move he made yesterday, a 1/16 shorter would not change the result. It could be he freaked on the mud but I don't see the preakness distance having any affect on the outcome.

I really am not confident saying this horse is a fluke or he is as good as his derby. The preakness will tell us.

I agree about the distance but Pimlico really has been a track that favors being near the front---plus, he may not get a 22 and change fraction to run at again...

ghostyapper · 05-03-2009, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relwob Owner

I agree about the distance but Pimlico really has been a track that favors being near the front---plus, he may not get a 22 and change fraction to run at again...

As far as recent preakness history goes, his style fits. Look at the moves by curlin, street sense, afleet alex, bernardini in the preakness.

As far as a quick pace goes, I wouldn't be surprised to see 1 or 2 speed horses entered that duel.

Relwob Owner · 05-03-2009, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghostyapper

As far as recent preakness history goes, his style fits. Look at the moves by curlin, street sense, afleet alex, bernardini in the preakness.

As far as a quick pace goes, I wouldn't be surprised to see 1 or 2 speed horses entered that duel.

Good points...I was speaking of the strip at Pimlico in general but based on your examples, I stand corrected on the recent Preakness winners...

As far as I speed duel goes, I still dont see it....fewer horses are entered in the Preakness "just to be there" like they are in the Derby and those seem to be the type that set the quick Derby fractions and fade....we will see!

lagavulin62 · 05-03-2009, 10:58 PM

unless he comes up hurt I think they should enter him just to take a shot at the triple crown. my reasoning is simply because he does have a shot at the belmont, maybe not after the preakness but at least it's in his pedigree. as far as I'm concerned you breed a horse to win the belmont if you want the triple crown. if we ever get a triple crown again it will be purely from luck. these guys in horse racing only care about speed horses that could never withstand the grueling nature of those three races. too many times we have this same conversation every year, the derby winner can't win the preakness, but how many times do we get a derby/preakness double winner? it has to be the easiest of the three races. I wouldn't be so quick to count him out if he is entered.

big frank · 05-04-2009, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghostyapper

Pletcher already said before the race that if dunkirk didn't win, he wouldn't go to the preakness so he is out. I think the same for IWR and FF

Will be interested to see the 2 withers runners, especially this one's for phil if he runs

I agree,, if This One For Phil is in he could be a nice play