Good Magic likely done for the year

[GMB@BP]

long a year already, needs rest.

https://www.horseracingnation.com/ne...kes_defeat_123

[Cholly]

from that post:

Bob Edwards, whose e Five Racing owns the other share in the son of Curlin, told The TDN that when it comes to future race plans, "We’ll let the horse tell us what he wants to do."

Here's how that conversation transpires: "Hey Good, how do you want to spend next year? Being whipped by midgets or jumping up on the back of whinnying mares?"

He's already raced the staggering total of nine races; that's Iron Horse by today's standards.

[bobphilo]

Well, that explains the most disappointing performances in the Travers. Sick horses who are forced wide into a fast pace on the 1st turn rarely win do well in Grade 1's

[cj]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Well, that explains the most disappointing performances in the Travers. Sick horses who are forced wide into a fast pace on the 1st turn rarely win do well in Grade 1's

The trip certainly was the main excuse, but you can't be realistic with horses like that. It has to be physical or an illness.

[cj]

Originally Posted by cj

The trip certainly was the main excuse, but you can't be realistic with horses like that. It has to be physical or an illness.

One other thing, after the terrible trip, the distance was also a big question too IMO. Chad Brown didn't think the horse wanted any part of the Belmont Stakes distance, so I'd guess even 10f was really pushing the envelope as it was. Given his trip and probably stretching his distance capabilities, the terrible finish isn't really that surprising.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

One other thing, after the terrible trip, the distance was also a big question too IMO. Chad Brown didn't think the horse wanted any part of the Belmont Stakes distance, so I'd guess even 10f was really pushing the envelope as it was. Given his trip and probably stretching his distance capabilities, the terrible finish isn't really that surprising.

Yep, he really hated that 1 1/4 miles in the Derby.....

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Yep, he really hated that 1 1/4 miles in the Derby.....

I wouldn't exactly say he was flying home. I said it was pushing his limits, nothing more. Given the brutal trip he had in the Travers, the distance had an exponential effect on his finishing position and beaten lengths. That is all I was trying to get across.

[Suff]

Chad Brown said tonight during his Andy Serling interview.

Good Magic
"He was not feeling well, and came out of the race sick. His white cells had been up. He's basically been going since he was 2, so we are going to send him to the farm"


"Gronkowski puzzled me, because he was training well but did no running. He ran well on the Belmont surface so we're shipping him back to Belmont to try something there."

[cj]

Originally Posted by Fuss

Chad Brown said tonight during his Andy Serling interview.

Good Magic
"He was not feeling well, and came out of the race sick. His white cells had been up. He's basically been going since he was 2, so we are going to send him to the farm"


"Gronkowski puzzled me, because he was training well but did no running. He ran well on the Belmont surface so we're shipping him back to Belmont to try something there."

I have trained myself to not see trainer speak.

[the little guy]

He said Gronkowski is running in the Jockey Club Gold Cup.

[classhandicapper]

I'm a little surprised they seem to be considering bringing him back next year (maybe I'm misunderstanding). I'm a fan of the horse, but even if you liked his Derby and Haskell (I thought both were very good), he doesn't look like he did a lot of developing between 2-3. If anything, he may be more likely to fall further behind his peers next year. It might be better to go out with his reputation undamaged by a single poor finish with a nightmare trip and minor health issue than come back and prove he hasn't developed much. Of course if they think he can develop a lot more, then it makes more sense.

I like Gronkowski less at this stage. I had a different view of his Belmont than most. I thought Justify (even though he was loose) put away everyone that was trying to stay with him and Gronkowski defaulted into 2nd. He's probably good and may get better, but I thought he was overrated going into the Travers.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm a little surprised they seem to be considering bringing him back next year (maybe I'm misunderstanding). I'm a fan of the horse, but even if you liked his Derby and Haskell (I thought both were very good), he doesn't look like he did a lot of developing between 2-3. If anything, he may be more likely to fall further behind his peers next year. It might be better to go out with his reputation undamaged by a single poor finish with a nightmare trip and minor health issue than come back and prove he hasn't developed much. Of course if they think he can develop a lot more, then it makes more sense.

I like Gronkowski less at this stage. I had a different view of his Belmont than most. I thought Justify (even though he was loose) put away everyone that was trying to stay with him and Gronkowski defaulted into 2nd. He's probably good and may get better, but I thought he was overrated going into the Travers.

I thought his chances were excellent going into the Travers off his Belmont performance. The only question was that he might be a marathoner needing 12 furlongs or more to do that well. That obviously did not turn out to be the reason the reason for his Travers failure. Like Good Magic and Wonder Gadot his performance was too bad to be true or representative of the ability he showed previously. Either there was something wrong with him or something about the running of the race caused some many disappointing performances as the article suggest. I suspect that as a deep closer he was asked to move too soon before the leaders were tiring. When plodders are asked for speed too soon they tire quickly.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

I thought his chances were excellent going into the Travers off his Belmont performance. The only question was that he might be a marathoner needing 12 furlongs or more to do that well. That obviously did not turn out to be the reason the reason for his Travers failure. Like Good Magic and Wonder Gadot his performance was too bad to be true or representative of the ability he showed previously. Either there was something wrong with him or something about the running of the race caused some many disappointing performances as the article suggest. I suspect that as a deep closer he was asked to move too soon before the leaders were tiring. When plodders are asked for speed too soon they tire quickly.

If you take out his Belmont, a race I have found generally to be a non predictor of future success what does his form look like?

Now maybe no one ships from socal and he faces avg g2 types like Gunnavera and Seeking the Soul and he really does like Belmont but its just hard to take the horse as a real contender. I would want 15 or 20/1 to play him against good horses such as Diversify or Accelerate.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Yep, he really hated that 1 1/4 miles in the Derby.....

Given his fast early fractions he had every right to be tiring in the Derby stretch. Think pace, not distance limitations.
If anything his PPs and Derby performance indicate that 10 furlongs is his ideal distance. There is no reason to believe that illness or the poor trip would have been less devastating at any other distance for him in particular.
Of course the long Travers distance would magnify the problems of any horse, but there is no reason it would have effected him more than any other horse.

[FantasticDan]

Originally Posted by Cholly

"how do you want to spend next year? Being whipped by midgets or jumping up on the back of whinnying mares?"

Why are we talking about Tom's love life?