I had the Whitney a 115 and the Go For Wand a 91.

I used the same variant for both races.

I think the Go For Wand was a much less impressive race than people think, and doubt the track changed speeds so much in that 30 minutes of time.

If anything, the track would have changed speeds before the Grade 2 sprint stake.

However, the top 7 finishers in that race had only been seperated by four lengths, and it didn't come back eye-opening fast. The last place finisher in the race ran 1:09 and change.

Like the Go For Wand...it was another unimpressive race.

If anyone is looking to try and take away from Lawer Ron's performance, I guess you'd have to start with the fact that the ultra moderate Magna Graduate was the post time favorite in the Whitney.

Thanks.

I still think all the rubbarb about the time and Beyer (specifically whether he set the track record) was at least partially motivated by the idea that Lawyer Ron's gonna be slugging it out with the other mid-range stallions once he hits the shed and something like a track record at Saratoga at a mile and an eighth in a G1 is an achievement certain folks would just love to take away from him so he doesn't pull mares from their stallion. I don't think the DRF article would be written the way it was if they were trying to validate the time of a Bernardini for example. He's more people's horse than blue blood and it just burned somebody that they didn't think him capable of it and he proved himself. So the 'well that can't be right, I didn't see it coming' plus 'a record like that costs somebody money' caused a controversy to crop up where it could've been handled much more professionally. There's a way to be upbeat and say you're excited a record may have been obtained and are hoping to validate it as soon as possible versus practically declaring you expect that the timer was broken as so many did. It sure looked like a horse running a track record time to me, when I saw that race, and a 116 because the other races on the card weren't as strong when LR turned in something this flashy is stupid. Wonderful performances are supposed to stand out. Gotta take him down a peg though. Just can't help themselves. It could be the best performance he does from here on out but so what? Let him have the career highlight if he earns it. If he can't go over 112 from here on out, oh well. Some days a horse just feels good.

I think Lawyer Ron's performance sort of "carried" the other horses to do better than they normally would.

Well said and good points.

Barry Bonds

i don't know about calling lawyer ron anything other than a blue-blood--he's by top ten-ner langfuhr, himself by the top stakes sire this continent has ever seen--as well as danzig being the sire of the top stakes sire in the world in danehill.

now, he was no multi-million dollar auction purchase, but he's no john henry!

the record was hard to believe as to date, lawyer ron never has seemed to be anything extraordinary.

interesting ending to the whitney, with a contentious field--but no clear front runner for the older ranks...seems lawyer ron likes to choose his moments!!!!

Lawyer Ron's dam sold for just $11,000 as a yearling, and she never won a race.

I'd hardly say he's a blueblood.

Exactly. To me if a female family is anything but quality, so what if they pony up the dough for a respectable stud, some of those farms take the money and let you send over the plow mare, plus Langfuhr is no Danzig or Northern Dancer. He's good and all but it isn't as though they hit the stud jackpot there. Lawyer Ron's not a Bernardini, Lemon Drop Kid, or Empire Maker. He's not Lil E. Tee either but his book would've been one I'd see as involving some serious legwork to put together something spectacular. He'd have to earn his stallion reputation, not come in with some presumptive quality, hype ablaze. Even now he will but this, this will prop him up a little more. A track record in a G1 at Saratoga at a workable distance? Worth a lot. They like their records at a mile or just over right? Sires with flash at a mile get some attention for themselves since more horses end up there than 1 1/4-1/2 miles. I can't remember but I think it was the folks at Claiborne that mentioned they enjoyed that angle. Could be wrong. I've heard it from more than one place.

About him not showing anything extraodinary, there were at least a few people were falling all over themselves picking him for the Derby before. You don't do that as a nobody and wasn't he given a hero's welcome when he came back to Oaklawn before? He wasn't my Derby pick but I did enjoy him. I'd been diehard Barbaro for months and even thinking about other horses felt like blasphemy. Now I kinda enjoy seeing LR when he comes out. He's fun to watch.

i remember the discussions about lawyer ron, the ones who picked him to win the derby got a lot of grief. the general reply from those who disdained him was that he was too slow--that he wasn't in the same league as the top horses last year, a lot of mention of his speed figures.

if the racing ability of a broodmare had anything to do with it, a lot of farms would have a lot of explaining to do. lots of unraced broodmares, and ones who didn't do much track-wise.

he's no bernardini, but he's no john henry either.

You are PROBABLY right about this, but there is no way anybody can know that for sure. If the race was run at 10f, a lot of things MIGHT have been different. The pace might have been different, horses could have made moves at different timess, jocks might have used different strategies etc.
Winning in impressive fashion at 9f simply does not mean that a horse will be effective at 10f.
I stand by my statement that I don't think Lawyer Ron will be a paricularly effective horse at 10f.
Here are the three main reasons why:
1) He ran rather poorly in his two previous attempts at 10f. I know people will say that he is "a completely different horse now" and things like that, but the fact remains that his best efforts at both ages 3 and 4 have come in the 8.5 - 9f range.
2) His pedigree. He just doesn't have a good 10f pedigree. Langfuhr was a good racehorse, but he did his best work in the 7f-8f range, as have most of his offspring. Being out of a Lord Avie mare doesn't scream 10f either. In the 2006 Derby, he had - in my opinion - the worst 10f pedigree of any horse in the race.
3) It seems to me that he reaches the bottom of the tank every time in these 9f races. This (of course) is an impossible thing to know for sure, and even if true, doesn't have to mean that he can't get 10f effectively, but when combined with the first two reasons I mentioned lead me to my conclusion.

Could I be wrong? Sure. The other thing to remember is that with the weakness of the handicap division this year, I could be right and he could still win a G1-10f race if they decide to go that way.
But with a 1m70yd BC race this year, I think they would be best served to point in that direction and keep the horse in the 8f - 9f range. By the way, I am not knocking the horse. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with being a G1 caliber horse in that 8f-9f range.

Weren't both of his 10 furlong runs at Churchill? It is still possible he simply doesn't like that track. He might not have been as good at 9 furlongs if he went in the Foster.

Well, it is certainly possible. If I remember correctly however, he seemed to be training decently at CD before the Derby, and he seemed to handle the track okay in opening half of the BCC. In my opinion it was the 10f rather than the track that did him in those days, but we can't know that for sure.
Also, those two races were won by a couple of horses named Barbaro and Invasor, and I feel confident in saying that he won't have to worry about meeting horses of that caliber this year. However, it wasn't like it was just those horses that beat him. Afterall, horses like Jazil and Steppenwolfer beat him too.

I don't put much stock in how horses are training over a track. Besides Churchill is well known for changing their surface on big days. I think it is likely that he is a much better horse at 9 furlongs than 10 but I think the fact that both flops at 10 were at Churchill is worth factoring in to your capping. Of course after that race he'll be an eternal underlay and play against from here on out so it is probably irrelevant.

A)She's not unraced, she's just not of any accomplishment. There's a difference and we're not gonna go off on some tangent about how it's been demonstrated that the more accomplished racemares overall have a greater likelihood of producing more accomplished offspring. And about 'a lot of farms'...most of them don't have blue blood sires unless the conformation is lousy or they ended up with them after they got passed around as flops at stud. Those farms also aren't throwing out Breeders' Cup and Derby winners right and left so it just buoys up what we're saying, these guys are in the trenches trying to prove themselves as breed-to-racers.

B)You'll notice if you happen to look at his female family that his dam had another $200,000+ earner who did it the hard way, a gelding with no stakes wins whatsoever. Nice job fella but blacktype it ain't. Second dam: No stakes wins, 8 wins out of 57 starts and not financially rewarding after 7 years on the track--looks like just about every year she was losing someone money given cost of training,etc. Add to that that her four foals have, combined, earned even less than she did. Third dam: 11 starts and earned $4000. Ah oh oh...check it, his 4th dam is a blacktype producer in Venezuela! Penaranda makes good for Lawyer Ron's female family, represent! Excuse me while I go roll out the red carpet. That sucker's heavy, this could take a minute.

His female family is to be overcome as a stallion rather than acting as asset. That should be all you need but I felt the need to spell it out since there was apparently confusion. I'm sure some sibling has a half cousin who's best friend won a minor or even major stakes once but there's a point where it's a little reaching. I mean did you know there's a horse in an optional claimer this week that, wonder of wonders, is a descendant of Eclipse? Now I just made up the circumstances of that last bit but I don't doubt that there is. I'm not trying to be obnoxious here but Lawyer Ron's earned his way as a stallion prospect. Dear old mom didn't provide a silver spoon to feed him colostrum. That's not a bad thing, just a fact.

there is nothing similar about Lawyers Ron's previous 9F races and the Whitney, therefore I think its shaky to conclude that he would have the same type of failure now with the 10F distance. can you really look at the Whitney, a race in which he absolutely smoked the field, and conclude that the horse will have trouble with another eighth?

i would ask if there was anyone in that field that looked like another furlong would have really helped.

Very interesting, thanks.

i didn't realize only the female side was to be considered...i guess we'll toss out lord avies successes, oh but speaking of mares, let's also discount avie, lord avies dam, and her four black-type winners, or evilone and her three black typers.. no doubt we could both find horses in that pedigree to show why he is or is not a working class horse.

at any rate, thanks for the i'm not trying to be obnoxious part....it generally is included in an obnoxious post, so i'll just assume the best.

You obviously don't obsess much about pedigree or this wouldn't be a point of argument. Your approach is pretty naive. You're the one being obnoxious by trying to take facts that people who know what they're talking about understand and thinking that because you don't get it, it must be wrong. Lawyer Ron's dam isn't the old grey nag but she's not Toussaud either. Deal with it. People looking at stallions consider this in how well bred the stallion is and his tail female line is pedestrian compared to others in the market like Bernardini, Giant's Causeway, Empire Maker. What's so hard to understand?

i said he's no bernardini. i also said he's no working class horse either. my apologies for being obnoxious. i was never aware before that i rubbed you the wrong way, i certainly don't remember you being condescending to me before, i apologize for that as well, along with my naivete and my not getting it. i'll keep all that in mind the next time i try to present my point of view, altho apparently my opinions aren't very well thought out....i hope you have a nice day, and that next time we are in agreement, so i don't get a dressing down for a post or two.

All I said was that he wasn't a "blue-blood."

Not trying to give you a hard time.....but his pedigree is really average.

which to me makes him more appealing.

He's certainly proven to outrun his pedigree anyway. Here are the accomplishments of his dams.

1st dam- Donation (as mentioned, just an 11K yearling, winless in four starts)

2nd dam- Reddy Change (Seemingly durable Lousianna Bred sprinter who raced 57 times. Struggled mightily in route races. Going 20-1-1-2 in dirt routes and 4-0-0-0 in turf routes)

3rd dam- Coin Changer (went 1-for-11 and earned $4,036)

4th dam- Little Mortgage (never raced)

5th dam- Behavior (went 1-for-19 and made less than 5K)


As you can see....thats a pretty ugly tail female line from a racing standpoint going those five generations back.

John Henry's 3rd dam was four times stakes placed, and his 4th dam won the very important Matron Stakes as a two-year-old.

I'm not sure Lawyer Ron's pedigree really matters much anymore though, he's proven himself a very good horse, and he's proven he can vastly outrun his pedigree. I have doubts he'll be an attractive stallion prospect however....but hey, who knows.

i don't see him doing much post-race career, due to him going to stonewall. i don't think they're in the position to help him--it takes quite a lot to 'make' a stallion, and i think him going there will really hinder him. also, a small fish in the big pond of kentucky.