What are you DELUSIONAL? This isn't about the best horse winning or champions finding that something XTRA, it's about SETUPS. That's the hard truth of this game. Racing is all about which horse gets the better trip. It's about flows. It's about jockeys making poor decisions and getting horses beat. To think that an individual horse can overcome a setup against it in a given race is about as naive as one could get. To even the novice tripper, BERNIE MOVED TOO SOON. Simple as that.

P.S. I could care less what the FIGURES say.

So if you don't care about figures, but you think Bernardini moved to soon, how do you decide who is the better horse, him or Invasor?

By the way, I'm a casual observer here, My selection, DAVID JUNIOR, PULLED UP TOO SOON.

You really bet David Junior in that race?

Mazel Trick was way better than Mizzen Mast.

He was the best horse I've seen over the last 15 years that is now pretty much forgotten.

Yep. He made an eye-catching move along the inside early down the backstretch before stopping to a walk before the quarter pole. I blame Jamie Spencer. I also blame Victor Espinoza for sending my Mile horse, SILENT NAME to the lead from the outset, costing him the race (or at least 4th place).

Hey, at least I was the first one out of the parking lot that day...

Dubious assertion beyond 8.5f. I know he beat the clock and all, but did he ever meet any real horses. He blew apart completely training for the Pacific Classic (I think he was nearly put down actually).

I made large bets on Too Much Bling and Wait A While that day - it wasn't exactly one of my best BC's from a betting standpoint either.

In the Triple Bend - he destroyed a good field of sprinters. The 2nd place finisher Christmas Boy won the Bing Crosby next out with a 117 Beyer.

In the San Diego he defeated good routers in River Keen and Budroyale. River Keen shipped east and won the Woodward and Jockey Club Gold Cup. Budroyale won that years Goodwood and was 2nd in the BC Classic.

One of the most ridiculous BC's I ever encountered (and this isn't red-boarding cuz none of 'em won) was the '91 edition at CD. I had Pleasant Tap in the Sprint (2nd at 8-1), La Spia in the Juvenile Fillies (2nd at 30-1 after jumping the f'ng tire tracks just as she did in the Oak Leaf), Brought To Mind in the Distaff (3rd at 70-1), Bertrando in the Juvenile (2nd at something short I'm sure), and Quest For Fame in the Turf (3rd at like 30-1 or so).

The worst beat I took though was getting laughed out of the room when singing the praises of Itsallgreektome in the '90 Mile at 30-1 and then having him get tagged the last few yards by Royal Academy just as I was about to start smacking people in the back of their fat, ignorant heads.

I really should have learned how to bet exotics effectively back when I actually enjoyed betting.

Ah, Christmas Boy, a very good Sadler horse. Not sure if he was an ex-claimer, but he was a bit fragile. Think he got upset in the Pat O'Brien that meet by some Canani closer, Running Thunder or something like that. That might have been the same meet where Kona Gold won 3 straight allowances by open lengths while breaking poorly in at least two of them.

Regal Thunder was 3rd to Mazel Trick and Christmas Boy in the Triple Bend.

That was him. The Kona Gold allowances had to be the year before. He must have taken the meet off in '99 after the tough winter battles with Big Jag and stablemate Son Of A Pistol earlier that year. Did either Christmas Boy or Regal Thunder make it to the BC Sprint? I don't think so.

Yeah, that 1995 was really weak. Perhaps you arent remembering. Lamtarra beat Swain on top of freedom Cry and Pentire.

Your analogy is not much better than your memory. These are all racehorses right? Euros come over here and win races on dirt right?

Lamtarra, in four starts, won the epsom, king george and arc. Not too many that can say that.

And also no need to make the distinction that Orientate was a multiple stake winner at two turns. Not the grade 1 sprint beast but still a more than capable stake horse.

Experience. Intuition. There are just so many different 'types' of races. When you see how a given type tends to play out, you get a sense of who got the better setup.

I'm not claiming that Bernie blows Invasor away with a better trip. However, his trip was certainly at least ONE LENGTH worse than Invasor's.

I concede that figures are useful when they involve horses I don't know much about (haven't seen their races). They have no use, however, in cases where I've seen the horses over time. If I need a figure to tell me who the better of two good horses is OR how good a horse really is, then I really shouldn't be playing.

Yeah, Invasor had to go out 4 paths wider on the turn (with contact to his inside!) and Invasor had the better "set up". Here is the race in case you havent seen it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xvzZJzgk1d4

If Bernardini was good enough Costellano gave him a quality opportunity to win.. I am not saying he moved at the exact perfect time but understand he clearly thought he was on a monster and once clear and without trouble the likely winner. When you are sitting on what you believe is the best horse your job is to get a good trip and give the horse every opportunity to win.. Costellano clearly does as much.. On that day in that race Invasor was the better horse and IMO had more to overcome then Bernardini.

Speaking about bad rides as on the Saez thread, Jara's ride on Invasor in The Donn was far worser than what happened to Proud Spell last weekend. If Invasor wasn't such a superior horse to the field he faced Jara would have been brought to the shed I suspect.

It was close but Bernardini was probably better. The ride he got in the Classic was vintage Castellano and anyone who has been paying attention to him over the last decade knows exactly what I mean. He must have learned to ride by watching old films of Eddie Maple....the king of the premature wide move on the turn.

The argument that " if Bernardini was such a great horse he would have won in spite of the ride " gets away from the very specific reality. The simple fact is that in the Classic, all things considered, Bernardini ran the better race. That's all that matters. Bernardini was never as good as many wanted to believe, just as Invasor isn't as good as some now seem to think he was, but that doesn't change what happened at Churchill that day.

I'll tell you one thing, if by some wild chance a genuinely remarkable horse should ever race again, I hope people can finally get some perspective.

I would have loved to see Bernardini at 4. Invasor at 5 too.

Thanks for the Eddie Maple reference. Hadn't thought of him in ages.

I thought it took Invasor a while to get past Bernardini, but that's just me.

I'm not sure that Invasor would have improved, but I guess all of this is conjecture, but I agree it would have been nice to see Bernardini at 4. There is more than a little reason to believe he might have been really terrific.

If Invasor had " moved a little earlier " as the other poster suggested I'm afraid I wouldn't have made the same big score in the Pick-3....as Bernardini was paying significantly less.

Invasor's move was timed perfectly.......and Bernardini still gave him all he could handle despite the difference in trips.

i actually agree with this statement! Good Jub!

i always wonder, if barbaro does not break down, what happens in the preakness ? i loved barbaro, but i truly think bernardini would have won fairly easily.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xvzZJzgk1d4

Actually, the moves were made at almost the same time. I posted the video again in case you missed it earlier in the thread. Bernardini's move was made probably about a second sooner. Invasor was simply able to sustain his run longer.

It seems that you are implying that Bernardini had a tough trip or at least a tougher trip than Invasor but in watching it again i dont see that. Invasor is four paths wider around the turn, has contact to the inside and has premium tap veering out on him in deep stretch. He looked to have the worst of it.

As freddie mo said, bernardini's jockey was trying to keep him out of trouble. Perhaps the move was a count early but it was better than getting him into trouble which often happens when they sit too chilly on the turn.

Yes, the Indiana Derby at Hoosier at 8.5f and the listed Sir Beaufort at a flat mile on turf (being a son of Gone West, Orientate was more than adept on that surface).

Well played.

Mabe your memory is faulty since I dont remember any of those horses winning on the dirt. I do remember swain bearing out in the stretch in the Classic in 1998. He didnt do much until he was 5. Freedom Cry lost to the great Nothern Spur in the BC. Pentire was a pretty good horse, nothing more or less.

Lammtarra was a good horse that happen to show up in a weak year, not his fault, but he is far from an all time great. In fact the comparison to Bernardini is strange considering that one was a dirt horse and one was a turf horse. I am fairly certain that Bernardini would thrash Lammtarra on the dirt and I dont know how anyone would think otherwise.

Why is the comparison strange? They were both racehorses at one time and we are discussing horse racing on a horse racing site. So they raced on different surfaces but does that make it a different breed or a different sport? Come on. And who insisted on the distinction between dirt and turf anyway?

Besides all of that how are you so sure that Bernardini would "thrash" lamtarra on dirt when Lamtarra never raced on it? How do you know Lamtarra wouldnt have loved it? He had plenty of dirt in that pedigree.

Regardless of how "weak" 1995 was (and that claim is quite dubious), he still set the record in the epsom derby. He still completed the triple of epsom, king george and Arc. Compare that to anything Bernardini accomplished.

In four races, he sets a record in the epsom (still stands today!)in his second start, wins the king george and the arc. But still not a great horse? LOL

Pentire was just a "pretty good horse"? LOL again. Multiple group 1 winner that won the irish champion stakes and the king george and beat singspiel twice. I guess that horse wasnt very good either?

Yeah Swain didnt do much until he was five. True, he did most of his damage when he was five but lest we forget he did win the coronation.

Which brings us to Freedom Cry. Yes, he lost to northern spur in the BC, three weeks after losing to Lamtarra in the arc. I dont know...I guess shipping across the world and running in a couple of weeks isnt a big deal. yes, the horse was a bum.

Orientate was by Mt. Livermore. He was a very solid sprinter (I specifically remember his Forego at Saratoga when he thrashed Aldebaran) during his 2002 championship season. I wouldn't say he was as adept on turf. He was off the board in the only two graded races (Aegon Turf Sprint and Shoemaker Mile) that he contested over turf.

I agree. However, I think the body of work is incomplete. I think 6-7 furlongs on the turf would have been interesting to see. He was a hell of a sprinter.

I don't think he can be a top contender as long as there are still people out there that think Barbaro or Big Brown were better.

Pentire wasnt that great a horse, He won a very weak King George beating a 2miler, one of the worst derby winners in years and another 2 miler. Beat Freedom Cry in the Irish Champion, but wasnt a brilliant race. He also beat Singspiel when they were both 3. like Swain you cannot compare Singspiel at 3 and what he did in subsequent years.

Pentire Celebre on the other hand....

I am not sure why you dont think that your contention that a european turf horse "would beat" an American dirt horse isnt strange? It is an apples and oranges thing. If you cant see how it is impossible to compare these things I give up...

Track records are pretty worthless in America and completely useless in Europe.

Freedom Cry, Swain as a 3 year old and Pentire was not a great bunch regardless of how you spin it. I never said that they werent good horses but they were far from a great crop especially compared to other years.

Bernardini was far better three year olds than any of those three

Plenty of European "turf horses" have come to America and beaten American "dirt horses". If not for Tiznow (who wasnt the favorite in either of his BC wins i might add) it would have happened two years in a row in 2000 and 2001. Those "turf horses" didnt look so bad on the dirt did they? I dont know if you are belmont on saturday but...

How do you know that Lamtarra wouldnt have taken to the dirt? To me, he was just a more talented horse. We are talking about horse racing right?

And who said it was a great crop Lamtarra faced? You said it was a terrible crop and i disagreed and now you are saying that they were good horses.

And what did Bernardini beat in his little run? A bunch of goats in "grade 1" races.

lolol wow omg, you really dont get it
bernardini was a monster, look at the pp's, check out his beyers...its not his fault, that there was no one to face him, he wont all of his races with such ease... never asked to run, i mean really from the preakness on he did not get asked for run again till the BCC

i dont.

What evidence is there that Lammtarra would be able to be a grade 1 type horse on the dirt? Far more europeans have failed miserably than have succeeded on the dirt. It is a pointless argument because you are basing your opinion on total speculation. I for one am not willing to concede that Lammatarra's turf talent would translate to dirt and as i have pointed out i am not so sure that he was more than a really good turf horse either. How you can determine that Lammtarra was a more talented horse than Bernardini was based upon what we know is beyond me. I also never said anything about "terrible". It WAS a weak crop, since when is weak=terrible?

The purpose is not to knock Bernardini, who was a very nice horse. However, it is hard to say he was a "monster" or was "great" when the only time he was called on to dig down deep to win a race, he failed to defeat Invasor in the BC Classic. In this regard, Bernardini's 3YO campaign reminds me a lot of the 4YO campaign of Mineshaft. Both won several races against very modest competition; the only time that Mineshaft was in a real battle against a talented horse, he lost the Foster to Perfect Drift.

Neither did enough to be called "great." The problem in racing today is that few are ever asked to do enough that we could reasonably call them "great."