I wonder if Big Brown will handle the sythetic surface at Santa Anita. I could be wrong, but didn't he win a couple of races on turf? And I guess there might be some connection between success on turf and success on a synthetic surface.

Let him go to Monmouth. The Travers would probably be a better race without him.

Monmouth to me has always been a take the good with the bad meet. I really like the facility. I always do well there. I enjoy it. However, as great as my horses have run -- the track condition has always been an issue and is something you have to deal with.

If you understand the bias, how the track is playing, etc. -- you deal with it. I got that. But the track condition in the mornings, along with the afternoons, can have a major impact on your horses.

Eric

There are more than a few people who said
after the race, more than a day after the race,
SOMETHING HAD TO BE WRONG. And they would
find it.
So now apparently what was wrong was deep track...

At Belmont time we had a horse running with a quarter
crack, that was laboring badly when asked, and filly who
had died at Churchill. The media was all over racing.
Kent pulls the horse up when Brown does not move.
Whats he thinking with his "super horse". I might be thinking,
"OMG this horse has something very wrong, I better take
it easy. What are the repercussions of running the horse
through to the finish line full bore and find an injury after."

I dont blame Kent for this at all.
Who on the board posted or thought
something had to be wrong (medically) with Brown right
after the race...

And now people come back and say the horse is done.
The horse performed very poorly. I find it hard to just
pronounce the horse as done.

What exactly is wrong with him? Was he the only horse
to run all 3 legs of the TC? Seems Belmont was pretty darn
hot that day also.

Didn't you just get done saying he had a quarter crack?

Apparently that was not a problem.

No problem with that after the race.
I read nothing about it.

Now this problem would go through my head during
the race if I was Kent D.after all the press at the Derby(8 belles)
and during the Belmont when Brown did not move
as before.

his foot hurt him due to the fact that he lost training time. basically, he was a short horse that day. i read he had one work between the derby and the belmont. his fitness level dropped.
pg, you run-just think if you didn't train for the weeks prior to a race. you're still in shape, but you're not racing fit. how would you do?

If my expert trainer told me I was fit.

Dutrow kinda of made some sense saying the horse
was still in very good shape and the extra time (Preakness-Belmont)
gave them far more training options. They would adjust accordingly.

I would expect the heat had to be a factor also.

So when Brown returns in the Haskell on a faster track and most
likely a lower temp., we should expect the same dominant horse?
Or the others have a chance to mature and catch up? Or the others
are so bad its a horse out of the blue?

Or... and I think this is what many think, he was off the roids,
so he did not run well. And he may have had his roid spurt and its over.

Z he galloped and such. He just had one sharpening workout.
For humans this might make sense for a longer race upcoming.
"Forget the interval (speed)work, lets just do some endurance
work"
I dont know how it works for horses though.

didn't work too well for him.

Do you think he has been exposed and is done?
That it is more than he was not in shape.

Or you think he lost training...With a bit of rest,
and back to work, he dominates again?

I personally still see a very good delicate horse.(hoof-wise)

The foot is still by far the most likely culprit for the poor performance. That was a bad quarter crack. Just because it doesn't bother him when he gallops or even works, that does not mean that it won't bother him when is all-out in a race.

By the way, I don't buy the argument that the lack of training hurt the horse. He hardly did anything between the Derby and Preakness and he still ran great in the Preakness. He only galloped 4 days between the Derby and Preakness. He jogged the other days and he never worked between the Derby and Preakness. The horse probably did more between the Preakness and Belmont than he did between the Derby and Preakness. When you are running for the 3rd time in 5 weeks, you don't need to do much training.

I will still be somewhat surprised if that horse runs again. We will see if that foot holds up or not.

I have seen how much healthier this stuff(Winstrol) and Equipose make debilitated horses improve health wise. I just have no idea what effect it has on animals that are already healthy. (Rupert and I sort of discussed our lack of knowing exactly what it might do)
Both are of course illegal for humans on the track and other sports.
And next year all these testosterone derivatives will be tested for randomly in male and female athletes in all sports in Texas. They would detect both of the above if taken by humans. (Equipose is advertised for humans in body building frequently)

We don't know that he was really off the steroids. When Dutrow mentioned that the horse was on steroids, there was a big backlash. I think the backlash surprised Dutrow since steroids are legal. So then he said that he wouldn't give the horse steroids any more. He might have just been talking to get people to shut-up.

One of my trainers is friendly with Dutrow and talks to him all the time. Now this trainer never talked to Dutrow about whether Big Brown was still getting his steroids or not. But this trainer told me that he would be shocked if BB did not get his regular steroid shot before the Belmont. He said, "Dutrow gives all of his horses steroids. Everything Dutrow had done with Big Brown seemed to be working. The horse won the first two legs of the Triple Crown. Do you really think the guy is going to change his routine while he's trying to win the Triple Crown?"

I'm not saying that he did give the horse steroids after the Derby. I have no idea. But considering that most people don't believe many of the things that come out of Dutrow's mouth, I don't know why you guys would believe him on this. If I had to bet at even money whether the horse got his regualr steroid dose after the Derby, I would bet that he did. I think there is at least a 50% chance that Dutrow was just trying to shut everyone up about it.

I think they want to run him and I think they will run him if they can. But if the quarter crack gets any worse, they're not going to be able to run him.

I am no expert on quarter cracks and there are certainly different opinions out there. But the trainer that I trust the most, took one look at that quarter crack and told me that the horse will need six months off and he didn't see how quarter crack could possibly be healed in 2 months.

That's the conundrum. If he runs again this year, it will be a bit difficult to "throw-out" the Belmont from his PPs, if you assume it was the quarter crack that did him in.

It will be interesting to see if the Haskell gets tailored to provide Big Brown with a paid public workout or if it attracts a full field of horses looking to knock him off again.

from bloodhorse:

'Remember, the quarter crack came after a week of little activity, so he went 17 days following the Preakness without working.'

'...missed days and having only one easy breeze in three weeks '

'Dutrow worked Big Brown twice in five weeks after the colt won the Kentucky Derby Presented by Yum! Brands (gr. I): a two-furlong work at Pimlico in :25.40 on the morning of the Preakness (gr. I)—a race, not incidentally, in which his Beyer Speed Figure plunged to 100 after reaching a Kentucky Derby high of 109—and a five-furlong move in a minute flat, breezing, four days before the Belmont.'

he tailed off. dutrow is used to having long breaks between races for his horses, and seemingly panicked-by not wanting to tire his horse, he then took it too easy. i think that's why he pointed the finger so harshly at desormeaux, he wanted to deflect attention away from himself.

Just because you read nothing about it does not mean there was not a problem with it......

So, am I the only one excited that Kip Deville is deviating from his ambitious three race scheduling and running in the Poker in a few weeks at Belmont?

i hope it doesn't take too much out of him, and he misses the bc...:rolleyes:

I'm thinking the real reason they are going to the Haskell is to leave open the possibility that the Mass Cap will throw a huge bonus at them to run their horse there. That and the horse is clearly terrified of Da Tara.

you might be

Considering Einstein may be the best turf miler and best turf runner at a mile and a half on the east coast while being the second best dirt router we could use any quality horse we can get.

That would be Daytona.

That's why I said east coast.

You are correct, although he DID say east coast. Can't wait for this years BC Turf Mile, absolutely can't wait. Hopefully, the contenders stay healthy and in form.

Reading is all I got.
You got more? spill it...

He went 14 days without working between the Derby and Preakness. He did work a quarter mile on the morning of the Preakness. Fourteen days as compared to 17 days is not a huge deal.

This talk about the horse tailing off in the Preakness is ridiculous. The speed figure is meaningless when a horse is totally geared down the final 1/16th of a mile. The horse could have won the Preakness by at least an additional 4-5 lengths if he would have been asked. He would have run just as high of a speed figure in the Preakness as the Derby if he would have been asked that final 1/16th of a mile.

The days that BB missed between the Preakness and Belmont could have conceivably cost him a length or two in the Belmont but not the 20+ lengths that he lost by.

Let them go to the Haskell, I'm tired of the drama. I stayed off the hate IEAH bandwagon because I really like their horse, but now I could care less.
If I'm an owner I'd jump at the chance to run at the Spa.

no telling what the lengths lost by would be in the belmont had he finished the race.

and i never have thought only the foot cost him the belmont, but it contributed to his loss.

Maybe IEAH doesn't like the hospitality of the detention barn

I think this is not possible. and that no matter how much he was asked he would have run about the same figure, the horse was slowing down moreso than being geared down. How would it be possible to improve 4-5 lengths in the last six seconds? he'd have to run almost a length faster every second. come on now. there is no way that race was as good as his derby.

The horse was under a strangle-hold the final 1/16th of a mile. He probably ran his final 1/16th in about :7 1/5 or :7 2/5. If he would have been asked, he would have probably run it in about :6 2/5. One length equals approximately 1/5th of a second.

Agreed..and maybe we will have a nice full field for the Travers! can't wait!