Possible it had something to do with it, but usually horses that establish position inside are good, not moving up, while those outside try to push forward to get inside more. Anything is possible, but moving that much into a pace that fast is a death sentence almost every single time I've seen it done. I don't think people realize just how taxing that pace was.

While I doubt the track was "even", I'm not so sure it matters much how it feels to a 110 pound woman walking on it compared to 1000 pound horses. It is very possible the footing underneath was not like what was on top.

I think that Javy started his early move because he saw Stevens starting to move on Oxbow. In my opinion Stevens is the one who made the real premature move. He was in the garden spot, saving all the groud. He even looked relatively clean heading for home, why did he go so early? That's the ride that should be put on the microscope more than Javy's.

This is a good point.

The pace was brutal. The race completely fell apart. Oxbow was the only horse within a sniff of the pace who ran on in the stretch.

In 2012, Creative Cause made the same move while I'll Have Another just cruised into position. In 2011 Nehro made the same move and was passed late. In 2010 it was Noble's Promise. In 2009 it was Pioneerof the Nile. And so on. Only two horses made a similar move and finished-up: Big Brown and Barbaro.

Obviously, every race is different. Normandy Invasion was asked to commit with 3 1/2 to go while three wide. He made the lead 2 1/2 furlongs out. Combine that with being relatively close to the supersonic pace, my handicapping gut tells me with a more patient ride, the stretch drive is a different story. Same outcome? Who knows. But, definitely a different story.

Or Gomez for having VyJack contesting that pace.

Unless its a different outcome whats the point? Either you think NI would have beaten Orb if he would have been 4 or 5 lengths further off the pace and moved at the same time as Orb or not.. If you think Orb was losing to NI perhaps you will just get a sweeter price in the Travers

Oh this was clearly just a prep for the Preakness

This is a fair question. But first there seems to be some kind of disparity in the opinions of many not WHETHER he made an early move but when it occured. After 6 furlongs had been run NI was in 6th place 2 1/2 lengths in front of IMLD, who was another length clear of Charming Kitten. Other than the pacesetter, who was 3 1/2 lengths in front of Oxbow, that 2 1/2 length separation was the largest in the field. Every horse in front of NI had run a faster 1/2 mile and a faster 6 furlongs. To my way of thinking it was this point in the race where his chances were compromised.

To answer your question, the closest horse behind him was going backwards and all of the movement was occuring well back in the pack, so there were horses moving with him, but they were so far back the eye doesn't see them gaining on him, it sees the horses that were just in front of him falling behind. From the 1/2 mile pole to the 1/4 pole he had every right to pass the horses that had run faster than he did up to that point. It wasn't as if he cleared 5 lengths on Oxbow at the 1/4 pole.

This is a great question and it shouldn't be restricted to these two horses. There are limitations on who should be compared I suppose, but how about placing Oxbow into NI's trip for a second, or Verrazano ? I understand these two horses are usually placed close to the front end but given the way the Wood was run it wouldn't be inconceivable to think that Verrazano could have sat further back than he did in the Derby. As much as NI's ride cost him a better placement there were others in this race who ran faster than he did early on and whose chances were compromised just as much if not more.

It was Chavez, and it was the reason some of us weren't at all surprised he went on to have the success he did later that year.

I needed Normandy Invasion so count me among the people unhappy about the ride. I broke out my old Fat Chart program to show the graphic of the race. It doesn't look great this small but maybe it is helpful. X-axis is race distance, Y-axis is lengths back, colors are saddle cloth

Fair point, but those moves at the back of the pack were being made more out of necessity so those horses didn't have 20 lengths to make up at the top of the stretch, whereas Javier, thanks to NI's tactical speed, had much more flexibility in when he decided to go after the leaders.

Any number of horses win with Orb's trip? I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. There were horses who had much better trips than Orb (such as Golden Soul, Revolutionary, and maybe a couple of others) and they still finished behind him. All the horses with bad trips got beat by a million lengths (except for Normandy Invasion and Oxbow). Are you suggesting that some horse that got beat by 30 lengths would have won with a better trip?

The only horse that anyone could possibly say might have won with a better trip is NI. If he and Orb got identical trips, my opinion is that Orb still wins, but I could see someone disagreeing.

Anyway, I have the same opinion as 95% of the posters here. I think NI was too close and I think he moved too soon. I think it cost him 2nd place. I think he would have easily been 2nd with a more patient ride.

Did you guys read that Chad Brown is now considering the Preakness for Normandy Invasion? As you all know, he originally said that he was not running. Now he is saying that they may run. They're going to see how the horse does over the next several days and then make a decision.

Revolutionary had a couple spots of trouble, not horrible but he might have been closer to Orb, though I doubt he is nearly the horse Orb is.

I'll start by saying I don't make a pimple on most of the handicapper's asses on here, but I do enjoy all the posts & I've been on the board since the beginning & even the original Yahoo board. I'm just a weekend warrior who knows a little more than the average wing nut out there. The way I see it is that Javier gave a horse with a lot of prior excuses a chance to prove that he was a champion, and the horse just didn't have it. I know JC's getting hammered on here for this, but the fact of the matter is, he's been on a couple of awesome horses in his career & he knows what a truly special horse can do. Orb's time was fairly ordinary & so was the Beyer (I know someone will correct me if I'm wrong). As Travis said in his post, "Only two horses made a similar move and finished-up: Big Brown and Barbaro." JC gave NI a chance to prove that he was one of those special types & he was wrong. The winning time was 2:02.89, nothing special...the way I see it, JC made the decision that he had the best horse & a horse that could sustain that kind of bid & run. If you could have frozen time at a mile & maybe even showed him his fractions, would he change anything? I'm not sure, maybe, maybe not. if he wrangles him back & loses, he gets criticized for that too I guess. I'm not sure if the Barbaro & Big Brown Derbies are good analogies or not as far as internal fractions, etc....but I did bet Barbaro (the last time I had a winner) and I remember being happy at the top of the stretch that Prado was going to at least give me a chance to be right....and I felt the same way the other day. Sorry for the rambling post & please be gentle, I'm just a layperson that thoroughly enjoys the discussion!!

I'm not sure I understand your logic. I agree with you that if NI was some incredible horse (for example Secretariat), that he could have won the race, even with the premature move. How is that relevant? NI is not Secretariat.

NI got a bad ride and it cost him a couple of lengths. Nobody on here said that NI was Secretariat. Nobody on here said that the race NI ran in the Derby was as good as the race Barbaro ran in the Derby. All we said was that NI's chances were compromised by a premature move.

I think 95% of experienced handicappers share the belief that NI would have run 2nd with a more patient ride. I really don't think it takes a genius to see that NI moved too soon. A lot of us on here disagree about a lot of things when it comes to handicapping and watching races but we pretty much all agree that NI moved too soon. It's not a close call.

Orb runs up the track, Normandy Invasion finishes better than he did. Cut and dry.

Normandy Invasion has a single maiden win to his resume. I believe he is overrated just like his jockey.

I guess what I'm saying is that, for example, a 2:02 flat (for example) final time was not completely unreasonable for NI even considering the fractions of the race. That's not asking him to be Secretariat at all...just a little better caliber horse. If he was able to get him home in 2:02 flat, he wins by 4 lengths or so & everyone is on JC's jock. Instead, he gives the horse an opportunity to succeed.& he's the goat. One of the things I thought I learned on this board over the years from people like BTW was that it's mostly the horse & not so much the jockey. I guess I just don't see it as the gross blunder that everyone else seems to view it as...and I personally don't believe it cost NI the win.

I think Orb is a much better horse.

We can all guess all day long what would have happen. What if Will Take Charge hadn't been stopped cold? Would have he made a race out of it?

I think a 2:02 flat final time, under the conditions would be totally unreasonable. I'm not big on speed figures but let's talk speed figures for a second just to make a point. Let's assume that Orb's Beyer of 104 is an accurate figure. You said you didn't see why NI couldn't have run 2:02 flat. A 2:02 flat would equate to about a 113 Beyer. Why would you expect NI to be able to run a 113 Beyer?

With regard to whether Javy's move was a "gross blunder", I guess it depends what your definition of "gross blunder" is. I think the majority of us think he cost the horse 2nd place. I don't know if that qualifies as a gross blunder.

If he was a special horse I think a 113 beyer would be reasonable. We didn't know if he was going to be that kind of horse until Saturday. ...and now we know.

Chad was better off leaving Jose Lezcano on the horse, Castellano in the Wood must was given some sense of false security on the horse that he thought would work in the Derby by moving earlier

plus notice how there is no official Chad Brown quote regarding the derby, unoffically they are not some happy people right now

Orb ran 2:02 4/5. Does that mean he's not a special horse? Did he need to run 2:02 flat to be a special horse?

I don't understand your logic at all. By the way, I think it is totally irrelevant how good of a horse NI is. That is not relevant to the conversation at all. What a jockey is supposed to do is to position his horse and to ride his horse in a way as to maximize that horse's finish position in the race. It doesn't matter how good the horse is. Just put the horse in the spot that will maximize his finish. That was not done with this horse.

I guess if you are a jockey and you are on a 1-9 shot that you think is the best by 10 lengths, then I could see some situations where making a premature move might make sense if you were in danger of otherwise getting boxed in. But Javy was not on a 1-9 shot and he was not in danger of getting boxed in.

2:02 flat was just a random number. I think you're missing the point. Maybe I should have said 2:02 3/5 to better explain. As for whether or not Orb is special...IMO that remains to be seen. I hope so!

I'll try this one last way. If NI manages to run that race in 2:02 3/5, he wins by a small margin, right?

Now are you saying that it's impossible that a horse that's not Secretariat could have done that, given his position at 6F? At a mile? If so, I disagree.

My contention is that JC didn't so much misjudge the pace as he did the ability of the horse under him.

I realize I'm in the minority here...no hard feelings though, I'm wearing my big boy pants tonight :)

I don't think we know yet whether NI is a special horse. What is your definition of a special horse? I think NI will win some graded stakes races before all is said and done.

If he runs in the Preakness I have no idea how he will do. He's not the sturdiest horse in the world. He doesn't carry a ton of weight. Those types of horses often times require more time between races. Coming back on only two weeks rest would be a tall task but he might be able to do it.

Mike Smith
 

If I had to take a shot and guess who moved to soon I would have to go with Mike Smith, right out of the gate.

What was wrong with his praise of Castallano in all the write ups post race? That seemed official enough for me.

Based on the actual race, the first part is another indefensible position.

As for the second part, as much as it would have meant to me if he had won, I am guessing he would have had a hard time making the Super. But that's just a guess with no solid ground either way.

NI lost the race by a little more than 3 1/2 lengths. What your'e saying is right. If NI had 4 lengths more ability (talent), he would have won. Yes, that is true. I don't know what that has to do with anything. You could say that about any bad ride. If a horse gets a bad ride and loses a race by 2 lengths, you could always say, "It wasn't the ride that cost the horse. If the horse had 2 1/2 lengths more ability, then he would have won any way." :zz: That is true I suppose but what kind of argument is that?

I couldn't tell you why Javy moved way too soon. Did he misjudge how fast they were going or did he misjudge how long his horse could sustain his run? Does it matter? He made a major miscalculation either way. I don't know why he moved too soon. I just know he moved too soon.

I don't think I can lay it out any clearer than what I did in my last post that you quoted. You didn' t answer my 2nd question. Is it impossible for you to believe that NI could have run a 2:02 3/5 given his position and the time on the timer at a mile? I believe he could have, and that's why I don't think the crucifying of JC is warranted & I don't think it was a terrible ride at all, as many are saying. You are focusing on the jockey instead of the horse. I guess it comes down to whether you believe (based on the question above) whether or not the jockey asked the horse to do something completely unreasonable...in this case he was 1st at a mile @1:36.16, so finishing his last quarter in 26.73 or less would have won the race. I was OK with that decision & obviously you weren't. Whether or not the horse could have finished 2nd or not...who knows. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me anyway...I bet the horse to win & if I were Brown I'd ride JC back with no hesitation.

I answered your question. The answer is "yes", it would have been possible for NI to run 2:02 3/5 with the trip he got, if he had about 4 lengths more ability (talent) than he has. You could say that about any horse that has trouble or gets a bad ride. If a horse has 2-3 lengths of trouble and loses a sprint race by 2 lengths, and the final time of the race was 1:09 3/5, I think most people would say, "That trip really cost that horse." I guess you would be the only one to say, "If that horse could have run 1:09 2/5, he would have won, even with the trouble." That is a strange argument, to say the least.

Every single handicapper, regardless of approach thinks NI was compromised by his ride. Some people may think the ride cost him a length. Others may think the ride cost him two lengths. Others may think the ride cost him 3 lengths or even more. It's debatable exactly how many lengths the ride cost him, but it's not debatable that he would have finished at least somewhat closer with a more patient ride. BTW thinks so, Cmorioles thinks so, Doug thinks so, Beyer thinks so (he mentioned it in his article), Ateam thinks so, Bigjag thinks so, NTamm thinks so, Port Conway thinks so, etc. It's hard to find anyone, regardless of their handicapping approach, that doesn't think the move was premature.

Where at, I haven't read anything that has had much post race reaction

Sorry, I disagree. If you don't have trouble & you don't get a bad ride, sometimes you're still just not good enough to win. I appreciate all the names you mentioned, but not "every single handicapper" feels the same way. I already said I realize I'm in the minority here, and that's fine. You can keep saying the argument is strange & putting the dizzy symbols down if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that (I believe) the ride was OK.

Forums would not survive without a plethora of indefensible positions.


I will stand by my assertions.

I agree with you, but the issue is the following. Is NI a worthy challenger defined as a colt that with the right race dynamics can beat the Florida and Kentucky Derby winner? If so then the "much better" assesment is based on accomplishments instead of actual ability. Horses that are much better can overcome adverse trips and poor rider judgement. Has Orb done that? If not then much better has not been determined in minds of many

I think if you believe in NI you believe his abilty/potential is equal to Orb's. Like you I dont but what do I know and I could not be more subjective in my peference for the connections.

was the move premature for normandy invasion, or just premature? would it have been a winning move on a better horse?
i'm not sure that NI is that good, and like chuck i don't think he's bred to go 10f.
did the ride really cost him, or was it the final nail in the coffin?