So ground loss only matter based on pace?

No, of course not. The race completely collapsed. Normandy Invasion made a premature move in my opinion worth more than the x number of feet he traveled less than Orb. Let's be real. Orb won, but Golden Soul was second. The race was an utter meltdown. If Normandy Invasion waits, I think he wins, or comes very close.

In hindsight, it was foolish for Javier to make that move during the second quarter, but perhaps Javier was just following orders, albeit orders that were given with the thought that the pace wouldn't be as fast as it was. If Chad Brown's strategy was to have Normandy Invasion actually be in the lead in the stretch (something which NI hadn't done in a long time) and make the others catch him, then the strategy worked as planned.

Even if he moved a little later, he still doesn't beat Orb.

but he has to promise to stick a finger down into it as well.

So assuming they were side by side in Orb's position for the first mile you believe NI would have out finished Orb and won the derby? It's not a preposterous position but it sure doesn't have much evidence behind it. Now lo and behold this colt that is still eligible for 1NX is going to out run the Fountain of Youth and Florida Derby winner who is on the improve? Lot's of very smart people think NI is a very good colt and he obviously was given a suspect ride but IMO he only beats ORB Saturday if Orb fell. Currently Orb is quite a bit faster and more importantly handy enough for a good rider to adapt to changing race dynamics.

This is as indefensible an absolute as someone that says Normandy Invasion would definitely have won had he been ridden well.

There are a lot of misconceptions in racing, but to me, few things are as misunderstood as how seemingly minor events in a race can dramatically affect the outcome. The ride on Normandy Invasion was far from a minor event.

Let me pose a question that hasn't been asked....if Orb had gotten the same ride/trip that Normandy Invasion did, and Normandy Invasion had gotten Orb's trip and ride, what do you think the outcome would have looked like?

modern breeding for distance has pretty much lost its relevance in handicapping. A horse like Beholder would have been an auto-toss in a race like the Oaks 30 years ago.

Any number of horses win with Orb's trip. Very few, if any, win with NI's trip.

I had him in the Pick 5, but I also had five other horses including the winner, so it's not as if him not winning ruined my day.

If his early move was an optical illusion based on others stopping, how come there was no one even close to moving with him? If taking on the leaders that early was just a natural progression of the race's dynamics, shouldn't there have been other horses following his move then? But there were none. It was just Javier, hard-sending after speed that was about to collapse and then getting passed over the top by more patient riders.

According to the equibase chart (which obviously isnt as accurate as trakus data) he actually lost ground during that quarter.

How does one go about calculating this? I'm being serious. When a horse "moves" is basically a visual interpretation of the race considering virtually all dirt races are slowing down when the moves occur. How do you measure that against 40 feet?

It was a 19 horse race. 3 finished ahead of him. When he made his move he passed 4 of them. What happened to the other 11?

Maybe, but he passed five horses while doing so. That is pretty rare at the distance, that early in the race.

I don't understand. Are you saying he wouldn't have passed those 4 horses had he not moved when he did? And the fact that only 3 beat him is a credit to the horse, not some kind of retrospective justification of a ride almost every serious handicapper agrees wasn't good.

Flower Alley did something similar.

In fact I think that should go down as one of the all time worst Derby rides, think it was Chavez.

To be fair there are 19 horses in the race so passing 5 is like passing 2.5 in a field of 10 and you see that plenty.

Frankly all but a few of the horses moved to early. I guess the NI supporters are of the opinion that if the jockey had the were with all to rate 4 or 5 lengths further back and then make a move 2 or 300 yard later that NI would have beaten the two that finished ahead of him. I guess that is fair but I really dont get the point other then NI could have been second with a better timed move.

Does anyone believe NI is a better horse then Orb or just that he still should be looked at as a viable option the next time he races? Shoot Goldenscent is a viable option so is Palice Malice and Revolution for that matter.

Isn't the 2nd quarter at 1 1/4 run partially around the 1st turn? Him being on the inside may have more to do with that.

I saw the piece and it was pretty clear there was some very deep paths. Orb appeared to be on the good part out in the center of the track, and Revolutionary closed on a good rail.

Just that 11 horses didn't manage to finish ahead of him despite his riders egregious mistiming. Perhaps some of those may have done better had then laid closer? And if NI's ride was egregious then what do you call Mike Smiths or John Velasquez's or Trujillo's or Kriggers?