I agree. I wasn't disagreeing with you, but I was with the comments you were refuting. I also very much agree with the history aspect. However, had he won -- the comparisons to Seattle Slew might have been cut and dry in "some peoples minds" -- BUT not with commercial breeders, people who breed to race, etc. and those who would actually be breeding to the horse. Breeders, farms, etc. have often said "I don't care what people think . . . I only care what breeders, my clients, buyers and mare owners think"

Humilation aside, at this stage, in my mind this has nothing to do with persuing Curlin. All the nonsese, hypotheticals, and what if's? OK. If Big Brown would have won, gone on to win the Travers, kept going, etc., stepped up to take on older horses, or not and looked to do it in the BC Classic (which I don't believe Curlin is committed to just yet -- assuming he comes back fine, healthy, etc.) -- then it becomes about Curlin. Yeah, OK. But, as you said, it ain't that now, LOL.

The stud deal aspect. Well, it's interesting how the math played out before the race, and after. I very clearly understand the structure, implications, etc. of the deal (not the specifics on this one, but I understand how the economics work out, the formulaic strucuture, etc.) I posted about this on the other thread. I don't want to get into details, but, whatever % the farm bought -- there wasn't very strong indications of interest to buy shares before the Belmont. I think many of the breeders -- the real candidates to buy shares -- wanted to wait. If the horse won, kept going, outperformed his pedigree, foot problems, and everything else, then the individual warrants the deal. If not, the jury was and is still out. He wins, I think the stud fee would have come close to justifying the share price -- but my opinion doesn't count. I'm not a buyer of a share, or a season buyer, breeder, etc. And more importating, even if the justification was close -- the real buyers weren't there.

If he retires now -- IMO, they'll stand him for more than $30k. I think they'll make deals, but you are of course absolutely correct, the math doesn't work at 30 or 75 for that matter. At this point, it's all moot. We will soon see, or at least I hope so.

Eric

Really, you think they could stand him right now for more than 30k? If hes not a top tier stallion its going to be hard to be in that 50-75 range first year. I just cant imagine a group lining up to go to a Boundry for that kind of money. Maybe Im wrong

Hopefully it shakes out where we get to enjoy him running and he gets a shot at redemption. He has a lot of catching up to do to be mentioned in the same company we heard whispers of prior to the Belmont

I didn't mean to say I think they could . . . I said I think they would . . . LOL.

Seriously speaking, no I think you are right -- which is why the indications of interest weren't strong. To pay that kind of money for a share, and to warrant the kind of stud fee the deal dictated -- people were going to wait. Those kind of #'s demand that the horse, as an individual, his accomplihments, etc. -- they had to transcend his pedigree, his sire, his feet, his problems, his lack of 2yo record/performance, and in some people's minds, his trainer.

Like I said, I hope we soon see.

Eric

History shows that Big Brown finished last in 2008 Belmont Stakes and failed to win Triple Crown. No words posted here will ever change that fact.

Move on folks! Get ready for 2009 Derby Trail!!!

Gary Stevens could be back in the saddle soon.

He's like a broad in Bloomingdales...make up your mind, woman.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/sports/story/406103.html

i don't think kd lost the race, the horse just wasn't there.
by the same token, i think kent would rather have gotten an ass beating then go to the front too soon, lose, and have to listen to ten years of that added onto ten years of moving real quiet too soon.

I love conspiracy theories, and that starter standing on the track in the same lane and spot Secretariat took in 1973 sure looks ominous.

And the white pants?

Sheesh.......was he wearing a white belt, too?

Immediately pre-race I think the national media was reporting $5.9 million had been bet at Belmont alone on Big Brown to win.

I was a bit suspect at the $48,000 superfecta payout when the solid chalk ran off the board, and the three longest shots on the board were in the Top 4.

I really thought the payout would have exceeded 48K and change, DH for 4th or not.

Not to mention the $3,700 trifecta with the two longest shots on the board in 1st and 3rd.

The trifecta really paid more like $7,500 because there was a dead-heat for 3rd. There were two separate winning trifectas. One paid $3,700 and the other one paid $3,950.

But if the exotics were still light, it doesn't shock me. I'm sure there was some significant smart money betting that he might run out after seeing the looks of that quarter crack.

And the superfecta really paid $95K.

It's amazing to me the lengths people will go to try to imagine things that aren't there.

From a betting standpoint, Big Brown was very much an all or nothing horse, and his distribution in the runner up spots in exotic wagers was surely different than your usual heavy favorite. Plus, those pools reflect more realistic odds, as they don't contain the infrequent bettors just playing the TC hopeful to win. The bottom line is the tri and super payoffs were in line.

As for the ride on Big Brown......way too much of nothing. Believe it or not, jockeys have very little to do with outcomes overall and certainly nothing to do with horses that run last.

Since joining DT, I am most surprised to hear that from so many. To the common race track goer, I know that jocks are on their initial "to do" list when handicapping, which I'm sure makes you happy.

I don't know a single serious horseplayer that I respect who pays much attention to who is riding what horses. Of course you notice what may be a positive rider switch, but it's pretty incidental information, and hardly a deciding factor. I virtually never know who is riding the horses I like.

What a thankless job...zero credit for success & the first one to get blamed when something goes wrong...

I'm one of those handicappers who actually does pay attention to jockeys and their rides. Certainly there are general cases and specific ones. There's no doubt that just about any 'professional' jockey can deliver a competent ride. The key, however, is whether he can do it consistently, and whether his 'strengths' fit a particular horse. It's interesting that those closely handicapping races, and trainers, looking for patterns, strengths, weaknesses, etc., would think that the jockey doesn't matter.

One of the best rides of the year, in my opinion, was by Maragh on Roll the Di this past Saturday. Prado butchered her the race before, while Maragh gave her an absolutely flawless ride. She broke from the outside post in both cases, and she probably doesn't win with a trip similar to the one Prado gave her.

good assessment...I agree with you.

Which the whole point of the blog in the first place... people wanted to blame the jocks ride in this case (very publicly, through radio, print, TV), which I felt was quite over the edge. The reasons he lost go well beyond the guy in the saddle... well beyond.

Right. After races are over there are sometimes, far less often than we hear around here, legitimate reasons to blame the rider. Hell, sometimes the riders even know it. Race riding comes down to a lot of split second decisions and even the best riders will sometimes make the wrong ones. However, before the race is run you just have to hope for the best and bet the horses you like....not the riders.

I respect the Fat Man a great deal, and I understand that some riders have strengths, and weaknesses, that may affect the horses they ride. If this works for him, great, but it doesn't for me. I can give an recent example in his favor. Garrett Gomez, who is a terrific rider, rode Guts Game the other day. I thought she had a sneaky chance to wire the field. Well, this obviously wasn't happening as even unpressured Prado went on a suicide mission with Love Co. However, Guts Game's only hope was to be the speed, and after breaking on top, Gomez completely rated her out of contention. Look, it was a bad opinion on my part for a number of reasons, but even if I had the right idea, Gomez was the wrong rider for that horse. He simply isn't the kind of guy you want on a potential sneaky speed. On the other hand, my friend Richard Migliore is one of the best riders around at understanding when he has a pace advantage, and using that positively. Maybe that's because he actually reads the Racing Form.

You would think, when someone's job is to ride a horse to victory to make a living, they would size up the competition and handicap the way the race theoretically will be run before every race!

Thanks...I knew they weren't directed, I was just adding to the discussion. I appreciate it.