Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

Originally Posted by pgardn

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.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

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?

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

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?

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

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?

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Considering Einstein may be the best turf miler.

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

That would be Daytona.

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

That would be Daytona.

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

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

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Dutrow on 5/18:

"The Haskell is not a prestigious race to win like the Travers"

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

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.

Originally Posted by fpsoxfan

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.