Beyer: Espinoza's ride could have cost Chrome Crown
 

Beyer agrees with Moss ; CC should have been sent.

http://www.drf.com/news/beyer-espino...e-triple-crown

I'm surprised that Beyer would say that.

I would have guessed he'd be in the camp that Chrome wasn't fast enough and he just ran his race.

More than anything maybe Victor had too much confidence in the horse.

i'm not sure that chrome should have been sent-there's no way he'd have been left alone to set the pace, so then espinoza would have been questioned for sending.
the only thing i was concerned about was him opting to go four wide all the way around the turn. how much ground was lost doing that?

It was the textbook Jerry Bailey ride, at Belmont.

He put him in the pocket, got the horse to relax, and gradually worked out his way out for a clear run in the stretch.

When you're in the pocket like that, you're covered up and you're not taking much dirt in the face. The dirt doesn't get up high enough.

Obviously, I agree that he should have tried to make the lead. However, he wasn't exactly pulling his way to the front. He wasn't so sharp after the break. And, had he made the lead, he ran the risk of getting run at in-waves like other horses going for a triple crown have.

It was a trip that a horse who is good enough should handle.

It's not exactly like he took a ton of dirt in his face, like in the California race last year, where he blew the break and got beat:




Obviously, his trip could have been much easier if he made the lead and they let him relax like they did for Commissioner. But, it's really hard to say that the trip beat him. That was sort of the generic, text-book Belmont trip.

agree, doug. i know moss said 'he doesn't like dirt' but he wasn't far enough back to be pelted with kickback.

he didn't win, and nothing can change it. he and victor did their best, it wasn't enough.

Has Violette or Ortiz commented on Samraat's ride? Was the horse off, or did they decide that on that particular day he'd be better off as a deep closer rather than the projected lone speed where he could have controlled the pace?

Easy to say now that CC should have been closer, but realistically, no one knows how the break and subsequent injury (however superficial it may or may not be) affected Espinoza's ability to put the horse in a more opportune position.

It would be refreshing to see DRF focus on the tangibles that affected the outcome rather than inane speculation.

I was wondering the same thing about Samraat. Shocked to see him so far back.

The ride on Samraat was incredibly frustrating. He broke incredibly well and then he closed extremely well at the finish. Given how gutty he finishes, I'd have liked to see what he could have done up on that soft pace.

Make that 3 , me too, I was thinking he would be an important early factor and a key to the race. Didn't see Commissioner as a pace factor at all, hand it to Byk for seeing him.

And I'd bet Steve didn't expect Commissioner to be up on the pace. Rather he'd be the type of horse that would grind out those 24-25s quarters and pick up the faster pacers at the end.

(and I guess he did grind out those qtrs, he just did it on the front!)

Very well said, I totally agree. If he was good enough, Espinoza gave him every chance to win with that trip.

It was reminiscent of the ride Jose Ortiz gave speed horse Itsagoodtendollars last winter in a claiming race at Aqueduct. I thought he'd have learned, as I bet on Samraat.

Isn't it pretty obvious that with that pace on that track that day he should have been in front early?

He never looked good though, which leads me to believe the biggest issue was the foot.

It took a few things to happen for this horse to lose to these, and they did happen.

beyer way off
 

he couldnt have asked for a better trip inside until top swing out 3 wide turning for home'
he was just empty period
maybe ankle had something to do that he had no explosion like last 2

I didn't think so either and it wasn't the "he doesn't want to be behind horses" look.

Anyone blaming Espinoza for Chrome's loss is completely grasping at straws. He saved ground on the first turn, had zero significant traffic trouble and gave his horse a clear shot to reel in the leaders in the stretch. The horse wasn't good enough to get it done.

I thought he was the lock of the century?! :D

I thought he ran well, finishing only 1 3/4 lengths behind the winner, for a horse with a bloody gash in his foot.

Belmont Data : The First Quarter, The Far Turn, and Trakus
 

Beyer's article does represent one view, but I had a slightly different take on Victor Espinoza's ride that has not been discussed : If you (as Espinoza did) decide to tuck after the opening quarter, what do you do after that point? As they headed up the backstretch, I was sure that Espinoza had sufficient horse to sit the pocket and pick a seam coming to the head of the stretch. Yes, this was a risky strategy, but it was how to play the pocket trip at Belmont once you decide to relinquish the lead.

Instead, my view was that the race was lost heading into the far turn. With my cheering, I implored Victor to stay inside. Instead, he swung four wide heading into the far turn losing a great deal of momentum in the process.

Now, was that a deciding factor? I am not sure - the Trakus data shows Tonalist running 8081 feet with every other competitor running less distance (which was a shocker to me) including California Chrome (-38), Commissioner (-67), Medal Count (-64), and Wicked Strong (-18).

yeah, if anyone should be question rides in that race, people should definitely take a look at Ortiz. No urgency what so ever to get near the lead, makes what i thought was a huge move going into the stretch, gets to the top of the lane and he nose dives the horse to the rail while entering the stretch 6 wide. I'm not saying he was winning, but after a big move why not continue outside

-bt-

How many races has Beyer and Moss rode in, compared to Bailey? I will take Bailey's opinion in that spot. The ride was fine, he was tired from the 3 races and got beat less then 2 lengths. I thought he ran great in defeat!!

If you watch his ride in the 3rd, it was the ride he would have given California Chrome. He was two wide the whole trip around and the horse faded. That could have scared him from doing the same thing with CC.

he flattened out. whether he was wide, inside, back , front...he still would have done it....too much for him. espinoza did a good job.


what i saw was what appeared to be a very deep track with alot of kick back. horses spinning their hooves.

He was. It really should be obvious to you that he was best.

Bad luck at the break.

That doesn't happen it's arguably a different outcome.

If he's healthy...good luck to those who doubt him in the fall.

I agree. They made sure to play the track deep.

This horse's problem is breaking from the gate. In this race he got bumped hard from the outside. Its not about making the front for him just getting clean out and position. I believe if he broke out clean its a completely different finish for him.

I figured something had gone wrong with the horse when he wasn't near the front during the race. I was shocked to see that he finished only about 4-5 lengths back of Tonalist. Watching the replay, Ortiz doesn't seem to ask the horse at all while everyone one else goes right by. I agree that he may not have won, but he gave the horse no chance. By far the most questionable ride in the race IMO.

I don't know how you make that case without using the foot as an excuse.

He stated his case before the race...

California Chrome can't lose unless he does...in which case I am right that he can't lose.

Don't forget him chiding people who liked Tonalist for some reason.

Tonalist won because the favorite was badly compromised. Much like BTWs attempt to mock my reasoning goes.

That was a freaking terribly run race by everyone. I'm not sure how that is not obvious to anyone who has watched racing for any number of years.

I singled out Tonalist before the race because he was the one newcomer, or relatively unknown quality coming into this race, having never faced the horses who were already running in the other TC races.

Clement told a friend of mine that he liked his horses chances alot in the Belmont, but let's face it, that race he ran would not have touched CC in either the Derby or Preakness.

Nobody ever said that Tonalist would have won the Derby or Preakness. The question was whether he would have a good chance to beat CC running 1 1/2 miles when it will be CC's third race in 5 weeks. That was the only thing that mattered. When I'm handicapping the Belmont, it is irrelevant to me how a horse would do running 1 1/4 miles against CC when both horses are fresh. The only thing that mattered to me when handicapping the Belmont was who will win going 1 1/2 miles when it is CC's third race in 5 weeks.

I can't tell you whether the grabbed quarter made a difference. It may have. There is no way to know for sure. That's not the point. The point was that nobody ever said Tonalist is better than CC. The only question was whether CC might be vulnerable under the specific circumstances (the distance plus the short rest) that he would be facing in the Belmont. I can't tell you for a 100% fact that those things made the difference. But I can tell you that the vast majority of the time that those factors will make a huge difference. If you expect a horse that wins the Derby and Preakness to run the same way in the Belmont, you will be in for a big disappointment the vast majority of times.

He didn't have to beat Chrome in Louisville or Baltimore. Just in New York. At 1 1/2 miles. And he did it, despite more ground loss than anyone else in the race.

Saying that the Belmont winner wouldnt have touched the races that Chrome offered is completely useless. The race was run Chrome didnt beat him in the race they squared off against each other. Was I overwhelmed with the race hardily both Tonalist was dead game as was Chrome and Chrome lost. extrapolating what would or could have been in preakness of Derby is pure conjecture. Let's face it both horses are good. If i had to bet who is better in 120 days my money is on Tonalist

We all praised Chrome for being a good horse who used his quality to work out great trips in Derby and Preakness and rightfully so. His trip in Belmont was fine he simply wasnt best.

Really?

You mean Tonalist didn't have to board his time machine to change history against Chrome in the Derby and Preakness?

Amazing how you and some others here like to gloss over my point in saying that.

Namely that Chrome's normal performance easily beats what Tonalist ran in the Belmont. Maybe, just maybe, running the race with an injured foot cost Chrome two or more lengths.

Stop being deliberately obtuse.

I have no idea how the hell you keep saying this as if it's fact.

I'd say Chrome's Preakness probably beats Tonalist's Belmont (even though the comparison is ridiculous to begin with). Tonalist's Belmont compares favorably with every other race Chrome has run.

California Chrome is a nice horse who was the likeliest winner of the Belmont going in. He wasn't some layover that needed a meteor to hit him to lose. He had dead aim on the leaders in mid-stretch and didn't get it done. Period.

I never said that. I said it is irrelevant how Tonalist would have done in the Derby and Preakness. The only thing that was relevant in handicapping the Belmont was how those two horses would do against each other going 1 1/2 miles when it is CC's 3rd race in 5 weeks. That was the only thing that was relevant, at least to me, in handicapping the Belmont.

Do I think Tonalist would have won the Derby? Based on his performance in the Belmont I would say probably not. But I don't want to judge Tonalist too harshly based on how he ran going 1 1/2 miles. I doubt any of these horses will ever run 1 1/2 miles again. It's probably not an ideal distance for any of them. I wouldn't really judge any horse too harshly based on a single race going 1 1/2 miles. He ran a decent race. He didn't look like a star but he could still turn out to be a star.