What are they waiting for? Nominate her to the Matriarch
 

http://www.drf.com/news/zenyatta-tak...hollywood-park

Of course, since Zenyatta remains in the running for HOY, they aren't about to do anything to jeopardize her chances of winning that elusive award.

**** that ****, she should of stayed at Churchill and run in the Clark

Even if she's not retired, she's obviously not going to run again this year.

They can't fool you Rupert.

I have an honest question for you. I heard your analysis of the BC Classic. You obviously watched the first 10 races of the day before the
BC Classic and saw how the track was playing, not only in terms of any possible biases but also in terms of exactly how fast the track was. Five minutes before the BC Classic, if I would have told you that they're going to run the half in :47, would you have said, "In that case, no horse within 5 lengths of the lead will have any chance".?

I made my analysis of the BC Classic no later than 6 hours before the race....and I took closers ( Blame and Fly Down, with a little Lookin at Lucky and Musket Man ).

I don't know what your post means.

I was talking about your post-race analysis. In you post-race analysis, you basically said that there was a speed-duel and it favored the come-from-behinders. So I'm asking you whether 5 minutes before the race, you would have predcited it would be death to be within 5 lengths of a :47 half.

Why don't you just ask what you really want to know. I don't really have the patience for silly internet games.

I think my question is clear. I will word it differently. If you were told right before the race that the half will go in :47. First Dude will have the lead by a length. He will be followed by Quality Road, Espoir City, and Haynesfield who will be laying 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. If you were told that right before the race, I highly doubt that you would have said that those fractions are way too fast and all of the front-runners will collapse badly.

Yet in your post race analysis, you basically say that the pace was way too fast and it favored the come-from-behinders. That is a circular argument. You are basically saying that "they must have gone way too fast since the come-from-behinders won. It must have been a good thing to be 20 lengths back." Unless you would have said that before the race, then I think it's a circular argument. That is why I asked you to honestly answer whether you would have predicted the front-runners would have collapsed if you knew exactly what the fractions were going to be (:47) right before the race.

Did you read what he wrote? He bet closers, which obviously means he anticipated a strong pace that would favor late runners.

Is the crusade you're embarking on to get BTW or any other "hater" to admit that Zenyatta ran a better race than we might believe?

You have some people acting like the :47 half was some kind of suicide pace and that suicide pace is one of the main reasons that Zenyatta almost won. Yet right before the race, if I would have told these people that the half will go in :47, I doubt any of thse people would have said, "Wow, they're going to run the half in :47! That is death for the front-runners. That will greatly favor Zenyatta. If she's 20 lengths back, she will be in the garden spot."

But after the race, these people claim that :47 was a suicide pace and Zenyata was in the "garden spot" being 20 lengths back. It's ridiculous.

Oy vey. I don't think anyone is acting like it was a suicide pace, but the race collapsed right?

You're illustrating a great reason why simply analyzing pace numerically is a futile exercise that will lead to losing wagers. A lot of them.

Of course that's what he's doing.

He is only making himself look more foolish. Not easy....but he's succeeding.

It's good stuff for sure.

I strongly disagree. Once you know how fast the track is and how it is playing, I think you will know what a reasonable pace is. I think it a huge mistake and a circular argument to say that "the front-runners must have gone way too fast, since they quit, even though they didn't appear to go that fast and even though the pace was only moderate based on the way the track is playing today."

Make no mistake, :47 is a solid half for a 10f race at CD, even for the BC Classic.

The mistake that you're making is assuming that a simple analysis of the numerics is going to lead you to a conclusion on the outcome of the race. Have you looked at the pace figures for the Classic? It was a strong pace. It also completely collapsed. Even if you don't think the half-mile time itself was fast you can't deny that the pace took a mighty toll on the horses contesting it. When you have a pace, specifically in a route race that collapses, the late runners are going to benefit.

Rupert-

Certainly not taking sides here but couldn't his reasoning for betting against the speed have been more because of quality and have less to do with pace? And if that were the case, wouldn't the reasonable fractions be of little importance?

The 4th quarter mile - of the five quarters in that race - was in 26.11 seconds.

Considering the speed of the track and the quality of the four speeds - they all would have performed significantly better through that stage if the pace wasn't very solid and contested.

The speeds who chased First Dude (who refused to settle) - were all out of horse after six furlongs.

Of the six BC Classics run at CD, it was the third fastest half mile split. There was a tie for the fastest, 46 3/5 by the pacesetters in the Invasor and Concern wins.

Yep, and 1:11 is even stronger than that.

The one-turn races at CD always yield crazy fast pace and fast final times in relation to the routes because of the run-up. There have been several instances over the years of horses running 20 and change first quarters at CD.

For whatever reason - and I'm sure it's possibly mostly "run-up" related - you don't get the same kind of pin-action with the paces in routes there.