[RHT2004]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

It would be interesting to know what exactly was Lezcano's game plan with Frosted. Was he simply targeting American Pharoah or was he trying to make the lead (perhaps thinking AP would sit just off the frontrunner ala the AK Derby, KY Derby, and Haskell)?

From a running style standpoint, Frosted is fairly versatile. He showed solid early speed in Florida and in his maiden breaker at 2. In the Wood, he seemed rejuvenated with an off-the-pace style (although I believe he also had corrective throat surgery at the same time). In the Derby, he came from well out of it and closed stoutly, yet ultimately made no impression on the top two home. In the Belmont, he stalked and let American Pharoah dictate the running, then made a strong move at him (while having to steady slightly on the far turn) in the stretch, but could not get even within a length of him. So unless his connections were resigned to running for second money, sending him to the lead made a lot of sense. It was the only tool they had yet to use to reverse form on AP.

Of course, it still didn't work. But what it did do was force Espinoza to ride the race as if it were 9f and not 10f. As Baffert himself said, AP won the Kentucky Derby "on guts" and "got away with it". Many people suggested, despite winning the Derby, that AP had come back down to earth. The rest of the Triple Crown, which was practically scripted for AP's ascension (a torrential downpour minutes before the Preakness, a paceless Belmont) brushed away all those nagging concerns about AP and distance limitations. The facile manner of the subsequent Haskell further solidified the mantle of invincibility bestowed on this horse. But in the end, like many a brilliant racehorse, AP will always be vulnerable at the classic distances, especially when there is an honest pace scenario.

I think Lezcano clearly rode to win the race. I saw nothing wrong with his ride.