The Decades Most Under Appreciated Race

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I've watched the replay several times. You can't see anything too much on the ESPN feed because they show all of these crazy cuts and weird camera shots.

It was easier to see him gun out of the gate like an idiot and than check sharply on the normal replay. That's no trouble on dirt - slight trouble on turf - and big trouble in a syn route.

I can't believe I'm wasting any time talking about something as stupid as this.

A closer was wide in a pro-ride route at Santa Anita ... the horror. Sup' the vast majority of BC winners on that surface the last two years.

I think speed might do a little better in routes on that track if the jockeys kept their horses five paths off the rail instead of crossing over. The ground loss seems near meaningless as outside paths are often preferred and the horse might relax better so far away from the rail.

This might be the single dumbest thing I've ever argued on a message board.

I guess you were dazzled by his awesome 83 Beyer win when he saved ground at Hollywood - over a synthetic track where racing inside seems far more advatageous.

Afleet Alex ran WAY better than Giacomo did in the Derby. I don't think anyone stated that more clearly than me after the race.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I've watched the replay several times. You can't see anything too much on the ESPN feed because they show all of these crazy cuts and weird camera shots.

Sigh.

Maybe the reason you can't see anything too much is because he didn't steady sharply, you dimwit! Try going to CR to watch the race.

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

It was easier to see him gun out of the gate like an idiot and than check sharply on the normal replay.

Gosh, do you think it was easier to see that because he actually did send him for a few jumps? As opposed to not steadying sharply at all????????

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I can't believe I'm wasting any time talking about something as stupid as this.

I hear ya dude.

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

A closer was wide in a pro-ride route at Santa Anita ... the horror. Sup' the vast majority of BC winners on that surface the last two years.

So, those four or five lengths LaL clearly dropped off of VOY on the first turn don't seem to mean anything?

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I think speed might do a little better in routes on that track if the jockeys kept their horses five paths off the rail instead of crossing over. The ground loss seems near meaningless and the horse might relax better so far away from the rail.

I'm pretty confident had LaL gotten away with being able to run 1:13 for 3/4, the result of the race would have been different. This from a horse that seems to prefer being up close to the lead.

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

This might be the single dumbest thing I've ever argued on a message board.

Clearly. It is.

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I guess you were dazzled by his awesome 83 Beyer win when he saved ground at Hollywood - over a synthetic track where racing inside seems far more advatageous.

Now you are quoting BSFs for synthetics to back your opinion?

You are right, this is the dumbest thing you've ever argued.

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Afleet Alex ran WAY better than Giacomo did in the Derby. I don't think anyone stated that more clearly than me after the race.

No kidding Captain Obvious. What I was trying to impart was your sense of panic and unease at that 'horrible' trip Giacamo was getting in the early stages of the race. Similar to how you panicked with VOY over absolutely nothing, while the other horse was getting it in the ass.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

^

No wonder I've done so well betting and handicapping synthetic track racing. People still think it's the same as every other surface.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

^

No wonder I've done so well betting and handicapping synthetic track racing. People still think it's the same as every other surface.

Well, that and trips like LaL got vs VOY.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Well, that and trips like LaL got vs VOY.

Yes - in the Hollywood Futurity - LaL really showed his vast superiorty to that son of Cuvee who looked good at Presque Isle Downs. The mighty Noble's Promise.

LaL beat Pulsion by less than 2 lengths in the Norfolk - he crushed him in the Juvie despite a supposed horror show trip.

You don't hustle horses out of the gate in synthetic track routes - it's idiotic. And when you do - and you run up on heels and have to check sharply - you're rarely going to finish - and the name of the game is finishing.

The horses that thrive routing on that surface are mostly wide closers.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

A closer was wide in a pro-ride route at Santa Anita ... the horror. Sup' the vast majority of BC winners on that surface the last two years.

I think speed might do a little better in routes on that track if the jockeys kept their horses five paths off the rail instead of crossing over. The ground loss seems near meaningless as outside paths are often preferred and the horse might relax better so far away from the rail.

This might be the single dumbest thing I've ever argued on a message board.

I forgot a few days ago to post this, and since I'm bored....

Do mean races like this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECQ1JXvFQUs

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Yes .. just like that one.

20/1 shot Biofuel broke from extreme outside post position 12 ... was very wide throughout while racing in dead last place. Matter of fact, Biofuel was last beaten 13 lengths after a half mile.

She was fanned tremendously wide on the far turn - and bumped very hard at the top of the stretch by a horse who drifted out sharply and slammed into her - yet she was only beaten 1.5 diminishing lengths for the win.

Just because a horse races dead last early on - and goes the widest on the turn - doesn't mean they are entitled to win every single time.

Why am I wasting my time with this stuff?

[Indian Charlie]

Oh.

I thought the horse down on the rail up close to the lead won.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Oh.

I thought the horse down on the rail up close to the lead won.

When or where did I ever say there was a dead rail?

I didn't - because there wasn't one.

I just said there is no advantage to saving ground...there is no disadvantage to being widest on the turn .. which is where a whole hell of a lot of BC winners have come from the last two years.

I think you're crazy for so passionately believing that Looking At Lucky ran one of the entire decades 5 greatest performances in defeat just because he was wide in a slow race.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

When or where did I ever say there was a dead rail?

I didn't - because there wasn't one.

I just said there is no advantage to saving ground...there is no disadvantage to being widest on the turn .. which is where a whole hell of a lot of BC winners have come from the last two years.

I think you're crazy for so passionately believing that Looking At Lucky ran one of the entire decades 5 greatest performances in defeat just because he was wide in a slow race.

lol, yes dear.

have you developed some sort of dyslexia?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

No.... but.... I think it's time for a Fireside Chat with Indian Charlie.

IC ... please rate your top 5 performances in defeat by a horse over the entire past decade.

#1. Lookin At Lucky (He was wide in a SA Syn route while a close 2nd in a slow and moderate race)

#2. ?

#3. ?

#4. ?

#5. ?