1/15-16 (SA): Sham (G3), San Fernando, Santa Ynez, El Encino (G2's)

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Where is Twirling Candy?

Instead of having an interesting Strub series, Santa Anita and its ridiculous stakes schedule has made it possible for John Sadler to keep his two top 4yos apart without even having to ship either one out of town.

Despite winning separate stakes for straight 3yos on the same day at the same track, Twirling Candy and Sidney's Candy won't clash in the second leg, the San Fernando. Twirling Candy will simply await the final leg, the Strub.

Will Sidney's Candy, presuming a good effort this weekend, return for a showdown? Unlikely.

In all probability, Sidney's Candy will simply sit the next one out, just as his stablemate is doing here.

If for some reason, Sadler decides Sidney's Candy needs another race 3 weeks from now, he still won't have to pit him against Twirling Candy in the Strub.

The day after the Strub, a 9f race for 4yos, Santa Anita will also run the San Antonio, a 9f race for 4yos and up.

It's pure genius.

[eajinabi]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Instead of having an interesting Strub series, Santa Anita and its ridiculous stakes schedule has made it possible for John Sadler to keep his two top 4yos apart without even having to ship either one out of town.

Despite winning separate stakes for straight 3yos on the same day at the same track, Twirling Candy and Sidney's Candy won't clash in the second leg, the San Fernando. Twirling Candy will simply await the final leg, the Strub.

Will Sidney's Candy, presuming a good effort this weekend, return for a showdown? Unlikely.

In all probability, Sidney's Candy will simply sit the next one out, just as his stablemate is doing here.

If for some reason, Sadler decides Sidney's Candy needs another race 3 weeks from now, he still won't have to pit him against Twirling Candy in the Strub.

The day after the Strub, a 9f race for 4yos, Santa Anita will also run the San Antonio, a 9f race for 4yos and up.

It's pure genius.

Not to mention the Sunshines Classic a week earlier to the Strub/San Antonio weekend BUT those are only prep races to the Big Cap. I would rather have two/three prep races close together and have those top finishers end up in the Big Cap resulting in a bigger field. It doesnt make sense to have the same 6-7-8 horses run in the San Fernando then Strub then San Antonio only to have them run again against each other in the Big Cap ending in an almost predictable result.

[alysheba4]

Originally Posted by merasmag

that is genius...rivalries in horse-racing ARE BAD!!! I need sum quick cash...is sid gonna go off higher than 8-5?

.....i would say 1 to 5

[eajinabi]

Originally Posted by merasmag

that is genius...rivalries in horse-racing ARE BAD!!! I need sum quick cash...is sid gonna go off higher than 8-5?

Who says anything about not having rivalries? Have them square off in the main event, not the undercard.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by eajinabi

Who says anything about not having rivalries? Have them square off in the main event, not the undercard.

Those "preps" aren't undercard races, though. Good horses facing each other is not supposed to be a one-off event. Those multiple matchups should serve to build up to the main event.

Because of that "buildup", the results of those prep races don't necessarily hold true in the final marquee event either.

Judge Angelucci dusted Ferdinand in the '88 San Antonio, yet wasn't close to him in the Big Cap (Ferdinand was nostrilized by Alysheba).

Ruhlmann was drilled by Criminal Type in the '90 San Antonio, then stole the Big Cap (and later the San Bernadino) over that rival.

Congaree made a mess of Milwaukee Brew (and Pleasantly Perfect) in the '03 San Antonio, but was tagged at the wire by that rival in the Big Cap.

[eajinabi]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Those "preps" aren't undercard races, though. Good horses facing each other is not supposed to be a one-off event. Those multiple matchups should serve to build up to the main event.

Because of that "buildup", the results of those prep races don't necessarily hold true in the final marquee event either.

Judge Angelucci dusted Ferdinand in the '88 San Antonio, yet wasn't close to him in the Big Cap (Ferdinand was nostrilized by Alysheba).

Ruhlmann was drilled by Criminal Type in the '90 San Antonio, then stole the Big Cap (and later the San Bernadino) over that rival.

Congaree made a mess of Milwaukee Brew (and Pleasantly Perfect) in the '03 San Antonio, but was tagged at the wire by that rival in the Big Cap.

Note really sure those are noted rivalries for the ages. I highly doubt that people were looking forward to a Judge Angulluci Vs. Ferdinand rematch in the 88 Big Cap. The Alysheba vs Ferdinand is what filled the seats -- A rematch from the 87 BC Classic. Many horses may not be at peak performance when running in preps anyways. Most trainers target the main event and run thier horses in preps for a warmup do get a race in.
I would love to see a rivalry start in the Big Cap then continue in the Gold Cup, then onto the Pacific Classic/Goodwood.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by eajinabi

Note really sure those are noted rivalries for the ages. I highly doubt that people were looking forward to a Judge Angulluci Vs. Ferdinand rematch in the 88 Big Cap. The Alysheba vs Ferdinand is what filled the seats -- A rematch from the 87 BC Classic.

Well, I didn't exactly say those were great rivalries. Nevertheless, you do realize that Judge Angelucci was 3rd (and challenging for the lead inside the 1/8th pole) in that epic BC Classic, right?

Many horses may not be at peak performance when running in preps anyways. Most trainers target the main event and run thier horses in preps for a warmup do get a race in.

Actually, they don't. That's my whole point. If a top horse is not ready for a winning effort, these trainers nowadays simply skip races and wait for the "main event".

I would love to see a rivalry start in the Big Cap then continue in the Gold Cup, then onto the Pacific Classic/Goodwood.

Why not see it start in the Strub Series and/or San Antonio?

[westcoastinvader]

Originally Posted by merasmag

indian firewater
by 2

Hope you put your $$ down.

Paid $13.00 to win.

[Alan07]

He won't be paying anything. He came up lame.

[my miss storm cat]

http://www.drf.com/news/sidneys-candy-out-san-fernando

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by merasmag

i was gettin all psyched to go otbein tomorrow and then i saw dascratch...luckily, i looked at gs first and that late p4 is VERY gettable
now i have saved the 100 that woulda been lost on sidney if sadler had let him run and can hit daP4 instead...this is a big decision

Please share

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Instead of having an interesting Strub series, Santa Anita and its ridiculous stakes schedule has made it possible for John Sadler to keep his two top 4yos apart without even having to ship either one out of town.

Despite winning separate stakes for straight 3yos on the same day at the same track, Twirling Candy and Sidney's Candy won't clash in the second leg, the San Fernando. Twirling Candy will simply await the final leg, the Strub.

Will Sidney's Candy, presuming a good effort this weekend, return for a showdown? Unlikely.

In all probability, Sidney's Candy will simply sit the next one out, just as his stablemate is doing here.

If for some reason, Sadler decides Sidney's Candy needs another race 3 weeks from now, he still won't have to pit him against Twirling Candy in the Strub.

The day after the Strub, a 9f race for 4yos, Santa Anita will also run the San Antonio, a 9f race for 4yos and up.

It's pure genius.

Aren't the two of them just sprinters anyway? LOL

Why in the world would a trainer pit his horses against each other in 100/150k races? it sucks that they are both controlled by Sadler but how can you blame him, doesnt he and owners make more money if he wins two races instead of a first and a second. I would have sent Sid to GP for the Donn. I think he could win that race and it would be a nice G1 for the stallion page.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Aren't the two of them just sprinters anyway? LOL

Freddy, they cease to be sprinters when they are handed cream puff 4 or 5 (allowance caliber) horse fields to devour with, on top of everything else, favorable pace scenarios.

Put Sidney's Candy in a real route race (ie The Kentucky Derby) and see how he fares. Twirling Candy, at least sprinting, seems a bit more tactical, but even he in his route races has shown nothing but unbridled speed. Expect more Goodwood-like efforts from him down the road if he ever is asked to go outside of his comfort zone (4 horse allowance fields where he is allowed to take out any rival at any point in the race so long as he is "much the best").

Why in the world would a trainer pit his horses against each other in 100/150k races? it sucks that they are both controlled by Sadler but how can you blame him, doesnt he and owners make more money if he wins two races instead of a first and a second.

I only expected one to show up for the San Fernando, but nonetheless, CJ's question allowed me to go on my soapbox for the millionth time. The point to my rant was that I wouldn't expect Sidney's Candy to race against Twirling Candy even if the purse was $1 million (ie the Big Cap).

I would have sent Sid to GP for the Donn. I think he could win that race and it would be a nice G1 for the stallion page.

As usual, you always have the best interests of the sport at heart.

Some fan.