Curlin

[Cajungator26]

I think Curlin has a great shot at beating Street Sense here...

Perhaps it's too much (and too soon), but if he came out of the Derby fine, why not take the chance?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

While it is true that he is being asked to do a lot of racing in a short span of time....

It should be said that he's been exceptionally undertrained in his workouts. I only saw his final two works leading into the Derby---and he was pretty much restrained throughout both of them.

[Slewbopper]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I think Curlin has a great shot at beating Street Sense here...

Perhaps it's too much (and too soon), but if he came out of the Derby fine, why not take the chance?

Exactly. He is a race horse. Run him. It is about time some of these horses actually set foot on the track against competition on a regular basis. As it stands right now, Invasor will be trying to win back to back HOYs with a total of 10 starts in two years. Outrageous. Citation ran twice that much in 1948 alone winning 19 of 20

[King Glorious]

People need to understand that u can't bring up what horses used to do in the past and say that today's horses should be able to do the same. This is a different game and the horses are different.

I wouldn't run Curlin back in the race either. I'd much rather back off of him and regroup for the summer in races like the Haskell and Travers and Super Derby. Personally, I feel that the Travers is a more prestigious race to win than the Preakness or Belmont. And the purse and grade are the same. By that time of year, the ranks of the 3yo's have been severely depleted by needless runs in the Preakness and Belmont. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here but I think u have to go back to Thunder Gulch in 1995 to find the last Derby winner that ran in the Travers.

For all that are saying that if he came out of the Derby fine, two weeks is not too soon so why not, how often would u do that? Would u run him every two weeks for a year? Or at some point, would u take a break with him? The horse had a very condensed schedule to get him to the point that they got him so fast. Squeezing the lemon dry at this point would not be the right thing, IMO. If there was some kind of incentive, maybe the point bonus or if the purse of the Preakness was significantly higher than the late summer races, then maybe I could endorse it more. This is not 1948.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

A lot of people thought it was a mistake for Bernardini to run last year. He was lightly raced, didn't break his maiden until March, had never been beyond a mile, had never raced around two-turns etc etc.

From a workout standpoint, Curlin was babied going into the Derby more than any other horse. Even the sheet players, who are as prissy as people come with patterns and time between races, I believe should be ok with his pattern and timing coming into this race.

Keeping one of only three serious contenders in the barn for a classic, and hoping all will be well and you'll have the best horse come Travers day, that isn't wise. A lot can go wrong from now until August...you can't take a chance at winning the Preakness for granted.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

A lot of people thought it was a mistake for Bernardini to run last year. He was lightly raced, didn't break his maiden until March, had never been beyond a mile, had never raced around two-turns etc etc.
From a workout standpoint, Curlin was babied going into the Derby more than any other horse. Even the sheet players, who are as prissy as people come with patterns and time between races, I believe should be ok with his pattern and timing coming into this race.

Keeping one of only three serious contenders in the barn for a classic, and hoping all will be well and you'll have the best horse come Travers day, that isn't wise. A lot can go wrong from now until August...you can't take a chance at winning the Preakness for granted.

Yes but Bernardini, skipped the derby, so it wasn't the same as Curlin who is a lightly raced horse attempting back to back classics in two weeks. I can see both sides. I'd run him in the Preakness, providing that it looks like he handled everything in the derby well.

I guess I don't see anything wrong with running him back, but I also think that not many horses start so late and go immediately to back to back classics in races 4 and 5, so you do have to pay close attention.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

A lot of people thought it was a mistake for Bernardini to run last year. He was lightly raced, didn't break his maiden until March, had never been beyond a mile, had never raced around two-turns etc etc.

From a workout standpoint, Curlin was babied going into the Derby more than any other horse. Even the sheet players, who are as prissy as people come with patterns and time between races, I believe should be ok with his pattern and timing coming into this race.

Keeping one of only three serious contenders in the barn for a classic, and hoping all will be well and you'll have the best horse come Travers day, that isn't wise. A lot can go wrong from now until August...you can't take a chance at winning the Preakness for granted.

that's what i've said many times over the years. got absolutely roasted by a few for suggesting nick zito was wrong to skip the bcj a few years ago when he seemed loaded for bear, that plum ripe for the picking. he wanted to 'save' his horses for the following spring. er, that went well.
when a horse is ready and raring, run him. when he's not, don't.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

People need to understand that u can't bring up what horses used to do in the past and say that today's horses should be able to do the same. This is a different game and the horses are different.
I wouldn't run Curlin back in the race either. I'd much rather back off of him and regroup for the summer in races like the Haskell and Travers and Super Derby.

I never suggested that "today's horses should be able to do the same" as Citation did in 1948. If Curlin's connections decided to run him in all three TC races AND another 10f race in between the Preakness and the Belmont like they did with Citation.....I would criticize them. The point was just that a "taxing" spring campaign does not eliminate a good horse's chances from having a good late summer/fall campaign. The idea of what constitutes a taxing campaign have certainly changed over the years, but nobody would dispute that....so I don't really know who you think you are arguing with.
You say you would rather see the horse regroup for a races like the Haskell and the Travers as if running him in the Preakness will ruin his chances in those races. Those races are literally MONTHS away and this horse has only raced 4 times in his life.
Is the breed more fragile than it was decades ago? Yes, but the animals are not THAT much different that running in the Derby and the Preakness will automatically ruin the rest of their careers.
Will Curlin win the Preakness.....who knows, but if he is close to 100% he definitely has a shot, and if the trainer feels he is close to 100%, then not running him would just be stupid.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I never suggested that "today's horses should be able to do the same" as Citation did in 1948. If Curlin's connections decided to run him in all three TC races AND another 10f race in between the Preakness and the Belmont like they did with Citation.....I would criticize them. The point was just that a "taxing" spring campaign does not eliminate a good horse's chances from having a good late summer/fall campaign. The idea of what constitutes a taxing campaign have certainly changed over the years, but nobody would dispute that....so I don't really know who you think you are arguing with.
You say you would rather see the horse regroup for a races like the Haskell and the Travers as if running him in the Preakness will ruin his chances in those races. Those races are literally MONTHS away and this horse has only raced 4 times in his life.
Is the breed more fragile than it was decades ago? Yes, but the animals are not THAT much different that running in the Derby and the Preakness will automatically ruin the rest of their careers.
Will Curlin win the Preakness.....who knows, but if he is close to 100% he definitely has a shot, and if the trainer feels he is close to 100%, then not running him would just be stupid.

We agree to an extent. We both feel like a horse should be able to handle a testing spring and still be around for the summer and fall. But are we living in a fantasy world? How many of them actually DO this? There can be many reasons, some physical, some economic, for why horses aren't campaigned the same way anymore. But let's just look at simple facts. The FACTS say that, since this decade began:

2000-Fusaichi Pegasus, Red Bullet, Commendable
2001-Monarchos, Point Given
2002-War Emblem, Sarava
2003-Funny Cide, Empire Maker
2004-Smarty Jones, Birdstone
2005-Giacomo, Afleet Alex
2006-Barbaro, Bernardini, Jazil

That's 16 horses that have won a TC race. Out of those 16, the majority DID NOT finish their 3yo season. It's not something I'm making up.

Fusaichi Pegasus (Jerome-II)
Point Given (Haskell-I, Travers-I)
War Emblem (Haskell-I)
Birdstone (Travers-I)
Bernardini (Jim Dandy-II, Travers-I, JCGC-I)

That's only five of the 16 that have gone on to win a graded stakes race after the TC.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

We agree to an extent. We both feel like a horse should be able to handle a testing spring and still be around for the summer and fall. But are we living in a fantasy world? How many of them actually DO this? There can be many reasons, some physical, some economic, for why horses aren't campaigned the same way anymore. But let's just look at simple facts. The FACTS say that, since this decade began:

2000-Fusaichi Pegasus, Red Bullet, Commendable
2001-Monarchos, Point Given
2002-War Emblem, Sarava
2003-Funny Cide, Empire Maker
2004-Smarty Jones, Birdstone
2005-Giacomo, Afleet Alex
2006-Barbaro, Bernardini, Jazil

That's 16 horses that have won a TC race. Out of those 16, the majority DID NOT finish their 3yo season. It's not something I'm making up.

Fusaichi Pegasus (Jerome-II)
Point Given (Haskell-I, Travers-I)
War Emblem (Haskell-I)
Birdstone (Travers-I)
Bernardini (Jim Dandy-II, Travers-I, JCGC-I)

Yes but they did win those TC races! That is pretty important. Are you suggesting that Point Given or Afleet Alex would have had better overall careers if they had skipped the remainder of the TC races after not winning their respective Kentucky Derbies? Both of those colts came back to win the Preakness and the Belmont which were the biggest wins of their career.
Also, in the case of horses like Empire Maker, Jazil and Red Bullet, as I see it the fact that they didn't go on to win a graded stakes race in the fall actually makes MY point more than it makes yours. Those horses were not pressed into Derby-Preakness doubles. Red Bullet only ran in one TC race, and Empire Maker & Jazil skipped the Preakness like you want them to do with Curlin. They both won the Belmont, but skipping the Preakness did not ensure a successful fall campaign for Empire Maker or Jazil, so why would it do that for Curlin?
If they feel like their horse is healthy and ready now.....I just think they should run him now. The Preakness is an important race, and choosing not to run him doesn't ensure any sort of success in races like the Jim Dandy or Travers anyway.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Yes but they did win those TC races! That is pretty important. Are you suggesting that Point Given or Afleet Alex would have had better overall careers if they had skipped the remainder of the TC races after not winning their respective Kentucky Derbies? Both of those colts came back to win the Preakness and the Belmont which were the biggest wins of their career.
Also, in the case of horses like Empire Maker, Jazil and Red Bullet, as I see it the fact that they didn't go on to win a graded stakes race in the fall actually makes MY point more than it makes yours. Those horses were not pressed into Derby-Preakness doubles. Red Bullet only ran in one TC race, and Empire Maker & Jazil skipped the Preakness like you want them to do with Curlin. They both won the Belmont, but skipping the Preakness did not ensure a successful fall campaign for Empire Maker or Jazil, so why would it do that for Curlin?
If they feel like their horse is healthy and ready now.....I just think they should run him now. The Preakness is an important race, and choosing not to run him doesn't ensure any sort of success in races like the Jim Dandy or Travers anyway.

I don't mean to single out the Preakness. I'd be even more opposed to running in the Belmont than the Preakness. Of Empire Maker, Jazil and Red Bullet, the first two did run in another TC race after losing the Derby, which is what I'm saying doesn't need to be done.

I'm not saying that either Point Given or Alex would have better careers or longer careers had they skipped the later TC races. Whether running in those races had anything to do with their future fate is something that can never be known. But as it stands, they are part of a long list of those that, for whatever reasons, haven't had the greatest of luck when it comes to going on.

The one point in which I'll agree with u is when u say that skipping them doesn't ensure future success. There used to be a time when I strongly advocated striking while the iron was hot. In fact, I still have that same opinion of the BC Juvenile. It really bothers me when trainers skip it with the reasoning being that they don't want to do too much because they want to have a horse ready for the Derby. Today is just a different game played by different rules though. Following recent trends, we are more likely to see Curlin done before September if he runs in the Preakness (especially if he wins it) than we are if he doesn't.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

That's only five of the 16 that have gone on to win a graded stakes race after the TC.

That is true if you just limit it to their 3yo campaigns.
Both Funny Cide and Giacomo won graded stakes at age 4.

[Danzig]

lenght of a horses career also depends on commercial appeal to breeders, and the breeding market itself. some months ago i showed after a bit of searching that when horses ran at four (such as real quiet, silver charm) the market was down...but when breeding is up, like it has been (altho i think it's in a downward trend) you have smarty jones, point given, afleet alex, fupeg, etc.