La Troienne discussion

[CSC]

Why should Rachel retire? She has been competitive in 2 races this year losing by no more than a combined length. I'm sure the numbers guys will tell us she will beyer better than the 100 she got in the N.O Ladies and that would put her in the 107 range of the Woodward, so what's wrong with that? Unless people's opinions of her were so sky high to begin with, then maybe it is a big surprise then. She lost to a very good filly and Rachel ran a good race give both some credit.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by CSC

I'm sure the numbers guys will tell us she will beyer better than the 100 she got in the N.O Ladies and that would put her in the 107 range of the Woodward, so what's wrong with that?

Pretty sure you're wrong about that. And she ran a 109 in the Woodward.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Pretty sure you're wrong about that. And she ran a 109 in the Woodward.

You just wanted to say that right? It must bother you when Smooth, FM and a select few didn't buy into this greatness tag?

BTW it was 107 unless they upgraded it at a later date which I wouldn't know about since I only sparingly use beyers anyway.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by CSC

You just wanted to say that right? It must bother you when Smooth, FM and a select few didn't buy into this greatness tag?

BTW it was 107 unless they upgraded it at a later date which I wouldn't know about since I only sparingly use beyers anyway.

What? You said she's going to get a 107 for this race, and I'm pretty sure you're wrong. And it was a 109.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

What? You said she's going to get a 107 for this race, and I'm pretty sure you're wrong. And it was a 109.

You wanna know my Derby pick? You will have 19 out of 20 chances of telling me I'm wrong Saturday.

Frankly I am not bubbling with confidence with this crapshoot and anyone telling you they are is surely lying.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by CSC

Why should Rachel retire? She has been competitive in 2 races this year losing by no more than a combined length. I'm sure the numbers guys will tell us she will beyer better than the 100 she got in the N.O Ladies and that would put her in the 107 range of the Woodward, so what's wrong with that? Unless people's opinions of her were so sky high to begin with, then maybe it is a big surprise then. She lost to a very good filly and Rachel ran a good race give both some credit.

She won't get a 107.

I think Blind Luck went backwards a few points from her OP Fantasy race. Not a stretch to assume that given it's hard for 3YO fillies to repeat that kind of performance. If you assign her a 100, Rachel/Unrivaled Belle get a 102, and the Alysheba gets a 99.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by philcski

She won't get a 107.

I think Blind Luck went backwards a few points from her OP Fantasy race. Not a stretch to assume that given it's hard for 3YO fillies to repeat that kind of performance. If you assign her a 100, Rachel/Unrivaled Belle get a 102, and the Alysheba gets a 99.

It's also understandable considering the traffic she had to overcome to pass 13 horses.

If they retire her it would be a mistake. The main track was hmm awkward.

[dalakhani]

Im not understanding how people are blaming the rider here. What did he do wrong? He sat right off a relatively slow pace and pounced around the turn. What was he supposed to do? She didnt get checked or have any traffic problems and he didnt get her into any kind of duel.

Calvin did his job. If she was good enough today, she wins. She wasn't good enough today.

[richard burch]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Im not understanding how people are blaming the rider here. What did he do wrong? He sat right off a relatively slow pace and pounced around the turn. What was he supposed to do? She didnt get checked or have any traffic problems and he didnt get her into any kind of duel.

Calvin did his job. If she was good enough today, she wins. She wasn't good enough today.

well said.

[Indian Charlie]

Not well said at all.

Unless you mean he was grammatically correct.

If you don't understand how taking away the speed from a high quality and brilliantly fast horse is a poor tactic, than there really is no way for it to be explained to you.

Go and watch a few thousand more races, and watch what happens to horses like, say, Bertrando, when the jock doesn't let them roll.

And just because he wasn't fighting her doesn't mean he was not compromising her chances of winning.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

If they retire her it would be a mistake. The main track was hmm awkward.

It certainly didn't favor frontrunners.

Horses on the lead after a half on the main track finished 3rd, 4th, 9th, 2nd (Rachel), 3rd, 8th, 3rd, and 2nd.

Horses to win came from 7th of 8, 3rd of 11, 5th of 10, 3rd of 6, 4th of 5, 4th of 9, 14th of 14, and 2nd of 8.

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Im not understanding how people are blaming the rider here. What did he do wrong? He sat right off a relatively slow pace and pounced around the turn. What was he supposed to do? She didnt get checked or have anyone traffic problems and he didnt get her into any kind of duel.

Calvin did his job. If she was good enough today, she wins. She wasn't good enough today.

I agree with this.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by philcski

It certainly didn't favor frontrunners.

Horses on the lead after a half on the main track finished 3rd, 4th, 9th, 2nd (Rachel), 3rd, 8th, 3rd, and 2nd.

Horses to win came from 7th of 8, 3rd of 11, 5th of 10, 3rd of 6, 4th of 5, 4th of 9, 14th of 14, and 2nd of 8.

Let's break this down a little further; going by the charts; with top 4 positions at the 1st and 2nd call.

Race 1: 4 horses go at it, the race collapses, and the winner comes from last.
8/4/2/3 --- 7/4/1/3

Race 2: 2 horse duel, winner comes from 4th position, less than 2.5 less behind; 2nd horse always < 4 lengths behind
4/7/3/1 --- 3,6,4,1

Race 4: 2 went at it early, with another joining in on the turn; winner came from 5th, about 4 lengths behind. What's interesting here is that the 2nd horse, coming from 3rd last and almost 8 lengths behind, had dead aim on the winner for a good part of the stretch and HUNG like a rat.
5/9/7/3 ---- 3/8/6/2


Race 6: The other pace horse quit but the winner was 3rd, < 2 lengths behind; so, they went 3,1 around the track
3/2/6/5 --- 3/1/6/5

Race 7: baby race --- didn't bother


Race 9: 2 pacesetters, one of which held for 3rd. winner came from 4th, 2.5 lengths behind at most. nothing really ran late here
4/5/2/9 --- 4/5/2/9

Race 11: winner comes from last, 9.5 L behind; 2nd horse from 4th, 2.5 L behind; speed holds for 3rd. Superior performance by BL.
14/4/1/11 --- 14/4/1/11


So, the only real (impressive) off the pace performance was by BL. The winner of the 1st got a perfect setup. Appears as if girlie had no excuse.

Yet still it shows the front-runner didn't win.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Let's break this down a little further; going by the charts; with top 4 positions at the 1st and 2nd call.

Race 1: 4 horses go at it, the race collapses, and the winner comes from last.
8/4/2/3 --- 7/4/1/3

Race 2: 2 horse duel, winner comes from 4th position, less than 2.5 less behind; 2nd horse always < 4 lengths behind
4/7/3/1 --- 3,6,4,1

Race 4: 2 went at it early, with another joining in on the turn; winner came from 5th, about 4 lengths behind. What's interesting here is that the 2nd horse, coming from 3rd last and almost 8 lengths behind, had dead aim on the winner for a good part of the stretch and HUNG like a rat.
5/9/7/3 ---- 3/8/6/2


Race 6: The other pace horse quit but the winner was 3rd, < 2 lengths behind; so, they went 3,1 around the track
3/2/6/5 --- 3/1/6/5

Race 7: baby race --- didn't bother


Race 9: 2 pacesetters, one of which held for 3rd. winner came from 4th, 2.5 lengths behind at most. nothing really ran late here
4/5/2/9 --- 4/5/2/9

Race 11: winner comes from last, 9.5 L behind; 2nd horse from 4th, 2.5 L behind; speed holds for 3rd. Superior performance by BL.
14/4/1/11 --- 14/4/1/11


So, the only real (impressive) off the pace performance was by BL. The winner of the 1st got a perfect setup. Appears as if girlie had no excuse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7w64...eature=related

[Danzig]

i just got home a bit ago, and went to bloodhorse. read the article about the race.

be fair, who duelled with rachel through the early going, finished where? rachel gets beat a head, at the wire, when her dancing partner finishes last, and people are complaining....there's no pleasing people i guess! hell, the way i was reading the posts, it's like she got beat the length of the stretch. gimme a break.


but i do wish jess jackson, who probably couldn't tell one end of a horse from the other, or a filly from a colt, hadn't decided that she needed her racing style to be tinkered with. if it isn't broke, don't fix it! sheesh.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Danzig

be fair, who duelled with rachel through the early going, finished where? rachel gets beat a head, at the wire, when her dancing partner finishes last, and people are complaining....there's no pleasing people i guess! hell, the way i was reading the posts, it's like she got beat the length of the stretch. gimme a break.

Be Fair is nothing.

Now, I'm not saying that the 48.4 half mile was the only reason she got beat, but man, why take away your greatest asset by running such a pedestrian half mile?

And, btw, there was no duel up front. Borel clearly rode RA to not get the lead (instructions or not). And why let other horses stay in the race when you can comfortably put them away by then?