Ride on Normandy Invasion

[cmorioles]

He clearly moved too early, not sure how that is even a debate. I'm sure judging whether a pace is fast is suicidal is not an easy thing to do, but he judged wrong. At worst, he was the second best horse in the race.

[tjfla]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

He clearly moved too early, not sure how that is even a debate. I'm sure judging whether a pace is fast is suicidal is not an easy thing to do, but he judged wrong. At worst, he was the second best horse in the race.

Exactly,Castellano saw Oxbow go and went with him. He waits another second or 2 and he is 2nd easy.

Golden Soul I think killed everyone's ticket. I had him 3/4 on all of mine

[NTamm1215]

These are his updated PPs after yesterday. If you're arguing that he didn't move too early, you're wrong.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

These are his updated PPs after yesterday. If you're arguing that he didn't move too early, you're wrong.

You know I agree, but PPs at 10f look a little different and can be deceiving. You are shown the 4f/1m instead of 4f/6f calls.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

These are his updated PPs after yesterday. If you're arguing that he didn't move too early, you're wrong.

I don't agree that you can say without reservation that it cost him 2nd.

He is out of a Boston Harbor mare. IMO he can't get 1 1/4. He was almost 9 lengths behind a suicidal pace at the half and still 5 lengths back at the 3/4's. If the speed horses last a little longer than no one is saying anything about moving too early. Let's not forget that he was on the rail and would have been directly behind the horses who finished up the track if he hadn't moved outside. The rest of his trip outside of the supposed premature move was almost perfect.

You'll get a chance to watch him lose ground again in the stretch in the Belmont

[Cannon Shell]

I hear now that he won't be running again until Saratoga. Maybe ever.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I hear now that he won't be running again until Saratoga. Maybe ever.

that kind of news used to surprise.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

that kind of news used to surprise.

Well he never actually did win a stakes race so I guess they will need that. Just a natural reaction nowdays.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I don't agree that you can say without reservation that it cost him 2nd.

Of course you can't say it without reservation. But using breeding as the reason is laughable.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Of course you can't say it without reservation. But using breeding as the reason is laughable.

Really? So breeding doesn't play a role in horses ability to run a distance of ground? Really?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Really? So breeding doesn't play a role in horses ability to run a distance of ground? Really?

Of course it does, but since I watched the race it is pretty obvious to me that under the right circumstances he can get the distance. Moving as he did between the 1/4 and 1/2 mile calls was a bit silly, and he still hung on for a good fourth. If that was the trainer's plan, as it seems, it was a dumb plan.

[Calzone Lord]

Mylute is Midnight Lute out of a Valid Expectations mare. He was about a length and a half behind Orb and following him wide the entire way.

He was only beaten 3.75 lengths and finished in a photo for 4th with Normandy Invasion.

Ideally, Chad Brown would have somehow had the foresight to know Palace Malice would run off in blinkers and the race would be a +30

Shackleford and Comma to The Top can be grabbed and dragged along by their riders through a half in 48.63 in the 2011 Derby... but certainly no speed of their caliber was in this field, BUT all it ever takes is for one horse to completely run-off and the others will chase for their position.

The mediocre Make Music For Me (Bernstein out of a Carson City mare) was 20th and last by more than 28 lengths after a half mile behind the 46.16 half mile in 2010. Make Music For Me closed 24 lengths in the Derby to finish 4th. Why? Because he liked the added distance? It sure didn't prove that way in the Belmont when he was 10th at every call the whole way around behind a slow pace.

Whenever you have a +30 race ... the further back you are the better off you are. Even being 28 lengths back, like Make Music For Me, is much preferable to being 8 lengths back.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Of course you can't say it without reservation. But using breeding as the reason is laughable.

modern breeding for distance has pretty much lost its relevance in handicapping. A horse like Beholder would have been an auto-toss in a race like the Oaks 30 years ago.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I don't agree that you can say without reservation that it cost him 2nd.

He is out of a Boston Harbor mare. IMO he can't get 1 1/4. He was almost 9 lengths behind a suicidal pace at the half and still 5 lengths back at the 3/4's. If the speed horses last a little longer than no one is saying anything about moving too early. Let's not forget that he was on the rail and would have been directly behind the horses who finished up the track if he hadn't moved outside. The rest of his trip outside of the supposed premature move was almost perfect.

You'll get a chance to watch him lose ground again in the stretch in the Belmont

With all due respect, this is nonsense.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

With all due respect, this is nonsense.

Of course because surely you and CJ have all the answers and no one elses opinion means anything. Of course it is easy to believe in absolutes when there is little chance to be proven wrong.

[Cannon Shell]

Normandy Invasion, who has been pegged as a late-running horse, has been sharper in his workouts and his regular training in part by design. Brown has said he would like Normandy Invasion to show enough quickness out of the gate to secure a good position under Javier Castellano.

http://www.drf.com/news/kentucky-der...rsday-training

Im sure this had nothing to do with it.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Of course because surely you and CJ have all the answers and no one elses opinion means anything. Of course it is easy to believe in absolutes when there is little chance to be proven wrong.

Come on, Chuck, it's a little far fetched to use his pedigree as a reason for his loss yesterday. You may have felt he was not bred for 10 furlongs prior to yesterday's race. However, he had no chance to get 10 furlongs with Revolutionary's pedigree with the ride he was given.

The idea to get him more involved early pre-supposed a moderate pace. Castellano has two major flaws as a rider. He is a HORRIBLE judge of pace and he has patented the ill-timed far turn move. Both of these flaws were exposed yesterday. The pace was MUCH faster than most expected, but there he was on Normandy Invasion, shoulder to shoulder with Goldencents just before the half-mile pole. He then asks him for a huge move at the 7/16ths pole and collars Palace Malice and Oxbow, who are not passed by another horse for at least another furlong.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

These are his updated PPs after yesterday. If you're arguing that he didn't move too early, you're wrong.

I don't see how this negates Port Conway Lane's argument; namely that Normandy Invasion's "early move" was more a case of other horses backing up than Normandy Invasion making a move.

Looking at the splits posted by Port Conway Lane, that argument makes sense to me. Is there an error in PCL's splits?

If the splits are correct, then NI's 3rd quarter mile, 23:89, was slower than 8 other horses's. NI's 4th quarter mile, 25:48, was slower than 7 other horses's.

Also, exactly which part of Cannon Shell's post was nonsense? If you are claiming that running a blistering 23:89 3rd quarter is what ruined Normandy Invasion's chances, when 8 other horses ran faster 3rd quarters including the first 3 finishers, then that makes no sense to me.

The fact that both you and cmorioles agree on this gives me pause. I just wish you'd make a clearer case for it.

--Dunbar

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I don't see how this negates Port Conway Lane's argument; namely that Normandy Invasion's "early move" was more a case of other horses backing up than Normandy Invasion making a move.

Looking at the splits posted by Port Conway Lane, that argument makes sense to me. Is there an error in PCL's splits?

If the splits are correct, then NI's 3rd quarter mile, 23:89, was slower than 8 other horses's. NI's 4th quarter mile, 25:48, was slower than 7 other horses's.

Also, exactly which part of Cannon Shell's post was nonsense? If you are claiming that running a blistering 23:89 3rd quarter is what ruined Normandy Invasion's chances, when 8 other horses ran faster 3rd quarters including the first 3 finishers, then that makes no sense to me.

The fact that both you and cmorioles agree on this gives me pause. I just wish you'd make a clearer case for it.

--Dunbar

It is also deceiving looking at running position in a 19 horse field. Moving from 12th to 7th looks normal in a race with a 12 horse field, but he gained five positions into the teeth of a brutal pace between the 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile calls, with 3/4 mile still to run.

That move troubles me more than the one where the others collapsed and he inherited the lead. Nobody was "backing up" during that 1/4 mile. What was the hurry?

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I don't see how this negates Port Conway Lane's argument; namely that Normandy Invasion's "early move" was more a case of other horses backing up than Normandy Invasion making a move.

Looking at the splits posted by Port Conway Lane, that argument makes sense to me. Is there an error in PCL's splits?

If the splits are correct, then NI's 3rd quarter mile, 23:89, was slower than 8 other horses's. NI's 4th quarter mile, 25:48, was slower than 7 other horses's.

Also, exactly which part of Cannon Shell's post was nonsense? If you are claiming that running a blistering 23:89 3rd quarter is what ruined Normandy Invasion's chances, when 8 other horses ran faster 3rd quarters including the first 3 finishers, then that makes no sense to me.

The fact that both you and cmorioles agree on this gives me pause. I just wish you'd make a clearer case for it.

--Dunbar

The running line overstates his move, as CJ pointed out. I posted it more for a reference point.

You have to put into context where horses are when comparing their individual 1/4 times in any race, especially a 10f race. Yes, there were horses who ran faster 3rd quarters than Normandy Invasion. However, they were behind him at that point. Most were well behind him.

Combine Normandy Invasion's 2nd two quarters and you'll see he went significantly faster than any other horse in the field.

This was not a situation like 2010 when the field came back to the pack rapidly. Castellano, who has been prone to wildly premature moves, pushed the button too soon, and negated his mount's best weapon, his ability to finish.

A more patient ride would have greatly helped his chances.