Quote:
Originally Posted by Linny
Works are important if you know what you are looking at. I sometimes wonder if the writers that cover them have any idea what they are seeing or if they are just parrotting the trainers comments. Some writers seem so dazzled by the experience that every horse looks AMAZING! Guess what, they are Derby colts, they are supposed to look great. They are not supposed to look like $5k horses at Beulah.
What I want is for a Derby reporter to linger in the shedrow to see a concerned looking trainer consulting with a farrier and tell me about it. That trainer told the press this morning that his horse has never been better and no one in the group knows what a quarter crack looks like. Sadly, for that kind of scoop I need to go to Indian Charlie. 
Did no one in the media think something was up with Eskendereya when all of TAP's others trained on schedule? I didn't see anything about it if they did. |
What's a little annoying is all the attention paid to the "gallop outs" on these works. It's almost as if these guys expect them to gallop out at the same pace as the work proper (never mind that we have no clue what the instructions were to the rider).
The pinnacle was Sidney's Candy breeze in a paint-peeling 1:11+, but because he only galloped out in 1:26, the work apparently sucked.
It's almost as if a sub :14 post-work 1/8th is more important than the actual workout itself. I guess they're just trying hard to get an edge by looking for clues from things other people take for granted, but to put them center stage is a bit excessive.
These are probably the same guys who were all over Tiago in the Belmont in '07 when he passed five horses after the wire in the Derby (never mind he was still under a drive from Mike Smith while everyone else was standing up).