Street Sense- should he or shouldn't he?

What's next?

Asmussen/Lake 2008?

[King Glorious]

This last paragraph is what was the most ridiculous of the whole article:

They say the horse must come first. Fine. But what do they have to lose by running Street Sense in the Belmont? Nothing. Let him run in the Belmont and then give him his two months off before he returns in the Haskell. This one time, they can put the sport first and the horse a very close second. For Street Sense and the game, do the right thing.

Put the sport first? Over the horse's best interests? Shouldn't the horse ALWAYS come first?

[Danzig]

yeah, king, i don't agree with the last bit...but then, i don't think running him would be bad for street sense--unless of course he's regressed since his most recent starts. but nafzger said 'what's the point?', not the horse needs a break.

you should always do right by the horse--as for cannons list, i don't think they did empire maker any favors running him in the derby, i doubt it helped his foot much. and then the belmont a few weeks later-i don't think that was what was best for him.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Put the sport first? Over the horse's best interests? Shouldn't the horse ALWAYS come first?

Absolutely. But, if the horse is doing just dandy...

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I'm not so sure that I agree that the Belmont Stakes is becoming a race that sets horses back either.

4 of the 7 2nd place finishers in the Belmont Stakes this decade---went on to later capture a Grade 1 race.

In an 11 year span from '89-to-'99---9 of the 11 Belmont Stakes winners would return to later capture a Grade 1 race. The only two who didn't would be Tabasco Cat (2nd in the Breeders Cup Classic) and Go And Go.

If the horse is doing real well---he probably ought to run in the Belmont, as the 2nd choice in the betting (possibly even a razor thin favorite) against a small field---if not, I expect he will take the Haskell-to-Travers-to-Classic route.....with a possible stop in a stake at the Meadowlands or the Jockey Club Gold Cup in between the Travers and Classic.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

Absolutely. But, if the horse is doing just dandy...

But even if the horse is doing just fine, I think that Nafzger has earned the right to know better for the horse than any of us. A lot of people criticized his plan to use only two preps. But he knew his horse. If he thinks the horse would be better served with a break now to point for the fall races, again, I think Nafzger has earned that right. There are plenty of other guys that have come along recently and been flashes in the pan and haven't earned that right to be unquestioned. I believe Nafzger has though.

The thing is that the Belmont is a mighty demanding race. In addition to the recent winners that Cannon listed, we could go even deeper. Look at horses that have run in all three TC races over the past 10 years. The list of horses that have won at least one TC race while running in all three over the past 10 years is:

Silver Charm
Real Quiet
Victory Gallop
Charismatic
Monarchos
Point Given
War Emblem
Funny Cide
Smarty Jones
Giacomo
Afleet Alex

That's 11 horses. Eight of the 11 didn't finish the year. This is a fact. Seven of those eight didn't run past the Belmont. This is a fact. As a group, the 11 horses went on to win a total of three races as 3yo's post TC. I've acknowledged in past posts that I understand that some of it was due to factors besides injury. And I do recognize that five of those horses did come back in later years and win some really good races. But recent history is not on the side of seeing either Curlin or Street Sense or Hard Spun do anything more this year should they run back in the Belmont. Only three of those on the list made it to the BC (Victory Gallop, War Emblem and Funny Cide).

[The Indomitable DrugS]

KG,

I remember you taking a stand saying they shouldn't run Curlin in the Preakness and should have instead pointed for a Haskell/Travers campaign.

I think you are really underestimating how hard it is to pass on running in a triple crown series race---when you have a colt who actually has a shot of winning---and said horse is sound and training ok.

[Danzig]

[quote=King Glorious]

Silver Charm
Real Quiet
Victory Gallop
Charismatic
Monarchos
Point Given
War Emblem
Funny Cide
Smarty Jones
Giacomo
Afleet Alex

QUOTE]

i don't think the top three fit, they all went on to do more after the tc.
charismatic broke down, monarchos is one you could say failed to withstand the rigors. point given was a victim of $$ more than anything, had he not suffered an injury (which baffert blamed on the saratoga surface, not the tc) which would keep him from the bc--well, obviously he'd have been there--and obviously he was never going to run at four. war emblem imo didn't have the demand here from breeders, and only an offer from japan kept him from a four year old campaign. funny cide wasn't much pre-derby, i'm not surprised he hasn't done much since. smarty and alex are like point givens to me--the threat of a possible loss if they were brought back is what led to them not running again post-belmont. and giacomo--well, see funny cide above.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

But even if the horse is doing just fine, I think that Nafzger has earned the right to know better for the horse than any of us. A lot of people criticized his plan to use only two preps. But he knew his horse. If he thinks the horse would be better served with a break now to point for the fall races, again, I think Nafzger has earned that right. There are plenty of other guys that have come along recently and been flashes in the pan and haven't earned that right to be unquestioned. I believe Nafzger has though.

The thing is that the Belmont is a mighty demanding race. In addition to the recent winners that Cannon listed, we could go even deeper. Look at horses that have run in all three TC races over the past 10 years. The list of horses that have won at least one TC race while running in all three over the past 10 years is:

Silver Charm
Real Quiet
Victory Gallop
Charismatic
Monarchos
Point Given
War Emblem
Funny Cide
Smarty Jones
Giacomo
Afleet Alex

That's 11 horses. Eight of the 11 didn't finish the year. This is a fact. Seven of those eight didn't run past the Belmont. This is a fact. As a group, the 11 horses went on to win a total of three races as 3yo's post TC. I've acknowledged in past posts that I understand that some of it was due to factors besides injury. And I do recognize that five of those horses did come back in later years and win some really good races. But recent history is not on the side of seeing either Curlin or Street Sense or Hard Spun do anything more this year should they run back in the Belmont. Only three of those on the list made it to the BC (Victory Gallop, War Emblem and Funny Cide).

This is the same argument that you made when you were arguing that Curlin should skip the Preakness. How did that one turn out?
Let's say Street Sense skipped the Belmont....took another week off....and ran in the Stephen Foster. Would that magically help his chances of winning the Jim Dandy months from now?
Look at the horses that HAVE skipped one of the TC races (Empire Maker, Jazil etc.). Have they done a lot better?

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Look at the horses that HAVE skipped one of the TC races (Empire Maker, Jazil etc.). Have they done a lot better?

Well Jazil skipped the Preakness and then won the Belmont. . .

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

Well Jazil skipped the Preakness and then won the Belmont. . .

Right, but KG seems to think that if a horse only competes in two out of the three TC races, his chances of a great post-TC career are greatly enhanced. My point was simply that both Jazil and Empire Maker were horses that won a TC event BUT only competed in two out of the three. Yet there post-TC careers are/were not exactly spectacular.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by miraja2

This is the same argument that you made when you were arguing that Curlin should skip the Preakness. How did that one turn out?
Let's say Street Sense skipped the Belmont....took another week off....and ran in the Stephen Foster. Would that magically help his chances of winning the Jim Dandy months from now?
Look at the horses that HAVE skipped one of the TC races (Empire Maker, Jazil etc.). Have they done a lot better?

I said that I thought Curlin should skip the Preakness for his LONG TERM GOOD. I also said that he was good enough to win the race and he was indeed my pick to win it. So what is your point with that question? I also think that if Street Sense or Curlin is to run in the Belmont, they are both good enough to win it and one of them probably will. But again, I'm talking about the LONG TERM ramifications, not the short. I felt the exact way about Afleet Alex. U care to tell me how that one turned out? I felt the exact way about Point Given, Giacomo, Monarchos? Sure, PG went on to win the Haskell and Travers. Those were the only two races for those four horses combined.

It's not the timing alone of the race that concerns me. I wouldn't care if he ran back two weeks after the Preakness. It's the distance at the end of a trying period.

[citycat]

Street Sense worked 4f in 49.00 (14/28) this morning at CD. Thought he looked good but not great (thats very subjective I know). If it were me I would skip the Belmont and maybe do the Stephen Foster then the Travers, JMO.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I said that I thought Curlin should skip the Preakness for his LONG TERM GOOD. I also said that he was good enough to win the race and he was indeed my pick to win it. So what is your point with that question? I also think that if Street Sense or Curlin is to run in the Belmont, they are both good enough to win it and one of them probably will. But again, I'm talking about the LONG TERM ramifications, not the short. I felt the exact way about Afleet Alex. U care to tell me how that one turned out? I felt the exact way about Point Given, Giacomo, Monarchos? Sure, PG went on to win the Haskell and Travers. Those were the only two races for those four horses combined.

It's not the timing alone of the race that concerns me. I wouldn't care if he ran back two weeks after the Preakness. It's the distance at the end of a trying period.

Here is my point. Curlin had the opportunity to win a big race right then. His connections would have been foolish to pass on that opportunity just because of some nonsensical notion that skipping that race would somehow help win some other big race down the road. As you know, I am not just saying this in retrospect now that I know he won. I told you that at the time. Horses can get injured/sick at any time. Hell you could skip the TC races and the horse could break his leg in a workout the next day. If you have a healthy and fit horse and there is a G1 million dollar classic that he could win right then, take your shot.
I can tell you right now that I don't think Point Given or Giacomo's careers were ruined by running in all three TC races. Point Given won the last two, and that did not prevent him from winning the Haskell and the Travers as you think it should have. And Giacomo? I highly doubt if that horse would have ever won another G1 no matter WHAT campaign they set for him.