La Troienne discussion

[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.

[richard burch]

Originally Posted by 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.

perhaps you need to watch a few of her past races.

sometimes a horse is just a horse.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by richard burch

perhaps you need to watch a few of her past races.

sometimes a horse is just a horse.

Are you really telling me that I should watch her past races?

Because if you are, you are way off base here. You aren't even remotely close to having a clue.

Her race Friday, she went 24.3, 48.4 and 112.2. Take a close look at EVERY start of hers prior to this last one, below.



Not in any single race did she go as slow as 24.3, except possibly the Oaks (the first 1/4 not shown).

Notice her half mile splits? Her slowest prior to the La Troienne was 47.4, a FULL SECOND faster that yesterdays race, and that came when she was a two year old, for crying out loud.

Take a look at her 3/4 splits. Friday she went 112.2.

The only time she went slower was her previous race! Again, she did not roll early, and she got beat.

Have you noticed yet, that by far her three most impressive wins last year, the Mother Goose, Preakness and Haskell, she set or pressed wicked fractions that are virtually unheard of by a horse in winning performances?

I can't even begin to understand how something so obvious eludes so many people.

Does this make any more sense to you now?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by 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.

So he was supposed to hustle her up? He let her do her thing.

This isn't some 50k claimer and prior to the last two races, Rachel was certainly held in higher regard than Bertrando (certainly no knock on that horse). This is Rachel Alexandra...reigning HOY...the next coming of Ruffian. She got eyeballed in the lane. Pure and simple. And you are blaming the jock for not rushing her through faster fractions on a track that was playing against speed all day?

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

So he was supposed to hustle her up? He let her do her thing.

This isn't some 50k claimer and prior to the last two races, Rachel was certainly held in higher regard than Bertrando (certainly no knock on that horse). This is Rachel Alexandra...reigning HOY...the next coming of Ruffian. She got eyeballed in the lane. Pure and simple. And you are blaming the jock for not rushing her through faster fractions on a track that was playing against speed all day?

I don't know why English is such a hard language for people.

This is a filly that when setting very fast fractions, ran her opposition off of their feet. Any horse within a short distance of her on the turn usually ended up at the back of the pack, while at the same time, most closers really couldn't make up much ground on her.

What I'm trying to say is that that running style is what suits her best. She may or may not be at the same quality level she was last year, but until she's allowed to run the type of race that made her so great last year, we'll never really know why she's lost twice this year already.

And I never said to 'hustle' her. Or, as you say, just let her do her thing. Something that you are very wrong about. If you saw any of her races last year, it should be really obvious that her thing is to go fast early and keep going. Do you think 48.4 is a good example of that?

[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

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by philcski

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

Phil, now you've really done it.

Be prepared for the all out Fat Charts and Trakus voodoo doll combo made in your likeness. I see pins and needles in your immediate future.

Originally Posted by philcski

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

[JBJake]

Maybe RA isn't as good as people thought? A 3 horse field in the Mother Goose, slop at Monmouth and the 2 monsters Macho Again and Mine That Bird were her last 4 dominating performances. To blame Borel who had her on the lead in a 48 and 4 first half seems insane. If she went 46 and change - when she gets caught it would have also been his fault. If she was the type of horse that people have claimed she is - why does she need an absolutely perfect set up?

[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?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

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?

ah, thanks. that's what i get for going by what was written!


but you're absolutely right-taking away her best ability makes absolutely no sense. i almost feel sorry for asmussen having to put up with that pompous owner with the bright ideas.





almost