Current TC Spacing Dates Back to 1969

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Point Given was certainly the best horse that year, but I don't think he had a legitimate excuse in the Derby. He ran poorly. I don't know why he didn't fire that day but he didn't. What was his excuse? Sure he was closer to a fast pace than he should have been, but Congaree was even closer to the pace than Point Given and Congaree ended up beating Point Given by 7 lengths. I don't know how a person could watch the Kentucky Derby that year and say that Point Given was the best horse that day. He had no legitimate excuse. If he would have ended up getting beat by a small margin and if he would have outfinished other horses that were close to the pace, then you could make that argument. But that wasn't the case.

Point Given was not a horse suited to running on the lead, while Congaree certainly was. Taking a horse out of his preferred running style can lead to worse than normal performances.

You know all of that already though, doncha?

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I totally disagree with you about Smarty Jones. I don't think the Belmont was anything close to his best race. In fact, I think he regressed by at least 4-5 lengths from the Preakness. What was the problem with the ride? Watch the replay and tell me what he should have done differently at what point. They went the half in :48 3/5, which is reasonable but not lightening fast. Eddington came up outside of Smarty Jones and forced him to move a little sooner than he would have liked to but that is racing. Overall, SJ's trip was reasonable. It wasn't great but it certainly wasn't horrible. He ran his last quarter in :27. If you think that was his best race, I strongly disagree.

It was the ride on Eddington that I was referring to, sorry for not being more precise there. That was very reminiscent of Forty Niner in the Preakness. Both were ridden to not win their respective races.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

What was wrong with Afleet Alex's trip in the Kentucky Derby? It's a 20 horse field. You're practically never going to get a perfect trip. If you get a relatively clean trip, you have to be thrilled. AA had a relatively good trip. He saved ground and waited for room and he got through. After he got through, he got outrun. I don't think he had any real excuse in the Derby.

Really dude? Watch the race again.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

To say Alysheba had a legitimate excuse in the Belmont is preposterous. He lost by 14 lengths. If he was 2-3 lengths closer to the pace, do you think that would have made up 14 lengths? Granted he did check at the quarter pole after he was hopelessly beaten. If he didn't check, he would have only lost by 10 or 11 lengths.

Yeah, it might be a bit of a stretch about him, but he lost all hope with that ride. He should have gotten the jump on Bet Twice and even McCarron said later on that his ride cost Alysheba the race.

[Danzig]

Why is smarty still being brought up? I thought chuck explained his injury, that it wasn't that serious.
Smarty was retired for one reason, and it wasn't cartilage. He didn't run again for a reason, and its green.

Plenty of horses disprove what one horse is being used to prove.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Why is smarty still being brought up? I thought chuck explained his injury, that it wasn't that serious.
Smarty was retired for one reason, and it wasn't cartilage. He didn't run again for a reason, and its green.

Plenty of horses disprove what one horse is being used to prove.

Chuck never explained his injury. Dunbar posted an article where Dr. Bramlage said the horse had swelling in his ankles and he needed time off. He said the horse could have come back the next year. I don't necessarily believe it. The vet has no obligation to the public in a case like this. His obligation is to the owner and trainer of the horse. When a horse is going to stand at stud, the owners don't want the vet to announce that the horse is very unsound and can never come back.

How could you possibly claim that the horse had no cartilage damage in his ankles? You would have no way of knowing that. You can't believe everything that you read. The public comments that you read from owners and trainers is often times bs. I'm not just guessing that. I know that for a fact. I've seen it first hand. For example, they will often say publicly that a horse has a foot bruise when they have something much more serious.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Chuck never explained his injury. Dunbar posted an article where Dr. Bramlage said the horse had swelling in his ankles and he needed time off. He said the horse could have come back the next year. I don't necessarily believe it. The vet has no obligation to the public in a case like this. His obligation is to the owner and trainer of the horse. When a horse is going to stand at stud, the owners don't want the vet to announce that the horse is very unsound and can never come back.

How could you possibly claim that the horse had no cartilage damage in his ankles? You would have no way of knowing that. You can't believe everything that you read. The public comments that you read from owners and trainers is often times bs. I'm not just guessing that. I know that for a fact. I've seen it first hand. For example, they will often say publicly that a horse has a foot bruise when they have something much more serious.

Oh, well why listen to an esteemed vet when I have you to tell me?
Smarty retired due to money. They had already maximized his value for breeding.
What I fail to understand is how the tc spacing had anything whatsoever to do with smartys ankle issues.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Let me ask you guys a simple question. If the spacing is not the main thing that makes it so difficult to win the TC, then what is? It's not that hard for the best horse in a division to win the 3 races in a row. It happens all the time. It happens with 2 year olds, three year olds, 4 year olds, older horses, colts, fillies, grass horses, etc. It's not uncommon for the best horse in a division to win three races in a row. It happens all the time.

Yet no horse has won the TC in 36 years and everybody knows how difficult it is to win the TC. If it's not the spacing that makes it so difficult, then what is it? I'm not saying the spacing is the only thing but it is the main thing. The other thing that makes it so difficult is the distance of the Belmont. If the Belmont was shorter, it would certainly be easier to win the TC. Of the last 12 horses that won the first two legs, I think at least a couple of them may have won the TC if the Belmont was only 1 1/4 miles.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Let me ask you guys a simple question. If the spacing is not the main thing that makes it so difficult to win the TC, then what is? It's not that hard for the best horse in a division to win the 3 races in a row. It happens all the time. It happens with 2 year olds, three year olds, 4 year olds, older horses, colts, fillies, grass horses, etc. It's not uncommon for the best horse in a division to win three races in a row. It happens all the time.

Yet no horse has won the TC in 36 years and everybody knows how difficult it is to win the TC. If it's not the spacing that makes it so difficult, then what is it? I'm not saying the spacing is the only thing but it is the main thing. The other thing that makes it so difficult is the distance of the Belmont. If the Belmont was shorter, it would certainly be easier to win the TC. Of the last 12 horses that won the first two legs, I think at least a couple of them may have won the TC if the Belmont was only 1 1/4 miles.

You said before you didn't want it to be easier, that you were worried about horses careers.
But all your postings indicate your main concern, more tc winners.


And yes, smarty raced nine times in eight months. Still not an indication that tc spacing was the issue.
You want more tc winners, which you is fine. We all want to see tc winners. So own it, instead of trying to make arguments that have nothing to do with it.

As for it not being hard to win three in a row...

Wow, just wow. So many things are involved in a race. The hell it isn't hard.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

You said before you didn't want it to be easier, that you were worried about horses careers.
But all your postings indicate your main concern, more tc winners.


And yes, smarty raced nine times in eight months. Still not an indication that tc spacing was the issue.
You want more tc winners, which you is fine. We all want to see tc winners. So own it, instead of trying to make arguments that have nothing to do with it.

As for it not being hard to win three in a row...

Wow, just wow. So many things are involved in a race. The hell it isn't hard.

The two things go hand in hand. The reason the TC is so hard to win is because it is so grueling. The more grueling and demanding, the higher chance of horses being knocked out and/or injured.

With regard to stakes horses winning three races in a row, there have probably been over 100 of them over the last 35 years. It happens all the time. Sure it's hard, but it's all relative. It happens all the time.

Anyway, I have given you my hypothesis as to why it's so hard to win the TC. What is your hypothesis? We see the top horses in their division winning three in a row all the time. Why is winning three in a row in the TC so hard?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

What I fail to understand is how the tc spacing had anything whatsoever to do with smartys ankle issues.

To quote Dr. Bramlage, "He had nine hard races in eight months, and this kind of accumulated inflammation is why athletes can't stay at a peak every time."

Do you notice that he mentioned the number of races and the time period that those races were run in? He mentioned that for a reason. It's not uncommon for horses to come out of races with inflammation. But if you give them time to recover, the inflammation usually goes down. If you have to keep running the horse back on short rest, that inflammation can become chronic.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Point Given was not a horse suited to running on the lead, while Congaree certainly was. Taking a horse out of his preferred running style can lead to worse than normal performances.

You know all of that already though, doncha?




It was the ride on Eddington that I was referring to, sorry for not being more precise there. That was very reminiscent of Forty Niner in the Preakness. Both were ridden to not win their respective races.




Really dude? Watch the race again.




Yeah, it might be a bit of a stretch about him, but he lost all hope with that ride. He should have gotten the jump on Bet Twice and even McCarron said later on that his ride cost Alysheba the race.

Point Given wasn't on the lead in the Derby. He was sitting about 5-6 lengths back. As fast as the pace was, he should have definitely been further back. But as badly as he ran, there is no way anyone can say he should have won. He got beat by 12 lengths. Horses who were closer to the lead beat him and horses who were further back beat him. He didn't even come close to running the best race of anyone in that race. There is no logical way to look at that race and say that he should have won. If a horse is supposed to be laying about 10 lengths back but the jock only has them 5 back and they end up losing by 2 lengths, you can make a good case that the horse might have won with a better ride. But when a horse is a little closer than they should be and the horse gets beat by 12 lengths, I don't know how you could say that horse could have won. I guarantee you Baffert does not think that ride cost him the race.

With regard to Smarty Jones, his trip wasn't that bad. It's not like Eddington was head and head with him. Smarty was pretty much clear and he wasn't going that fast. I admit that Smarty Jones probably could have won the race if he went much much slower and nobody put any pressure on him. But why would you expect that to happen? Considering that Smarty won the Preakness by 10 lengths, it's not shocking that he could have won the Belmont if he got a completely uncontested lead in slow fractions.

I watched Afleet Alex's Ky Derby this afternoon. If every horse I ever bet on in the Derby got that trip I would be thrilled. It was a relatively clean trip. If you have a relatively clean trip in a 20 horse field, it's a good day.

With regard to Alysheba, the guy who was screaming about the ride was Van Berg. Van Berg had supposedly told McCarron before the race that he didn't think there was much speed and that Alysheba could probably go to the lead. I don't know why Van Berg would have thought that Alysheba would be in front of Bet Twice. Bet Twice was ahead of Alysheba in the early going in both the Derby and the Preakness and Alysheba was still able to beat him. Anyway, Van Berg claims the ride in the Belmont cost Alysheba the race. I don't know what he is smoking. He was very critical of McCarron. McCarron was diplomatic about it. He said maybe it was a bad ride. He never said he thought it cost him the race.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

With regard to Smarty Jones, his trip wasn't that bad. It's not like Eddington was head and head with him. Smarty was pretty much clear and he wasn't going that fast. I admit that Smarty Jones probably could have won the race if he went much much slower and nobody put any pressure on him. But why would you expect that to happen? Considering that Smarty won the Preakness by 10 lengths, it's not shocking that he could have won the Belmont if he got a completely uncontested lead in slow fractions.

I watched Afleet Alex's Ky Derby this afternoon. If every horse I ever bet on in the Derby got that trip I would be thrilled. It was a relatively clean trip. If you have a relatively clean trip in a 20 horse field, it's a good day.

I.....





















THUD!!!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

I.....

THUD!!!

And what is it that I said that you disagree with?

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

And what is it that I said that you disagree with?

The analysis of both trips.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

The analysis of both trips.

I discussed the specifics of both trips. Tell me what I said that was wrong. Where was Afleet Alex's big trouble in the Derby? Was he too far back? Was he too close? Did he ever take up? How did he have a bad trip?

For Smarty, how is having a clear lead in :48 3/5 in a grade I a terrible trip? Sure the race sped up the next half mile and he was getting some pressure, but what would you expect? Would you expect the horse to have an uncontested lead in really slow fractions in that race?

That second half-mile hurt Smarty Jones. There is no question about it. If he got no pressure that second half-mile, I'm sure he would have won the race. But that doesn't contradict what I've been saying. I've been saying that the horse who wins the first two legs will almost always regress substantially in the Belmont. How much they will regress is the question. Smarty Jones won the Preakness by 10 lengths. He could regress by 5 lengths and probably still win the Belmont. I think he ended up regressing by close to 10 lengths. Part of it was because of that second half-mile. If they totally left him alone and he runs the mile in 1:36 and change, he probably wins the race by a length or two. But even if that would have happened, I would still argue that the horse regressed substantially. It would have been one of those cases where he didn't bring his "A" game but still won because he was so much better than the rest of those horses. I'm not big on speed figures but I bet the figures show that he regressed substantially, even if you assume that he won the race by a length.