Kentucky Derby

[cordoncordon]

I can tell BB knows his sh!t just by his response. Anybody that is an expert in their field has a certain way of detailing and explaining that screams, i know what im talking about.

The phonies always have a way of outing themeselves..

When you reach a certain level in any field you can with 90% confidence say.. this guy has no clue, this guy kinda has a clue, he's a work in progress.. and this guy knows what th fluck he's talking about.

While BB is very smart and has a ton of knowledge about horses, he has never actually trained a horse that I am aware of. He is a gambler. And I know how that is because that is how I started out. There is a big difference however between watching horse races, walking around the stables now and again, gambling on them, and actually being in charge of a race horse stable, taking care of and training the horses EVERY day (no days off), and going to the race track and racing 20 horses a week.

 

[Robert28]

looks like the Preakness is shaping up to suck. So far Take Charge Indy (injury) and Union Rags (owner decided not to race him) have been pulled out from the race. Who knows who else will scratch before then. Guess I'll put my money in Bodmeister to win.

 

[backbreaker]

****. we just imght have a triple crown winner this year.

as much as i nailed the derby as far as knowing who the pretenders were and the condenders were, i will admit that iwas ust as wrong about the preakness.

i honestly did not see anyway bodemiester could lose the race. lol and i bet like it too. i was damn near at the TV screen riding the fvcker tryhing ot get him home in the strech.

i dont' wager like most people i tend to be wired much differently from most gamblers. i have no qualms at all about losing a **** load of moeny. i really don't. just dfoesn't bother me. as long as my handicapping was sound i will get mine. so i don't wager on a lot of races. i might make 10-15 wagers a week. but i put a lot of money on the races i wager. i would rather wager 1,000 on 1 race that i know who i think is going to win than bet 100 on 10 races that i think i might now who is gobing to win.

and even then i have different levels of just how sure i am of something was going to happen. the kentucky derby was about my lowest level. really if it was not the derby i would have passed that race 10 out of 10 times. not a playable race to me under normal circumstnaces

but the preakness, i don't actually go "all in" but today was my equivelant of going all in. and when i go "all in" i'm dead sure. like rachel alexandrea in the oaks sure. like blame in the classic sure. i don't know why i was so sure blame was going to beat zenyatta but i was and i bet like it.

when they hit the half mile mark and they went 47 and 3 i knew the race was over.

those are extremely slow fractions for a horse as fast as BM. meaning he shoudl have had a lot of horse in the stretch drive.


What I, like everyone else at the track, everyone else at my house, **** even mike smith the joecky of BM got wrong, is we vastly under estimated how good I'll have another was. I knew he was good, i knew he was a grade 1 horse, but there is a grade 1 horse, and then there is a world class horse. i'll have another is a world class horse.

mike smith rode bodemister like all he had to do was not fall off. he didn't take any chances, he never tried to take the race to anyone bedcause in his mind there was no one to take the race to. **** in his mind as long as he didn't kill himself on the lead he was going to win the race. that's pace handicapping 101. no speed with a race with a front running closer, a horse that can gallop faster than you can run.

See, from a technical standpoint


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD9AwA-N4EU


this is the 09 preakness the one where rachel alexandra, my baby lol, love that damn mare, won the preakness. exact same running style as BM. she is just FASTER then the other horses.

the difference is, calvin borel knew that he would ahve tot ake the race to them. while he knew he had the best horse in the race, he knew he would have to ride the race to win it. look closely at them turning into the 2nd turn and notice calvin opening up dfuring the turn and then when they hit the turn into the stetch he lays down the gauntlet, okay *****es come get me. yeah i'm tired as hell but the wire is right there and i have 5 lentghs on you. that's how a front runner is supposed to take the race to the other hores.

mike smith did nto do that. mike smith basicvally, went into the tuyrn, he conserved his energry, basically what mike smith did was make the race a 2F race from the stretch to the finish and figured if he can get a slow enough pace there wn't be a horste in the field that can stay with him in the stretch

like i said, he just under estimated I'll have another. he rode BM like he had the best horse in the race. he didn't really do anyting wrong, he just went in with the wrong game plan. basically what he did was make it a match race between him and IHA and got outkicked on the square.

think of it like going into the ring with a guy who you take lightly and he hits you with a cold combo that knocks you out.

IHA won but i am not sure he is the best horse. I don't know. if BM goes to the belmont i still' think he wins it. the pace will work for him, mike smith will work for him. the pace is going to be so slow i don't see anyone catching BM i dont' care how far they are running.

lol my 4 year old son made his very first handicapping observation today. he is a smart little fvcker but i mefan he's freaking 4 years old he doesn't really know what he is looking at but he loves horses just like his parents and will sit there with us and watch horse racing with us all day long. his mom LOVES creative cause. the gray horse. he knows who creative cause is. so we are watching the race and he is sitting there really starring. like he is trying to figure something out in his head. he's just sitting there looking. so he looks at me after the race and he says "dad why is cause (he calls him cause) close to the front this time? he don't do that. fvck i hadn't even really noticed that until he pointed it out iw as all concerned about the splits BM was running. i knew creative cause was close but not THAT close he was damn near stalking the lead. he doesn't run like that he's a pretty deep closer usually.

lol my wife said "oh ****" . lol little dude doesn't stand a chance. he's defiantly going to be a tracker.

 

[Robert28]

Creative Cause actually ran well today, he just isn't in the same class as BM and IHA.

Mike Smith is a dumb@$$ and lost that race, not BM. I'm sorry but you don't get beat the same way TWICE in a row. they weren't exactly the same, but close enough. That rookie jockey on IHA has showed up the hall of famer twice now.

I think people are overlooking who IHA fvcking trains with, travels with, pony's with....Lava Man. one of the best, if not the best California horse of ALL TIME and a horse that won over $5 mil in his career. as the guy on tv said "it's like having Arnold Palmer as your caddy." i mean hell he's hanging around with greatness! some of that is bound to rub off on him. hangout with a guy that can pickup ladies right and left and you're bound to learn a thing or two.

I'll wait and see who's going to run in the Belmont before I make my prediction. I'd love to see a tripple crown winner but something inside me tells me BM can't get beaten the same way a THIRD time....or can he? if Union Rags runs it'll be hard to bet against him. i've had to eat my words twice now because of IHA so maybe i'll go with him finally, who knows.

 

[backbreaker]

Creative Cause actually ran well today, he just isn't in the same class as BM and IHA.

Mike Smith is a dumb@$$ and lost that race, not BM. I'm sorry but you don't get beat the same way TWICE in a row. they weren't exactly the same, but close enough. That rookie jockey on IHA has showed up the hall of famer twice now.

I think people are overlooking who IHA fvcking trains with, travels with, pony's with....Lava Man. one of the best, if not the best California horse of ALL TIME and a horse that won over $5 mil in his career. as the guy on tv said "it's like having Arnold Palmer as your caddy." i mean hell he's hanging around with greatness! some of that is bound to rub off on him. hangout with a guy that can pickup ladies right and left and you're bound to learn a thing or two.

I'll wait and see who's going to run in the Belmont before I make my prediction. I'd love to see a tripple crown winner but something inside me tells me BM can't get beaten the same way a THIRD time....or can he? if Union Rags runs it'll be hard to bet against him. i've had to eat my words twice now because of IHA so maybe i'll go with him finally, who knows.

`

creative cause reminds me a lot of hard spun in the sense that he is very very good in his own right but will always take a 2nd seat to street sense adn curlin in the 07 class.

i mean, in reality, harrington should have sat this one out. not beucase creative cause could not win the race. but because from a tactical advantage he had no chance. creative cause is a deep closer or at least a mid pace horse. the ONLY chance he had to win the race with no speed in it was to stick to the pace and that's not his game. he ran well being out of his element today. running that close to the lead is not what he wants to do at all.

mike smith rode the derby perfectly. 10 out of 10. could not have rode that race any better. he knew he had the best horse in the race and said dammit beat me.

i will not criticize his ride today because he rode the race like he was supposed to if he knew he had the horse that was much the best which he did think.

keep in mind, bodemiester was what, about 5 or 7 lengthes in front of creative cause. technically mike smith was correct in his assessment for the most part. all he had to do was stay on the horse and not get him cooked and he will be very tough to beat. he just ran into a horse that was his huckleberry today.


they HAVE To met in the belmont. they just have to. this is a real rivery now. baffert can't let o'neil just take the first triple crown in 30 years because he chicken out of the belmont

i do not think IHA will win the triple crown for 3 reasons. 1 Kent D has ridden at belmont for 2 deacdes and still fvcked up 2 triple crowns by moving too early. it's too much to ask for a guy who has neve rseen the track in his life to nail that 12F track the first time. 2. i think the pace situation actually favors a strong front runner. people get so caught up with the distance and over look speed. they will be crawling. 25-51-1:13-1:38 type splits. these claibur horses can do that **** in their sleep.

but more than antyhing doug o'neil. i am afraid he thinks he has the best horse now and will think all he has to do is get him to the belmont healthy and he will win because he already showed he can beat BM so who else does he have to worry about.

 

[cordoncordon]

Its Alydar and Affirmed all over again.

Ill write more later but basically what it comes down to is this. These two horses have run against each other twice. First race was in HA's favor as far as pace, the 2nd race was in BM's favor pace wise. HA won both times.

That tells me all I need to know as far as who is the better horse. People can make all the excuses they want, but HA has won in a marathon, and he's won in a sprint.

 

[backbreaker]

Its Alydar and Affirmed all over again.

Ill write more later but basically what it comes down to is this. These two horses have run against each other twice. First race was in HA's favor as far as pace, the 2nd race was in BM's favor pace wise. HA won both times.

That tells me all I need to know as far as who is the better horse. People can make all the excuses they want, but HA has won in a marathon, and he's won in a sprint.

IMHO more easy goer / sunday silence than affirmed and alydar

BM had a legit excuse the first race and becuase of that excuse was under estimated in the 2nd race. i think the 2 horses are pretty equal in talent.


it took 2 races for shug to figure out how to beat sunday silence but when they did they demolished him. i am not asying IHA will be demolished that's just the vibe i get.

they assumed dthey could out kick him in the stetch and you can't. you have to create seperation from him eariler in the race.

 

[cordoncordon]

IMHO more easy goer / sunday silence than affirmed and alydar

BM had a legit excuse the first race and becuase of that excuse was under estimated in the 2nd race. i think the 2 horses are pretty equal in talent.


it took 2 races for shug to figure out how to beat sunday silence but when they did they demolished him. i am not asying IHA will be demolished that's just the vibe i get.

they assumed dthey could out kick him in the stetch and you can't. you have to create seperation from him eariler in the race.

BB, I've raced horses in I don't know.....15,000 races? And I have watched at least a million more. No lie. I have watched races every day of my life just about since I was 14 or so. One thing I have learned is some horses will just beat other horses (all other things being equal) because they are simply better. Not faster. Better. Cannot tell you how many times I have seen horses that on paper look to be in better form and going faster miles than another, but the 2nd horse will beat the first horse every time because they simply are better, have more heart, the will to win, who knows. In other words, they have class.

Horses aren't stupid. They know when they are winning or when they are the faster horse in a race. Some horses can suck along the whole mile and go in 1:52 and finish 5th against open type horses, but ask them to do that on their own and they can't go in 1:54. Those horses are what we call sulkers. I am not saying BM is, but the fact is he should have beat IHA in the Preakness IF he was the better horse because the race was set up perfectly for him to win. Got the lead easy. No pressure. Moderate fractions. IHA sat back and while not getting a terrible trip, he certainly had to run a tougher race than BM did. And bear in mind I went into the race thinking BM was the better horse based off of the Derby. He got pressured the whole way while running some heated fractions. So not only did he have to go faster than he wanted to, but there were other horses pressuring him, which can be even worse than going to fast. And to last the way he did, that was pretty special. So when he got the lead so easy in the Preakness, he really had no excuses to not win. And he would have against just about every other horse in the world on Saturday, except for the one horse who is simply better. I'll Have Another.

 

[backbreaker]

BB, I've raced horses in I don't know.....15,000 races? And I have watched at least a million more. No lie. I have watched races every day of my life just about since I was 14 or so. One thing I have learned is some horses will just beat other horses (all other things being equal) because they are simply better. Not faster. Better. Cannot tell you how many times I have seen horses that on paper look to be in better form and going faster miles than another, but the 2nd horse will beat the first horse every time because they simply are better, have more heart, the will to win, who knows. In other words, they have class.

Horses aren't stupid. They know when they are winning or when they are the faster horse in a race. Some horses can suck along the whole mile and go in 1:52 and finish 5th against open type horses, but ask them to do that on their own and they can't go in 1:54. Those horses are what we call sulkers. I am not saying BM is, but the fact is he should have beat IHA in the Preakness IF he was the better horse because the race was set up perfectly for him to win. Got the lead easy. No pressure. Moderate fractions. IHA sat back and while not getting a terrible trip, he certainly had to run a tougher race than BM did. And bear in mind I went into the race thinking BM was the better horse based off of the Derby. He got pressured the whole way while running some heated fractions. So not only did he have to go faster than he wanted to, but there were other horses pressuring him, which can be even worse than going to fast. And to last the way he did, that was pretty special. So when he got the lead so easy in the Preakness, he really had no excuses to not win. And he would have against just about every other horse in the world on Saturday, except for the one horse who is simply better. I'll Have Another.

I'm not going to get into a **** measuring context over this lol.

from a factual stanpoint, affirmed and alydar had a history before the derby, they met 4 times as 2YO's with them both winning 2 of the 4.

both went back to their collective corners and beat the **** out of local compeition, alydar on the east coast, affirmed on the west coast, and got ready for the main event thus being the triple crown. by the time they had gotten to the kentudy erby, it wasn't so much that either knew the other were better, but they had raced against each other enough to know each other, their running styles, what they do and do not like to do, so there was no getting to know each ohter. they both knew the other was extremely talanted. But affirmed by that time was a tad better and swept the triple crown.


like affirmed, sunday silience was a west coast horse, but unlike affirmed he was not a much taught of 2YO (like i'll have another). he blossemed as a 3YO (like i'll have another) while his counterpart easy goer (like bodemeister) got all the national pub.

easy goer (like bodemeister) won the the wood in a damn near record time and was the talk of the town going into the derby (like bodemesiter).

they met in the derby for the first time, and sunday silience took the first leg, and the 2nd, but lost in the third. they met later in the year in a winner take all breeders cup classic which sunday silence took by a neck over easy goer.


the problem with your assessment is that you are assuming that i am saying that i'll have another is not affirmed in the sense that he won't win the triple crown. that's a pretty childish assessment. first and foremost, it's not like affirmed/alydar beucase there was a LONG history of races between them before the derby whereas with bodemeiste rand i'll have another there was not, similar to easy goer/sunday silence.

in the first race, easy goer had a very legit excuse, he hated mud and it was a muddy track. he had a history of not runnig well in mud and ran to that history. Bodemeister had a very good excuse for not winning the derby after the fractions he set.


in the preakness, easy goer broke poorly but after htat had a realtivy good trip but just got beat. Like Bodemeister, Day's ride was called into question. Smith did not move soon enough in the stretch. That is another similarity.


they are more similar because like the races i have pointed out they have never met each other until now unlike affirmed and alydar, and the excuse pattern is very similar.

another reason you are wrong is you are saying that affirmed was definatly better than alydar but someone who has raced 15000 times should knwo that they ran against each other 10 times and alydar won 3 of them, you are trying to use the example to say that alydar was not going to beat affirmed but he did, 3 times. he just so happned to lose 3 in a row which happened to be the triple crown.


the fact that there is a get to know each other period, the jockey errors, the fact that they will met most likey 3 more times this year instead of 1, make this more like easy goer/sunday silence than affirmed/alydar.

 

[Down Low]

The Preakness is often Derby Part II, and it was again. Not really surprised at the result.

Wasn't Sunday Silence the last previous Santa Anita Derby winner to win the Kentucky Derby? Except when it had an artificial surface, Santa Anita has always been notoriously favorable to frontrunners. IHA inhales frontrunners. To beat IHA, all the other Belmont jocks have to do is to go to the rear and force IHA to the early lead. Good luck making the horses go along with that, though.

 

[cordoncordon]

I'm not going to get into a **** measuring context over this lol.

from a factual stanpoint, affirmed and alydar had a history before the derby, they met 4 times as 2YO's with them both winning 2 of the 4.

both went back to their collective corners and beat the **** out of local compeition, alydar on the east coast, affirmed on the west coast, and got ready for the main event thus being the triple crown. by the time they had gotten to the kentudy erby, it wasn't so much that either knew the other were better, but they had raced against each other enough to know each other, their running styles, what they do and do not like to do, so there was no getting to know each ohter. they both knew the other was extremely talanted. But affirmed by that time was a tad better and swept the triple crown.


like affirmed, sunday silience was a west coast horse, but unlike affirmed he was not a much taught of 2YO (like i'll have another). he blossemed as a 3YO (like i'll have another) while his counterpart easy goer (like bodemeister) got all the national pub.

easy goer (like bodemeister) won the the wood in a damn near record time and was the talk of the town going into the derby (like bodemesiter).

they met in the derby for the first time, and sunday silience took the first leg, and the 2nd, but lost in the third. they met later in the year in a winner take all breeders cup classic which sunday silence took by a neck over easy goer.


the problem with your assessment is that you are assuming that i am saying that i'll have another is not affirmed in the sense that he won't win the triple crown. that's a pretty childish assessment. first and foremost, it's not like affirmed/alydar beucase there was a LONG history of races between them before the derby whereas with bodemeiste rand i'll have another there was not, similar to easy goer/sunday silence.

in the first race, easy goer had a very legit excuse, he hated mud and it was a muddy track. he had a history of not runnig well in mud and ran to that history. Bodemeister had a very good excuse for not winning the derby after the fractions he set.


in the preakness, easy goer broke poorly but after htat had a realtivy good trip but just got beat. Like Bodemeister, Day's ride was called into question. Smith did not move soon enough in the stretch. That is another similarity.


they are more similar because like the races i have pointed out they have never met each other until now unlike affirmed and alydar, and the excuse pattern is very similar.

another reason you are wrong is you are saying that affirmed was definatly better than alydar but someone who has raced 15000 times should knwo that they ran against each other 10 times and alydar won 3 of them, you are trying to use the example to say that alydar was not going to beat affirmed but he did, 3 times. he just so happned to lose 3 in a row which happened to be the triple crown.


the fact that there is a get to know each other period, the jockey errors, the fact that they will met most likey 3 more times this year instead of 1, make this more like easy goer/sunday silence than affirmed/alydar.

BB you are not really grasping what I am saying, and I can only assume this is because you have never sat behind a horse (either training or in a race-harness racing, or sat on one doing the same-T bred racing). I could really give a rats ass about Sunday Silence or Easy Goer and how they compare to IHA and BM or Alyday and Affirmed. The fact of the matter is, when the chips were down, when the trainers had their horses honed to a razors edge, Affirmed was the better horse and he proved that 3 times. You are just going to have to take this from someone who has trained 1000's of horses. I know a horses personality as good as my own. I can tell you about every horse I have ever trained, what their personality is, what their heart is, where they were lame, what their will to win was. How hard they refused to get beat. And that is something that IHA has in spades.

I had a horse like that. Island Echo. Horse won over 100 races for me. Let me repeat that. 100 races. That is ****ing unheard of. Raced until he was 14. Echo is like IHA. Obviously not the same class of horse, but when he got in where he was the best horse class wise, even if he was in against horses going faster at the time, he ****ing won, regardless of the trip. I remember one race at Sports Creek when he was 13. He went for the lead and got parked the first half in 54:3. Now in harness racing, especially for a 13 year old horse, that is freaking suicide. But this horse, once he got the lead, was never beaten in the entire 12 years I raced him. Think about that. NEVER got beat once he got the lead. If he got the lead by the 1/4 pole? It was race over. He used to hit the top of the stretch and it was like he hit another gear. I remember when I went training miles with him. I would chirp to him at the top of the stretch and he would drop his azz and freaking fly. You know why? He had the will to win. Some have it, some don't. Anyway, he got parked that first half in 54:3, finally got the lead, and went on to win in 1:55 in the dead of winter. 13 years old. He knew he was the best horse and he would not get beat. IHA is like that. He may get beat, he probably will get beat at some point, but I have seen enough from both BM and IHA to know who I would put my money on everytime. When a front running horse like BM gets the lead, unpressured, with slow fractions? He should win every time. And he didn't. Why? Because IHA is simply better.

 

[Robert28]

I'm hearing rumors that BM isn't going to run in the Belmont. you know how reliable internet rumors are though. I did read that Union Rags is changing jockey's and is going to the Belmont to ruin someone's day

 

[backbreaker]

I'm hearing rumors that BM isn't going to run in the Belmont. you know how reliable internet rumors are though. I did read that Union Rags is changing jockey's and is going to the Belmont to ruin someone's day

word is that BM was pretty drained by the preakness and as of now he isn't going. He plans to send another horse Paynter ot the belmont.

paynter in his own right is damn good just not very well known. he's 2 for 3 and was good enough to be 6 to 1 in his 2nd start in the santa anita derby, and while he did not win he ran a good race. he is bred to run all day long.


it's not looking good for BM now going but i would not count him out just yet. with 3 weeks things can change. Zayat is a sporting type guy and if he can be there he will.

they are also thinking about horse of the year implications. keep in mind that the breeders cup clasic this year is at santa anita. they will both be there. also, the traditional last prep for west coast horses is the goodwood which is at, santa anita. it would not make sense to send your horse to another state just to prep to come back to your home track so both will probably prep there and both are travers, not haskell which is usually kinda the 2nd tier mid sumemr derby races

what i am saying there is a good chance they will go up against each other 3 times, this year and if they go to the belmont, and lose against IHA again, there is no way BM can come out ahead of IHA in the head to head matchup.

my only issue is, i want tos ee a triple crown winner but just like with big brown, i want them to have to earn it. iwas so happy big brown lost with that ****ty ass field. the only horse so far that can give him a run for his money is BM i don't want them to just hand the race to him.
]