The Preakness

Tessablue
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 7:05 pm

Sun May 21, 2017 4:19 pm

So I want to point out that Cloud Computing closed really well. His final 3/16ths was in roughly 18 3/5 which matches up very favorably with the fastest Preakness finishers of the past few decades. It's also very difficult to run down a pace horse who is loose in deep stretch, so I'm not sure where the Julien criticism is coming from because that was the best way to win that race. Cloud Computing had a great trip but had the be the best horse on the square to win it. I have to say, I knew he was talented but I did not expect him to finish as strongly as he did. He has a very bright future.

And I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people are mad at Brown, but he did what a trainer is supposed to do: train a horse to win a race. Good for him. Nobody seemed to mention or care that Casse effectively ran a rabbit in the Derby, but that is, again, what trainers do. Try to win races. Not exactly a controversy.
User avatar
Turul
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:32 pm
Location: California

Sun May 21, 2017 4:26 pm

BlindLucky wrote:
So where's the hate for Casse and World Approval, who won the Dixie earlier on the card and has been sitting in the barn since April 2?
Or Moquett and Whitmore, who won the Maryland Sprint Stakes and has been sitting in the barn since April 15?
Or Bill Mott and Yoshida, who won the James W. Murphy Stakes and hasn't run since April 9?
Or hell, how about Arrogate coming into last year's BC Classic on 2+ months rest?
Or does the "winner didn't run two weeks ago and is therefore a coward" angle only apply to the Preakness and/or Belmont?

The Derby/Preakness/Belmont is not an actual series, no matter how much we pretend it is. I expect this "coward" stuff from Facebook comments where people don't understand that it's three distinct races in three separate states at three different tracks under three different racing jurisdictions, but here? Should Chad Brown have instructed the jock to take back if a horse that ran in the Derby looked like it was going to win? Or out of deference to Derby runners, should the field have been confined to Classic Empire, Lookin at Lee, Gunnevera, Always Dreaming, and Hence? That sure would have been exciting.

Owners/trainers enter where they think they have the best shot of getting to the wire first. That's what horse racing is all about. Classic Empire is a game horse with guts who got run down in the stretch by a horse who didn't run in the clusterf*** of a Derby they had this year. Oh well, it happens. Not often, but it happens.

I'm more interested in the fact that Chad Brown won the Preakness with his first starter in the race, and that Mclean's Music (who I think is a really good looking stallion) got his first Grade 1 winner from his first crop in a Classic.
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

The Triple Crown races are unique in the sense that if a horse wins all three of them, he/she gets elevated to a status only 12 horses in US racing history were able to do.

Winning one of them carries prestige but not even close to the effort of attempting all three. For the same reason, a horse entering only one, especially after a long layoff, always carries the
"spoiler" tag.

Sorry to disappoint you, but IMO the entry strategy to the TC races should be changed: only those should be allowed to contest them who enter all three, barring unforeseen circumstances.
Looking into the eyes of Cigar was a life changing experience.
BaroqueAgain1
Posts: 10527
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:16 pm

Sun May 21, 2017 4:37 pm

I didn't know Steve Coburn was a poster here. :P :lol:
Seriously, it's a bad idea...not to mention both impractical and probably illegal...to limit the Preakness and Belmont to only horses that ran in the Derby. If that happened, by the time the Belmont rolled around, we might be down to only four or five horses still fit and healthy enough to run. Maybe less. :roll:
middleground
Posts: 505
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:29 pm

Sun May 21, 2017 4:40 pm

Imagine the excitement of the crowd at last year's Lani-Exaggerator matchup.
User avatar
Turul
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:32 pm
Location: California

Sun May 21, 2017 4:41 pm

BaroqueAgain1 wrote:I didn't know Steve Coburn was a poster here. :P :lol:
Seriously, it's a bad idea...not to mention both impractical and probably illegal...to limit the Preakness and Belmont to only horses that ran in the Derby. If that happened, by the time the Belmont rolled around, we might be down to only four or five horses still fit and healthy enough to run. Maybe less. :roll:
I assume you are familiar with TC race history. It has not been unheard of to have 3 or 4 entries in the Belmont. You remember how many ran when Secretariat won the Belmont?
Looking into the eyes of Cigar was a life changing experience.
BlindLucky
Posts: 3314
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:22 am
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Sun May 21, 2017 4:52 pm

Turul wrote:Sorry to disappoint you, but IMO the entry strategy to the TC races should be changed: only those should be allowed to contest them who enter all three, barring unforeseen circumstances.
Again, the races are not actually associated with each other. But you want Pimlico and Belmont to agree to give up any control over their own Classic fields and let Churchill Downs' prep race point system dictate who can enter races run at two other, unaffiliated tracks? :lol:

Sorry to disappoint you, but there is a better chance of Silver Charm coming out of retirement and running in the BC Classic.
Photos from my racing travels: ThoroughbredJourney.com
katmandu
Posts: 1220
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:16 am

Sun May 21, 2017 4:54 pm

Kudos to Chad Brown for placing the horse wisely/strategically. Sure he knew the 6 week rest vs. 2 weeks was an advantage, that's rather obvious. The horse is also very lightly raced, he didn't throw him into the scrum fest that is the Derby. That's putting the horse and his potentiation first. That's also why it's hard to win the Triple Crown and makes it "special". The horse's connections are from Maryland, winning the Preakness was meaningful to them beyond the fact that it is a classic.

Saying that the TC should be limited to horses that only start in all 3 races is right up there with changing the timing and/or the Belmont distance.

Maybe a special ribbon to the horses that compete in all 3 races. . . . . ? ;)
stark
Posts: 5439
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Sun May 21, 2017 4:58 pm

Turul wrote:
I assume you are familiar with TC race history. It has not been unheard of to have 3 or 4 entries in the Belmont.
I, along with NBC, can hardly wait for your idea to come true, sitting on pins and needles.
Jerry and Randy can have the same pick, Eddie and Bob can share a different one, Donna can have her own pick, and we can cut down on the TV pre-show to about 6 minutes.
Image

And if Baffert enters two, bet the longshot, it should be about 8/5 or so!
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
Apollo
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:05 pm

Sun May 21, 2017 4:58 pm

Turul wrote:You remember how many ran when Secretariat won the Belmont?
Only one horse ran, considering how fast the track was playing in 1973.

I guess Sham gets an excuse for breaking down. Come to think of it, Sham gets an excuse for everything. But he had a big heart. We have to keep that in mind.

If Chad Brown despises the media he's a dip but in terms of strategy I don't care if he enters 5 horses in the Preakness with every combination of style and rest. Play bumper car with the Derby winner if you have to.

These young horses are still learning, after all. Can't rob them of vital and varied experiences.
User avatar
Turul
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:32 pm
Location: California

Sun May 21, 2017 5:23 pm

BlindLucky wrote:
Turul wrote:Sorry to disappoint you, but IMO the entry strategy to the TC races should be changed: only those should be allowed to contest them who enter all three, barring unforeseen circumstances.
Again, the races are not actually associated with each other. But you want Pimlico and Belmont to agree to give up any control over their own Classic fields and let Churchill Downs' prep race point system dictate who can enter races run at two other, unaffiliated tracks? :lol:

Sorry to disappoint you, but there is a better chance of Silver Charm coming out of retirement and running in the BC Classic.
What the heck is that supposed to mean? It sounds like an MSNBC jab.
Looking into the eyes of Cigar was a life changing experience.
User avatar
Turul
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:32 pm
Location: California

Sun May 21, 2017 5:24 pm

Apollo wrote:
Turul wrote:You remember how many ran when Secretariat won the Belmont?
Only one horse ran, considering how fast the track was playing in 1973.

I guess Sham gets an excuse for breaking down. Come to think of it, Sham gets an excuse for everything. But he had a big heart. We have to keep that in mind.

If Chad Brown despises the media he's a dip but in terms of strategy I don't care if he enters 5 horses in the Preakness with every combination of style and rest. Play bumper car with the Derby winner if you have to.

These young horses are still learning, after all. Can't rob them of vital and varied experiences.
I don't care for Brown. He is fishing in murky waters.

You will never see him among the great ones.
Looking into the eyes of Cigar was a life changing experience.
Spahny
Posts: 1037
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 9:02 pm

Sun May 21, 2017 5:33 pm

Turul wrote:
Spahny wrote: Cloud Computing was not exactly flying home. He edged past a very tired horse that actually showed heart and fought back as well as he could when collared and passed. I can't imagine this is going to be a very highly rated Preakness.

Always Dreaming was under pressure on the inside. I don't think he liked that much. He quit. It was only his fifth race. Hopefully he is back to fight again.
Full agreement here. CC opportunistically used the race to beat CE who slogged out the Derby and Preakness while he was sitting in his barn.

I can't appreciate "strategies" like this. Only the coward and opportunistic take advantage like this. It is not sportsmanlike.

I very much doubt Brown will enter CC in the Belmont.
The only reason I am addressing this response is to disassociate myself with it. I have no problem with anything Chad Brown did with Cloud Computing and do not believe he had an unfair advantage. Not even close.
Tessablue
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 7:05 pm

Sun May 21, 2017 5:45 pm

Yeah let's force trainers to ruin their horses in order to appeal to certain people's ideological purity. Let's also hold three-horse Belmonts just like the good old days, then complain when horses repeatedly win the Triple Crown and handle on the races plummets. Where do people come up with this stuff?
Admin
Posts: 1828
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 5:35 pm

Sun May 21, 2017 5:52 pm

I don't have a problem with a horse not running in all three (whether it's a spoiler coming in fresh or a good horse skipping, etc) as a matter of rule (as in what should be allowed), but I've also no problem if someone complains me about it or gives or takes away brownie points for winning and losing in such scenarios.
"This is how we roll in the Shire." -- Leonard
carole
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:57 pm

Sun May 21, 2017 6:40 pm

I wish the 3 races could stand alone. Just like no one really bothers that much about the English Triple Crown. You got the right horse for that race on that track at that distance? Brilliant, run him there rather than also stuffing him in a race where he has no chance and is going to get a bad experience out of it. If you think about it, skipping races that won't suit the horse is really doing the best for the horse, especially one so young. I think with older horses you could make a case for trainers ducking but with 2/3yos I think it's better to get good experiences into the horse.

Sure though, if you have a champion, test them! If Casse thinks CE is a champion, he had to test him, part of that test is seeing if he can win against fresh horses.
tcw
Posts: 1133
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:18 am

Sun May 21, 2017 7:31 pm

If the horse is good enough to win all 3 races like AP and the 11 before him, they will... it's really that simple.
BlindLucky
Posts: 3314
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:22 am
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Sun May 21, 2017 7:48 pm

Turul wrote:
BlindLucky wrote:
Turul wrote:Sorry to disappoint you, but IMO the entry strategy to the TC races should be changed: only those should be allowed to contest them who enter all three, barring unforeseen circumstances.
Again, the races are not actually associated with each other. But you want Pimlico and Belmont to agree to give up any control over their own Classic fields and let Churchill Downs' prep race point system dictate who can enter races run at two other, unaffiliated tracks? :lol:

Sorry to disappoint you, but there is a better chance of Silver Charm coming out of retirement and running in the BC Classic.
What the heck is that supposed to mean? It sounds like an MSNBC jab.
I have no clue what your statement means, I'm just trying to point out that there is no ruleset precluding a horse running in the Preakness that didn't run in the Derby--and there never will be--because Pimlico would never agree to it. In kind, NYRA would never let themselves be at the mercy of restricting entries into their Classic race with something that was dependent on another track. Maybe if all three races were held at Churchill Downs, but I still don't see it.

American Pharoah was good enough to win the Triple Crown against a completely "fresh" field. If a rule like this was in place in 2015, it would have been a walkover. He was the only one in the field that ran in all 3 races.
Photos from my racing travels: ThoroughbredJourney.com
User avatar
CoronadosQuest
Posts: 1637
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:44 pm

Sun May 21, 2017 8:28 pm

BlindLucky wrote:
Turul wrote:
BlindLucky wrote: Again, the races are not actually associated with each other. But you want Pimlico and Belmont to agree to give up any control over their own Classic fields and let Churchill Downs' prep race point system dictate who can enter races run at two other, unaffiliated tracks? :lol:

Sorry to disappoint you, but there is a better chance of Silver Charm coming out of retirement and running in the BC Classic.
What the heck is that supposed to mean? It sounds like an MSNBC jab.
I have no clue what your statement means, I'm just trying to point out that there is no ruleset precluding a horse running in the Preakness that didn't run in the Derby--and there never will be--because Pimlico would never agree to it. In kind, NYRA would never let themselves be at the mercy of restricting entries into their Classic race with something that was dependent on another track. Maybe if all three races were held at Churchill Downs, but I still don't see it.

American Pharoah was good enough to win the Triple Crown against a completely "fresh" field. If a rule like this was in place in 2015, it would have been a walkover. He was the only one in the field that ran in all 3 races.
And then we would be hearing complaints of how American Pharoah wasn't worthy of his Triple Crown because nobody faced him in the 3rd leg.
sweettalk
Posts: 2137
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 5:05 pm

Sun May 21, 2017 9:51 pm

i've heard people say it anyway, so limiting the TC to just the derby gate would make it 100x worse.

i've definitely wanted that limit, bitterly, after the belmont in a 2/3 year. but it's just not realistic in any universe. and when the emotions are gone, that thought goes with them. the TC is fine as is, heartbreak and all.
User avatar
Starine
Posts: 4842
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 12:39 am
Location: South Carolina

Sun May 21, 2017 10:37 pm

BaroqueAgain1 wrote:I didn't know Steve Coburn was a poster here. :P :lol:
Seriously, I was just about to post that. I can't believe people are posting similar tripe.
Post Reply