Michael,

Good question. My exact quote on this was:

My experience with the Belmont is that pattern analysis holds up fine. The one caveat is that horses coming off big new tops are extraordinarily likely to bounce and bounce big, especially if the distance breeding is not there. I also think that there is a slightly greater risk that horses will run poorly relative to their top given the distance, but I don't have enough data behind that conclusion to make a sweeping generalization.

I read Christ's diary and I'm not sure there is anything in his column of use to someone trying to handicap this race. First, he takes issue with the 'trendy' handicappers' argument that "the pace is softer, everyone just gallops early, and the race would turn out about the same if it were 9 1/2 or 10 furlongs rather than 12."

Well that's not the argument I made or the argument that I read the others on this board are making. I have argued there is a stronger correlation between speed/pattern and the results than breeding and results.

Two additional questions to Christ on this point:

1) Did the winners who 'overhauled' those horses who "handled everything except 12 furlongs" have slower numbers and worse patterns than the horses they collared inside the 1/4 pole? I don't think so. All of the winning horses were either just about as fast or had a better pattern coming into the race.

2) Did we know enough about the contenders going into the race to say with confidence that they would either flourish or fail at 12f? While some horses were easy to peg as likely to run well at 12f (A.P. Indy, Victory Gallop), others were not so easy. Bet Twice? Thunder Gulch? (he supposedly couldn't go 1 1/4 miles), Commendable? Tabasco Cat?

As usual it's always good to have a theory, but facts are usually better, as long as there are enough of them to make a judgment and there is a reasonable explanation for them.

Based on the results from the last 10 years it appears that the fastest horses going in who had solid patterns are the ones who ran well. I don't have sheets going further back but my limited memory is that this trend held true at least back to the late 80s. And that is not coincidence. That's what we find every day at the races at all kinds of distances at all levels.

There also did not appear to be a significant difference between the ability of a horse to get 10 furlongs and 12 furlongs. The far more important factors were the numbers and the pattern.

If a horse was on a downward trend from a big top (e.g., Winning Colors, Unbridled, Cavonnier) or immediately coming off a big top (a bunch of non-contenders who got bet because they had just popped a big number in the Peter Pan or Withers) they ran terrible, probably worse than if they had been running a shorter distance. I also don't think that any horse coming off a significant new top (4 or more points) in his prior race has run particularly well. None of them have won recently.

Bottom Line: All things equal (number and pattern), the breeding of a horse might make you shade a horse + or - 10-15% of his chances (i.e. an 8:1 might become 7:1), but trying to cut the line too fine will probably hurt you in this kind of race.