Re: Always negative (805 Views)
Posted by:
Cartman (IP Logged)
Date: May 08, 2009 11:07AM
That was an excellent summary. I would add one thing.
I don't think running fast is what takes a toll on a horse. It's running hard. It just so happens that running fast and running hard are often the same thing, but that's not always the case.
This is the kind of effort that takes a toll: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgj9LeZEUpo
This is the kind of effort that does not: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNkBuJtds58
I don't know the psychological term for it, but when people have a theory they tend to look for evidence to prove themselves right and ignore evidence against themselves. They also tend to data-mine.
Those that saw Big Brown as vulnerable in the Belmont will point to the Preakness and say he had an easy race but still bounced. But they are ignoring the fact that he missed training because of a RECURRING hoof problem that was totally unrelated to the Preakness.
In my opinion, Rachel Alexandra has no chance of duplicating her -4 in the Preakness (assuming she goes), but it won't be because that effort drained her. She won't get nearly as easy a trip in the Preakness as she got in the Oaks. I don't mean to diminish her excellence, but she sat off a vastly inferior rival, galloped past her, and was never challenged at any point in the race. I think that says almost as much about the quality of her competition as it does about her potential greatness. In the Preakness, she will face quality competition on the front end and then have to repulse multiple challenges late. That's the race that could take a toll because she's well into this campaign and already at her short term peak.