I don't agree that Cigar tailed off. He just faced better horses in the fall of 1996 than he was facing in 1995. In 1995, the other horses to hit the board in the JCGC and BC Classic were Unaccounted For, Star Standard, and La Carriere. In 1996, it was Skip Away, Louis Quatorze, and Alphabet Soup. Compare the records of the two sets of horses. Perhaps if the two seasons had been switched around, Cigar would have never won 16 in a row and it would look like he got better in 1996. He ran his 1996 Woodward a touch faster than 1995. His 1996 JCGC was faster than the previous year also. Better competition will always make a horse look worse than when he's facing mediocre comp.

Good post.. I never agreed that Cigar tailed off.. If he did, where did his 96 Woodward effort come from?

ok by the time he had the arlington cigar challenge he could have been beat by any number of horses......i was there he was not at all impressive

But then he came back and ran Skip Away to a neck in the JCGC while giving him five pounds and running faster than he had the year before. And we know what kind of horse Skip Away was. Skip Away, Louis Quatorze, and Alphabet Soup were light years better than what he was facing in 1995. If he would have had a chance to face his 1995 competition again in the fall of 1996, he would have had repeat wins in those races. Who knows how 1995 would have played out had Holy Bull not been injured?

That's what I was getting at by mentioning the 96 Woodward... sandwiched between his losses he looks like the Cigar of old beating up on his friends L'Carriere and Golden Larch...

This is not the race of a horse tailing off.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raK2IZE4Bik

by the same token, his win over hard spun in the bcc was about the same as street sense in the derby. they all traded wins over each other. hard to say really who would have been best this year, since only one of the top five from last year is around. i think it may well have been more of the same.
certainly would have been more interesting than what we've had.

I agree. SS was not very sound at 3 and Carl did a great job with him. Let's face it, while his Travers looked impressive, the horse he barely beat has not covered himself in glory since. In fact, I don't think Grasshopper has won a race since that allowance at the Spa. Hard Spun was never in danger from Street Sense at Turfway and while mud was not he's best surface, he was very dull at Monmouth.
Overall I'd say SS was never has good as he looked at Churchill and never as bad as he looked at Monmouth.

You're right as far as his Saratoga performances leaving a bit to be desired, but at Turfway, he was likely "prepping" (as he did at Keeneland), typical of Carl Nafzger leading up to big races (see Unbridled and Banshee Breeze also).

Even still, the Saratoga races can be forgiven in that the Jim Dandy was a comeback race and, though you can certainly disagree, the Travers was too far. In the BC Classic, he made his move alongside Curlin but the distance and likely the "tired horse" factor came into play (not to mention the surface).

Anyways, what was being assumed with Street Sense at 4 was that he would obviously get a break after the BC and would be 100% at the start of his campaign. I'd imagine he'd uncork efforts similar to the ones Victory Gallop displayed in 1999 (all 2 or 3 of them).

Yeah. He wasn't himself at Monmouth.

Probably cuz he never ran there...

Didn't he run in the classic there last year?

Brutal. I had it in my head that Linny was talking about Hard Spun in the Haskell. Talk about eating sh!t...

Calgon...take my post away!

1. Quiet Chris ... lol

2. Can't say for sure since Curlie was pharmacologically-altered by virtue of his abusive 'roid regimen last season. Haven't found any evidence that either SS or HS received injections of an anabolic steroid on a regular basis.

By the way, could Curlie's acceleration issues this season have anything to do with his being off the 'program'?

3. HS threw some nice performances at various distances and held up well all season long ... likely without the help of anabolic steroids. Not saying he was superior to Curlie ... just that it's difficult to compare a chemically-altered athlete to one that probably wasn't enhanced by steroids.

4. No opinion

5. Good question

If someone is pressed for time, though, I would suggest just watching all of Ghostzapper's races beginning with the '03 King's Bishop. He/she will learn a lot about the following thoroughbred traits: speed, class, brilliance, determination, versatility, stamina.

Would've made Curlie look like a Chuck Town claimer.

6. Don't know much about this Mambo beast, but if he runs in the BCC and finishes ahead of Curlie (and Big Brownroid for that matter) he'll be okay in my book.

Yeah, seeing those two 'roid freaks go down at the BC ... wouldn't that be a great way to usher out the despicable steroid abuse era in thoroughbred racing...

Greeley's Legacy

trust that hard spun recieved some steroids.

steroids aren't even considered cheating to most of these trainers. Most of the big money operations give regular steroids after races and some after works as well.
It is true that some trainers give steroids more often, but it seems to hurt longevity of the horse. I would guess that most of the more frequent doses are with fillies and claimers.

Hard Spun was a great animal. He got some bad rides in some of his biggest races (preakness, belmont, breeders cup).
Pino and Gomez had one of the triple crown colts with the most stamina at a classic distance looking like a miler to many observers.

He was never developed as a turf division older horse. If you think about the way Sunriver was used, you could have thrown Dominguez on Hard Spun's back in 2008 and you might have been headed for the BC Turf as the favorite.

However, Larry Jones did his job and HS got his stud deal. It's hard to really complain when they accomplished their business objective. They danced a lot of dances, it was a respectable 3yo season.

Another "Worst BC Favorites" thread stowaway?