I was never a fan of HS. I'm also not a fan of announcers feeling the need to speak about anything but the obvious in a race. This includes: commenting about the pace without looking at the splits; how hard a horse is being restrained, etc.

I'm open to an explanation, however, as to why running with (or just ahead of) Curlin early, and ahead of the filly, worked against HS and not the other two.

Don't you think that letting a horse relax and run using tactics he's more comfortable running allows a horse like HS to have more energy late, while also forcing others to run earlier?

pretty good, pretty good- thanks for asking. my blood pressure has dropped 20 points i think!

I think going without cover probably cost him more than not taking the lead. And, as best as I could determine, GG was pretty much long reigning him on the backstretch; which is not exactly the best way to restrain a horse.

I'll ask it a different way: why would going slower early hurt a horse that's accustomed to running faster on the front end than horses accustomed to running from the rear of the pack, that are closer?

Seems to me, when they turned for home, they all had pretty much the same setup.

Oh heck.
Maybe because the horses that were held
back were not as good. There have been horses that
are not as good steal races from horses that are better
by doing something really strange...

Being in front till its too late for the others that decided to waddle.


1:15 and a half at six furlongs... cmon.

Hard spun had the ability to set a moderately fast pace while well within himself and carry that speed a long long ways.
That changes the dynamics of the whole race.

This isn't a video game, where you can rate a high-cruiser like Hard Spun on crawling fractions, and his stamina will somehow translate to having tons of energy left for the turbo kick home.

Hard Spun runs better when allowed to run at his natural cruising speed, than he does when running a slow pace, he also sucks compared to others if the race is reduced to a contest of closing kicks.

Hard Spun couldn't have won anyway. Hard Spun shouldn't be confused as a better Belmont Stakes horse than Curlin or probably Rags to Riches, because they should beat him regardless of the dynamics. Rags to Riches clearly benefits in her face off with Curlin because of the race being slowed to a one-run contest, but HS's relative ability is no justification for Gomez's awful ride. Horses should get their best rides. Jockeys shouldn't go off on some sub-optimal freestyle.

It comes down to understanding the horse. Hard Spun is a horse that most horseplayers didn't have a good understanding of. I could even be wrong. I'm not, but it's possible. There should be a variety of opinions about the trips that Hard Spun got and how much was to blame on horrible rides vs. him being an "uncooperative" horse.

I know exactly what you are saying. However, I think getting HS out there in front by 4-5 lengths ends up forcing the hand of the jocks behind into premature moves, especially at a distance which is much longer and takes more patience than they're used to. That makes the horses playing catch-up use more energy earlier in the race, which helps the lone speed IMO.

I agree 100%, MTB has one style that he has truly excelled at and we know what that is...All you have to do is see his handling by Casey Lambert to know he does not like to be rushed. If this race is paceless I would hate to be on him at what most likely will be 2-1 with him roughly 10-15 lengths off of the leaders, and if he is injected sooner into a race without pace we all have seen he can be pretty mediocre.

my view is if the pace is too slow , say 49.00 1:14,for 3/4 MTB and others will be closer to the leader with an extra 1/4 mile to run than the derby. the leader CM or whoever might have some thing left after a slow pace however, no lead to capitalize on it. these late runners will run the last 3/8ths faster and if no big lead by pace-setter he's done. does this make sense..lol, in these ultra -long races MTB will not have to be injected,and will be closer to the leaders if pace is to slow, thus closers being close and having it their own way with-out moving to early, from my view point throught the years wwhen pace was honest in the belmont the leaders had an advantage with closers getting loss way back, maybe too far back because jockeys are afraid of moving to early at belmont. one huge plus for summer bird is Kd,he has this track down to a T.

That makes sense. If the front runners go slow, then the race is turned into a contest of closing kicks. It doesn't always favor the horse in front.

The danger obviously is that if one of the forwardly placed horses like Charitable Man is able to rate on the pace, they can be hard to pass in the stretch.

With this triple crown crop, sometimes we are getting too complex with all the different scenarios.
It may just be a case of whether or not a few of these guys will "fire" over the distance, much more than the advanced things like the fractions and who benefits the most.

After watching the first turn of last year's Belmont with Big Brown, it's hard for me to trust that guy

I understand your reasoning, not sure I agree 100% but that's all in the evaluation of races and horses. You do not have to convince me Mine That Bird has earned deserved respect, I was one that didn't need the Preakness to validate his performance in the Derby; however saying that I am just not convinced he can be equally effective running into slower splits and around wide sweeping turns. What we do know is MTB has 2 strong races with 46 halfs employing quick & decisive moves on tighter turning tracks. His runs at this point seem to be short explosive bursts, something I am not sure I can see happening at 1 1/2 and on Belmont's wide sweeping turns where a substained drive may be more effective.

i agree with you and CM just might have plenty of kick left,i just think in this long of a race standard pace set-ups can go awry. i feel the pace can be too fast or honest or too slow, and think the too slow does,nt always favor the leaders, either way fun talking about it and good-luck to you on belmont day.

well i really can't blame you but KD is been hot lately in the big races and i think moves this horse up, i am thinking of keying him and some str bets on SB good-luck belmont day

WHAT? My $$$ will be on MTB.

That's the way I thought too.. that type of scenario was HS's best chance of winning that day. I think Gomez took away HS's tactical advantage(ability to set a stiff pace) by restraining him.

There's no doubt SE was duped in the Belmont by the other jocks, but I don't see how Servis could have taken him off Smarty for that race. They had done nothing wrong together (jock & horse) in all of his previous starts. Could you imagine the controversy had he taken Stewart off for Day in the Belmont?

If you win the Triple Crown, of what consequence is the controversy to you, though?

I don't think Servis had the forethought to imagine that Bailey would do what he did. Do trainers really think of malicious acts ahead of time? I have no idea.

how are you supposed to fend off 2 suicide attacks in 1 race?

JDB was a great rider in his day , his ride on Eddington may have been the worst ride by a jockey in the history of the Belmont Stakes or any race at Belmont Park ever

That's not my point.. my point is the controversy it would have stirred before the race. he had no reason to take Elliot off.. especially for a reason like: there's a better jock out there. That's all I'm saying.