Note finalized AQU Saturday figs -- reflected above -- were adjusted down two ticks..

considering his history, it may have more to do with soundness than anything.

Even if I completely believe he was hurt, I don't think it has anything to do with soundness - he did it last year as a 2 year old in the Remsen. I think if the horse had issues, Mott wouldn't be planning such an ambitious schedule - and I don't even think he'd be running next year, truthfully. They just got the grade 1, and in a mile race which breeders love. Weber could easily just retire the colt at this point. I just think the horse is still somewhat immature - hopefully time will take care of that.

It also mentioned his main objective was the Met Mile (May 28th) followed by running in races like the Stephen Foster (June 16th.)
I would bet a lung he doesn't get wheeled back in three weeks, if he runs well in the Met.

sure he's 'planning it' you can plan anything. i can see a green two year old having lead issues, but an almost four year old? some soundness issues doesn't preclude racing, plenty of horses have run even though they weren't a picture of soundness. they have nothing to lose by running him next year. he has a shot to do well as an older horse, and get some wins to help make a stud deal for him.

:tro:

No one really goes Met-Foster, right? I would think prep somewhere, Met, Whitney, maybe Woodward then JCGC, BCC. 5 or 6 race campaign max.

I would think the Suburban would fit in nicely between the Met and the Whitney.

Plus, he'll also probably try for a repeat in the Cigar Mile after he gets swallowed up down the lane in the BC Classic.

Suburban would make sense, but these horses just dont run that much anymore. The handicap division feels pathetic for 2012 unless Im forgetting about someone.

Not sure why they wouldn't take the Quality Road path to start off the year. . . The Donn's just a month before the Gulfstream H., so it's not like he'd be rushed. . . I can't imagine he wouldn't be odds-on there and, if he's healthy, 1 1/8 at GP should be perfect for him. . . that's if you assume he wasn't 100% when he was down there as a 3-year-old.

Then you get plenty of time before the Met Mile, then the Saratoga races--one or both--and some prep before the BC. I'd probably ship him out to Cali for the Goodwood to get a race over the track and not have to go 10f back-to-back, but not sure they'll do that.

Bill Mott doesn't tend to sit on his horses once they get going.

The battle of attrition for champion 3yo pretty much tells you that the handicap division will be light once again next year. Hopefully, horses will come out of the woodworks (from Europe, turf division, late bloomers, etc.) and others will be transferred to move-up trainers (fingers crossed that Shackleford goes to Bob Baffert).

The Strub Series will give horses like Smash, Industry Leader, Fast Bullet, Centralinteligence, Indian Winter, and Sway Away a chance to stretch out and at least become filler for the handicap division. Ultimate Eagle might have to try dirt, too, if he finds 12f too far or 8f to sharp on the turf.

Good points...it is all just speculation as we really don't and wont know for sure, though.


So now the BSF is 104? I dont get the change

The figures that were out yesterday were never the final figures. They were part of a discussion which ultimately resulted in the numbers for the day being reduced by two points.

You would have understood it if they had raised them all two points. Trust me, regardless of what you think, it's not personal.

you'd have to think all three spring classis winners will be back; how good they'll turn out to be tho.....who knows?

No actually I would not have understood it..and despite what you think, I didn't take it personally. Why would I? I have never understood how Beyers work

Do you also completely lack any sense of humor in real life?

if you don't understand how they work, how can you question a number coming back different than you felt it should get-if you don't know how they arrive at a number to begin with? or do you just think every time a horse runs it should be higher than the time before?

I'll never understand it. Seems like almost weekly someone complains about a number, yet readily admits they don't understand how the number is reached.

i really just don't see how someone can say it's too high or too low, if they don't get how such numbers are derived in the first place! if you don't get it, how can you argue it?? i'm guessing not very well.

I have no idea why you are asking that question - did you want me to tell a joke? I'm not sure if you thought I was upset, but I wasn't ; I'm sorry if I upset you. Have a nice night.