While I don't agree with PA's claims about Assmussen not being a good route trainer, his win record doesn't prove anything. . . He races a lot of horses at lower level tracks where there are a ton of shorter races and very few classic distanced races. . .

Well stated, DrugS

In track (bike) racing, the rider who can push the bigger gear has a huge advantage. While he can go faster than the other cyclists while spinning less RPMs, he also needs to be stronger and have more stamina in order to push the bigger gear. Given enough distance of ground, and assuming an UNobstructed path, this rider will always win. The others might spin smoother and quicker than he can but in the long run he'll be going the fastest. Simple physics.

And that's exactly what happened in the Preakness. Curlin took a long time to get into gear. Despite lagging early, a needlessly wide trip, and taking longer to change in the lane than the others, when he finally got that big gear moving, it was all over. That was a TURF TYPE late move on the dirt.

Now, how does this horse lose in the Belmont? There won't be a 20 horse obstacle course (like the Derby). Hard Spun can go as slow or as fast as he wants. If he goes too fast, he's cooked. If he goes too slow, when it comes time to sprint in the lane, he can't match the bigger gear pusher.

Simple as that.

He can regress and there is a good chance he will regress. The problem is nothing in the race besides Tiago can come get him if he doesnt run as well as he has. Hes due to come back to earth on Belmont day.

Doesn't this assume that all the horses/bikers are travelling at a constant velocity?

Does this still work if Hard Spun gets a soft pace and essentially gets a "head start" on Curlin?

This is a bizarre misunderstanding of the truth.

Since you don't know what DrugS said, " training the speed out of " a horse refers to taking a horse with strong natural early speed and getting it to come from off the pace, which is exactly what was done with Curlin.

For another example of this I suggest you find the lifetime pps from Cryptoclearance.

WTF?!

Yeah, I'm not sure what he meant.

Hard Spun has without a doubt the best distance pedigree of any colt in the race. You can't go by dosage. Even the creator of the system says its tremendously flawed.
So here is the case for Hard Spun. His sire (Danig) sired a Preakness winner (Pine Bluff) and a Belmont winner (Danig Connection).
Far more important than that however is Hard Spun's dam-side pedigree, which is generally considered the more important side of a horse's pedigree in terms of distance. Look at the stallions in the three key positions of Hard Spun's dam-side pedigree. They are Turkoman, Alydar, and Roberto. Two of those three were multiple G1 winners at 10f and the other was a multiple G1 winner at 12f. They have all sired their share of routers as well. You can't ask for much better than that.

Now, pedigree certainly DOES matter in the Belmont. It probably matters more in this race than any other race run all year. It is important to use it as only ONE tool however. DrugS is spot on with what he says about Hard Spun. He has a great pedigree for this race, but his form will probably still prevent him from being effective at this distance. The colt doesn't seem able to relax. That trumps pedigree. The key is to find a horse that has a pedigree and (more importantly) a running style that will allow him (or perhaps this year....her) to be effective at this distance.

Why are people so quick to dismiss the "wise guy" Kentucky Derby flop angle. It's a mile and a half race so anything can happen.

Tiago just reminds me of Birdstone. I think Birdstone also finished 7th in the Derby. Besides that, Tiago is lightly raced so who knows how good he could be?

I am not going to say that Tiago has no chance at all, but Birdstone had a couple things going fo him that Tiago didn't.
1) Birdstone certainly had a 12f pedigree. Tiago's isn't bad but look at Birdstone's. His pedigree (horses like Hush Dear etc.) was perfect.
2) Birdstone had alread won a major stakes race over the Belmont surface.
3) Birdstone was, in my opinion, simply a better horse. I still believe he was an underrated animal on a dry surface. He ran on a wet surface in the Derby and one of his prep races (maybe the Florida Derby? I can't remember for sure) and he ran poorly. On a dry surface though he was pretty good.
Tiago hasn't raced that many times, so maybe he will still turn out to be a good one, but I wouldn't compare him to Birdstone quite yet.

I think he was talking about me at the end of a mile and an eighth.