Now he " didn't try ".

He was outrun.

I gotta say, I have enjoyed reading this thread, and am strongly on the side of the posters who claim he was never as good as his unearned reputation and is now being exposed. Hey, I give a lot of credit to his connections, he danced every dance last year ( save perhaps the Vosburgh ) and shipped back and forth across the country. He ran in all the big 3YO races and it is hardly his fault the competition sucked ( and sucked it did ). But, it is a very dangerous thing to evaluate horses by being overly result oriented.

The truth is out now and the Emporer has no clothes.

I think you have 6 options with the Fog:


1. Retire him due to injuries (sounds like he is not near 100%)

2. Continue to try him in G1 sprints, and try to overcome the extremely fast fractions.

3. Pick and choose easier graded spots, with smaller fields, likely get another win streak and look impressive like last year, but won't silence any skeptics.

4. Try the turf... his pedigree says he should handle it, and it may help with the injuries.

5. Strech him out, see what he can do at 8-8.5F when he is assured to have everything his own way on the front end. No longer any pressure to go the BC.

6. Give him one more start to fittingly go out a winner, knowing its his last, at Golden Gate called the 100k Lost in the Fog Stakes, and give the fans one last chance to appreciate one of the best bay area sprinters of all time showcasing his talent. (Hope Carthage does not show up).


While I don't think he was near as bad as he looked at Calder, it may be clearer now that he needs a softer early pace if he is going to look like he did last year. While this means he is not the greatest sprinter of all time, he certainly is a very solid horse who deserves all the credit in the world.


So, which option would you choose?

From my post on page 2 of this thread on Saturday, July 15 at 11:31pm ...

"Not gonna be a 'next out' ... they'll retire him while they still can round up some gullible investors to form a stallion syndicate. If they run him again ... they won't be able to con anyone. Look for the staged 'bone chips ... best interest of the horse' press conference by next week."

And from my post on page 3, Saturday, 11:52pm ...

"Lost Like A Fraud 'won' an Eclipse Award ... and he's from the Danzig branch of the Northern Dancer line ... and he's got Secretariat, Ribot, and Native Dancer in his pedigree ... that's enough to sweet-talk some eager, wealthy investors into buying into a syndicate. It won't be a $100 million dollar syndicate ... but if you can get $5 million or even $3 million ... that's a heckuva lot more than this fraud will ever win in ungraded stakes races at Golden Gate. Dontcha think? Yeah ... it'll be 'bone chips' and 'for the good of the horse' ... any day now."

I can see through these people like a laser beam through tissue paper. At least they're being a little more honest about it than Lying-Through-My-Nose-Tubes "Chappy" was with Smarty Jones ... and I applaud them for that.

"Maybe it’s you who needs to learn a bit more on evaluating horses when they race against weak fields. I was the one who wasn’t fooled by his wins over weak fields. Frankly this is so obvious I’m surprised that it is taking people so long to catch on."[/quote]

As I said before, I have no problem judging a horse's ability even off a maiden win. Practically every horse I have bought or have tried to buy privately was off a race where they pretty much beat nobody. I usually don't buy horses after they have won a stakes race. I usually buy horses off a maiden win and sometimes an allowance win. It's the way the horse moves that is the most important thing. I don't care who is behind them. There doesn't have to be anyone behind them. As I told you before, I can judge a horse's ability from watching them work alone. At the 2 year old sales, the horses don't work in company. They usually work either an 1/8th of a mile or a 1/4 of a mile alone. If I didn't have a great eye, people wouldn't fly me all over the country on private jets to pick out horses for them. My eye is as good as anyone's in the business. I don't think anyone's batting average is higher than mine when it comes to picking out huge winners to buy. I tried to buy both Roses in May and English Channel before either of them had ever won a stakes race. We tried to buy Wild Fit off of her maiden win. We were offering huge amounts of money for these horses too. We offered $800,000 for Wild Fit off her maiden win. We offered $700,000 for English Channel off an allowance win and $1 million for Roses in May off an allowance win. These horses beat nobody in the races I tried to buy them off, yet we had no problem offering huge money for these horses because I was extremely confident in the ability off all three of these horses. I didn't look at any pace figures either. I am one of the only people in the business who gets a free 10% ownership in every horse I select. It must be beacuse I'm a nice guy.

As I said before, I have no problem judging a horse's ability even off a maiden win. Practically every horse I have bought or have tried to buy privately was off a race where they pretty much beat nobody. I usually don't buy horses after they have won a stakes race. I usually buy horses off a maiden win and sometimes an allowance win. It's the way the horse moves that is the most important thing. I don't care who is behind them. There doesn't have to be anyone behind them. As I told you before, I can judge a horse's ability from watching them work alone. At the 2 year old sales, the horses don't work in company. They usually work either an 1/8th of a mile or a 1/4 of a mile alone. If I didn't have a great eye, people wouldn't fly me all over the country on private jets to pick out horses for them. My eye is as good as anyone's in the business. I don't think anyone's batting average is higher than mine when it comes to picking out huge winners to buy. I tried to buy both Roses in May and English Channel before either of them had ever won a stakes race. We tried to buy Wild Fit off of her maiden win. We were offering huge amounts of money for these horses too. We offered $800,000 for Wild Fit off her maiden win. We offered $700,000 for English Channel off an allowance win and $1 million for Roses in May off an allowance win. These horses beat nobody in the races I tried to buy them off, yet we had no problem offering huge money for these horses because I was extremely confident in the ability off all three of these horses. I didn't look at any pace figures either. I am one of the only people in the business who gets a free 10% ownership in every horse I select. It must be beacuse I'm a nice guy.[/quote]

Rupe ... now I know why you're the King Of Comedy.

No disrespect intended, as regardless of your unnecessary boasts, you are obviously extremely knowledgable about racing. However, how exactly do you think your supposed respect in the industry bolsters your case for LITF? It seems to me if you felt your opinion, in this instance, stood well enough on its merits you wouldn't have had to have told us how respected you are in the game.

LITF clearly did not run his race and was never himself. He is a much better horse than he showed this past weekend. I can't believe the arguments I am hearing that are saying this horse is a fraud when it is obvious that something was definitely bothering him. He may not be a great horse, but he is a good one. I hope that the connections can overcome whatever is troubling this horse. They've done right by him so far and will make the right decision.

Again intending no disrespect .. somehow that post reminds me of the awful Shirley Temple version of "The Story Of Seabiscuit" ... where Barry Fitzgerald ... the feisty wee Irish "trainer" of Seabiscuit ... claims he can tell a good race horse "by lookin' 'im in the oye."

I don't think looking at a horse's stride is much more worthwhile than "lookin' 'im in the oye" ... because good horses come in all sizes, shapes, and strides ... from the mighty-mite Dark Mirage to the really mighty Forego.

The only sure way to tell if a horse is good ... is to put him on a track with other horses in a competitive race for a purse ... and see what happens.

RP "As I said before, I have no problem judging a horse's ability even off a maiden win. Practically every horse I have bought or have tried to buy privately was off a race where they pretty much beat nobody. I usually don't buy horses after they have won a stakes race. I usually buy horses off a maiden win and sometimes an allowance win. It's the way the horse moves that is the most important thing. I don't care who is behind them. There doesn't have to be anyone behind them. As I told you before, I can judge a horse's ability from watching them work alone. At the 2 year old sales, the horses don't work in company. They usually work either an 1/8th of a mile or a 1/4 of a mile alone. If I didn't have a great eye, people wouldn't fly me all over the country on private jets to pick out horses for them. My eye is as good as anyone's in the business. I don't think anyone's batting average is higher than mine when it comes to picking out huge winners to buy. I tried to buy both Roses in May and English Channel before either of them had ever won a stakes race. We tried to buy Wild Fit off of her maiden win. We were offering huge amounts of money for these horses too. We offered $800,000 for Wild Fit off her maiden win. We offered $700,000 for English Channel off an allowance win and $1 million for Roses in May off an allowance win. These horses beat nobody in the races I tried to buy them off, yet we had no problem offering huge money for these horses because I was extremely confident in the ability off all three of these horses. I didn't look at any pace figures either. I am one of the only people in the business who gets a free 10% ownership in every horse I select. It must be beacuse I'm a nice guy.[/quote]

Not necessary to trot out your resume for me, it's tacky and also it doesn't mean that I'm not correct about LITF. When someone resorts to the resume I translate it to mean "I'm all out of arguements but look how great I am at these other things so I just have to be right." I'm not sure how all the details about your picking out young horses to purchase is relavent. I'm sure you're good at what you do.
I only question how good you are at handicapping sprint races because you do not seem able to even entertain the idea that LITF was going to have big trouble winning any G1 sprints against older horses. I've given you all kinds of reasons to demonstrate why this is, but honestly I figured it out mainly by watching him race. Great sprinters have to do things to win the tough races that LITF has never shown he can do. He has a rather one-dimensional style.
The reasoning you have offered is that he was possibly tired from the traveling and/or didn't fire. You also didn't respond to my last post which showed that he actually really did fire in recent races and consequently slowed down late. I guess that's when you decided to unfurl your resume.

I'll tell you what, if LITF does continue to race in sprints I will inform you before the race if he will fire or not. Won't that make me one of the greatest handicappers in history if I can predict correctly if a horse will fire or not?!
Maybe they'll start flying me around on private jets!! lol

I'll answer that since he hasn't and I can say from personal experience that your assessment is far from the reality. I don't have to see them race against other horses to tell if they are good...I just have to see them gallop and breeze. Astute horsemen can look them "in the face", their conformation, and their movement over the track to distinguish the good ones from the not so good. It is very difficult to explain because so many elements are involved. It takes years of experience in watching two year olds mature, judging movement and conformation, watching them race, and much, much more. Most of the two year olds that turn into great horses have a quality about them that distinguishes them from the other horses.

There are exceptions to some exceptions to this though...Seabiscuit is a prime example...God what an ugly gallop! But Smith saw it in his face. Just like Lava Man. You could see it before it showed up in his performances. I'll tell you one thing, Lava Man has more heart than any horse I have ever seen. I know this may sound weird, but I can feel it when I look at him, but, then again, all true horseman can.

Some other examples of great purchases based solely on movement, character, and how they breezed over the track were in Funny Cide and Showing Up, both of whom Barclay Tagg picked out. They weren't really expensive horses and it is not a mere coincidence that both of these horses ended up in his stable. He picked them because he knew what he was looking for and knew what he was doing. There are quite a few out there in this business that have that kind of ability such as Tagg, and the really good ones are treasured in this game.

I wasn't saying that it proves that I am right about LITF. I was simply responding to Jim's comment that maybe I am not that good at judging horses who beat nobody. I was simply saying that that is not true. I am very good at judging a horse's abilty simply by watching the horse run. I can make a good judgement of a horse's ability by watching them work an 1/8th of a mile alone. That's much tougher than judging a horse's ability based on a maiden win. With LITF, it was much easier than that. We got to watch him run 10 times.
I agree with you that it is not good to boast and boasting can be obnoxious. However, there is a difference between boasting out of the blue and boasting to defend yourself. In fact, I think I can make a good argument that if you use your credentials to defend yourself, that is not boasting. For example, if a guy went to college at Harvard and he always brags about it, then that is boasting. But if a guy who went to Harvard is accused of being uneducated, I think it would be appropriate for him to say, "Of course I am educated, I went to Harvard." In that situation, I would not call that boasting. The guy is simply defending himself.

Pupkin is the king of this.

Rupe ... now I know why you're the King Of Comedy.[/quote]
There are plenty of people on this board who know who I am including Steve. Everything I said in that post is true.

That is completely untrue. You can totally tell which horses are good at the 2 year old sales if you know what you're looking at. There are certain things you can't tell. You can't tell how much heart a horse has. But you can make a good assessment of a horse's ability. Why do you think What a Song(who didn't have much pedigree) went for $1.8 million? It was because it was obvious that he could really run. He worked a quarter in :20 3/5 and he had a great way of moving. He was a slam dunk to be at least a half-way decent horse. I would have never paid anything close to that for him, but he could obviously run. He was easy to pick. That's why he went for so much money. The trick is not to pick one like him. The trick is to pick one that isn't so obvious, so you can get a bargain. Tim Ritchey picked Afleet Alex for $75,000. Now that is one to be proud of.

Not necessary to trot out your resume for me, it's tacky and also it doesn't mean that I'm not correct about LITF. When someone resorts to the resume I translate it to mean "I'm all out of arguements but look how great I am at these other things so I just have to be right." I'm not sure how all the details about your picking out young horses to purchase is relavent. I'm sure you're good at what you do.
I only question how good you are at handicapping sprint races because you do not seem able to even entertain the idea that LITF was going to have big trouble winning any G1 sprints against older horses. I've given you all kinds of reasons to demonstrate why this is, but honestly I figured it out mainly by watching him race. Great sprinters have to do things to win the tough races that LITF has never shown he can do. He has a rather one-dimensional style.
The reasoning you have offered is that he was possibly tired from the traveling and/or didn't fire. You also didn't respond to my last post which showed that he actually really did fire in recent races and consequently slowed down late. I guess that's when you decided to unfurl your resume.

I'll tell you what, if LITF does continue to race in sprints I will inform you before the race if he will fire or not. Won't that make me one of the greatest handicappers in history if I can predict correctly if a horse will fire or not?!
Maybe they'll start flying me around on private jets!! lol[/quote]
I agree with you. My resume does not mean that you are wrong about LITF. I am certainly not right every time. With regard to your pace figures about LITF, I really can't comment. I don't use pace figures. However, I would imagine that many of the other speed figures and sheet numbers contradict what you are saying. I don't know that for sure but I am just guessing that. If LITF did not have the numbers to compete with the good sprinters, I'm sure we all would have heard something about that.

Jessica is 100% correct. I don't know about the part of looking a horse in the eye. I have no ability to do that. It's possible that some people might be able to do that. Some people make the mistake of thinking that just because they can't do something, that it can't be done. I can't tell anything from looking a horse in the eye but I guess it's possible that some people may have some ability to do that. But even if someone can get information from looking a horse in the eye, I highly doubt that this would be nearly as accurate of a method as watching a horse work out. It's not that difficult to judge a horse if you know what you're doing, if you can watch them run full-speed like they do at the sales.

Sometimes trotting out the resume is signicant info. It definitely is in Rupert's case. I was initially highly skeptical that Rupert's skills at evaluating a horse's motion would translate to handicapping success, but I am a big believer now.

I recently posted that I almost never bet maiden races, especially if there are first-timers in the race. The exception is if Rupert likes a first- or second-timer in a race. That by itself is enough for me to make a bet. I don't even look at the form. And I am someone who refuses to make a bet unless I have good reason to think I have an edge.

--Dunbar

Thanks for the kind words Dunbar. I take it as a real compliment coming from you because I respect you as one of the most knowledgable people I have ever known when it comes to professional gambling. I look forward to meeting you in person one day.

OaklandA's.. I guess you have gone to the LITF well one too many times (either that, or you need more options). I will go with Door No. 3, however, it sure sounds like retirement is next on his dance card. Hope you get to see him win one more in the Bay Area, I really do.

Ez

Hmmm ... yes, I said "hmmm" ... then ...

... then how come 90% of all the high-priced yearlings that these "astute" horsemen recommend ... turn out to be garbage?

Once again ... I say, "hmmmm .... "

You all can bash this horse all ya want. He was and is good for racing. He has a big following and brought many to racing. So whether he is the best sprinter ever or not, does not matter to me in the least. He was good for racing!

How " many " do you think he " brought " to racing?

What do you think his impact has been on handle in 2006?

You can argue with me all you want to on this subject, but you are dead wrong. I know from personal experience that you are dead wrong, and there are many horseman that consistently pick out moderately priced two year olds in training and turn almost every one of them into winners. Don't get in an arguement about a subject that you know nothing about. You have obviously never worked around horses and wouldn't know from experience.

Because the horsemen who have filthy rich clients that buy the ridiculously high-priced horses aren't the great horsemen I am talking about. They are usually not as hard pressed to find good horses because there is so much money to piss away that they can just go buy another one anytime they want to. I would have never paid the amount for some of the high priced horses that some of these people have paid even if I had an endless money pit. Take Chekov for example...I never liked that horse. Just like a good bettor, a good horseman looks for value. I'm talking about the horsemen who can find quality in the cheaper animals. Most of the time, it is the Darley, Godolphin, and Coolmore stables pissing away money anyway...like the Green Monkey. While he is a nice colt, he will get beaten on the track. I've seen some others this year that I like a lot better than him.

Why did you think that I said that Orientate was going to be the one of the new top sires? Because I have seen his two year old trainees. He already is ranked 7th in the overall national standings for first crop with only 11 starters. His foals will only get better as they mature.

He made my mother start following racing again besides just the TC preps, TC races, and BC.

man, i would consider becoming a ridgling to own that horse;) ......... he just didnt fire, he is still a great horse.

OK ... let's accept everything you said ... I have no reason to doubt your veracity ... but ...

... what does any of that have to do with wheher or not Lost In The Fog is capable of winning in open G1/G2 company?

Are you saying that you noticed that Lost In The Fog's stride was different throughout the races that he lost ... from the races that he won? Please make a relevant connection to your (and Rupert's) contentions that you're both experts on a horse's stride ... to Lost In The Fog's consistent losses to good horses.

I think even the people like myself who are claming that LITF is not a real solid G1 sprinter, would still rank him as a solid G2 or G3 horse. In my opinion he is better than 99.999% of all sprinters running. Why you would characterize that as bashing is beyond my comprehension. These are suttle distinctions being discussed, nothing extreme like is he great or garbage.
Is he good for racing? Yes, but so is Nightmare Affair the solid sprinter that beat him on Saturday.

Just curious, what's her daily handle?

I am not going to get into the arguement about LITF. I haven't read this entire thread and I was just replying back to the questions you asked. All I can say is that LITF is a lot better horse than he showed this past weekend and something is definitely wrong with him. He is nowhere near the horse he was last year. While he isn't a great horse, he is a really good one, and I just think he isn't a fraud, and is a classy animal. A horse loses a couple of races after he had won 10+ races in a row and he is considered a fraud...Well I guess Secretariat and Spectacular Bid were frauds too. Horses are always called frauds after having huge win streaks and then losing. People's emotions take the best of them because they have such high expectations for the horse and are extremely disappointed when the animal actually does lose so they start bad-mouthing the horse. LITF has something wrong with him...that is why they are considering retiring him. He was never into the race this past weekend and he was never himself. LITF beat Kelly's Landing in the Aristrides and KL is quite a good sprinter. And yes he was never fully extended in the races in which he lost. He just didn't try. In the BC, I think that he was weary from a tiresome campaign, and this weekend, I think that he has physical ailments combined with the fact that he didn't take to the track.

It is the same with Lawyer Ron. LR won all of his starts on dirt except for the toughest race in his career, the KD, and in doing so had to go into surgery immediately after the Derby to remove a chip. He hasn't worked since. Yet people still seem to say he was overrated and overhyped. Same with Afleet Alex when he had a lung infection in the Rebel. Everyone said that he was overrated and overhyped too....well he showed everyone who said that a thing or two.

I don't know anyone who called Secretariat or Spectacular Bid a fraud....or even Lawyer Ron. Lost in the Fog was overrated because he was not tested during his winning streak. Who was the best horse he beat? Egg Head? The owners did a great job in maximizing profits with the horse but instead of prepping for the BC in the Vosburgh, they stayed in NoCal and ran against 3 nobodies. Big mistake. And he was in real deep water against the top older sprinters (and another good 3YO sprinter in Silver Train) in the Breeders Cup.

No one ever called Secretariat and Spectacular Bid frauds...I just meant that since they had lost a few races that they were frauds too. I was being sarcastic. It was really a bad example on my part because LITF will never be anywhere close to being as good as those two great horse...no where near it.

As for LR, everyone calls LR overrated and overhyped. In a thread that asked who was the most overrated/overhyped horse so far this year...LR got the most votes. There are very few who will defend LR.

First of all, I was not talking about yearling sales. I was talking about 2 year old in training sales. At 2 year old in training sales, you get to watch a horse work out. At yearling sales, you don't. I personally have no expertise at picking out yearlings. But there are some people who are really good at it. With yearlings though, there really is no such thing as a horse who is a slam dunk to be a good horse. Even the guys who are great at picking out yearlings will have a relatively low batting average. If 20-25% of the horses you picked turned out turned out to be good enough horses to break their maidens within their first couple of races at major tracks, that would be a very good batting average for yearlings. With 2 year olds in training, a person with a good eye, could do much better than this. You could expect more like 60-70% of the horses you pick to win early at major tracks. The number will obviously be much lower for horses who don't have much speed and look like they want to run long.
To clarify your question about a horse's stride, there are all different types of strides. Just because a horse has a short stride, it doesn't mean that his stride is bad. By the same token, just because a horse has a long stride, that doesn't mean his stride is good. As long as the stride is fluid and smooth, that is the most important thing.

Lawyer Ron is indefensible as a top horse. Perhaps that is why nobody would defend him. He is a nice horse, who won some races, and ran consistently slow races. He was simply better than his competition. Not his fault but it doesn't make him a top horse.

Much of the same could be said for Lost in the Fog. He is a more talented horse, however, than Lawyer Ron.

I agree with everything you said.

It's more like monthly handle. The first horse she ever bet on was LITF last year. She gave me the money and I took it to the OTB for her. Since then, she now goes with me to the OTB about once a month...(I go about every weekend).

Steppenwolfer got third in the Derby and a fourth in the Belmont, and I guarantee you that if LR returns to the races in the same form he was earlier this spring, he will "again" be a much better horse than Steppenwolfer.

I don't know if I would call Lawyer Ron slow, he did run a 0 on Thorograph and ran a Beyer at 106 or 107, that's not exactly slow and those numbers were comparable with the other Top 3yo's before the Triple Crown races. I really liked this horse and still do, the thing I didn't want to admit before the Kentucky Derby was that he was over the top with all of that racing, he had to go backwards at some point without taking a break, that was my error in judgement. I think the jury is still very much out on him, he may never be able to improve after his injury, but I certainly would not say he is slow, and if he comes back, he could improve. With that said, I do not think he's as talented as Bernardini or Jazil, but he could certainly hold his own against a Blue Grass Cat or Sunriver....

Steppenwolfer is a plodding mediocrity. Telling me where horses finished in races doesn't fool me into thinking they are particularly talented. Perhaps, and seemingly, you are fooled by this. You shouldn't be.

Lawyer Ron was the most overrated horse on the TC trail. I kind of like him, he's a neat horse, but he's not supremely talented. It isn't a criticism...it is reality.

His Beyer's were consistently in the mid 90s.....hardly special. The one figure he got over 100, a 106, was at Louisianna Downs, where if you followed racing closely you may have noticed many horses shipping there and improving dramatically and then not being able to reproduce those numbers out of town. The 106 Lawyer Ron makes no sense both in relation to his consistent performances elsewhere but also for the other competitors in that race.

Lawyer Ron is not " slow " in relation to the majority of the members of his, or really any, generation. But, he is slow in relation to the majority of horses considered genuine TC contendors.

He still ran a 0 on Thorograph, more than once and at Oaklawn, going into the Derby, his Thoro's were as good or better than many...