Curlin & the Classic
 

Anyone else totally disgusted by the Santa Anita surface? ProRider my bottom!!!

If we want to race on grass, why don't we just race on grass -- replace the main track with turf and be done with it?

I don't understand why the US industry is taking the one thing we've been doing for the last 100 years -- dirt racing -- and destroying it.

Curlin lost -- no big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it's a damn shame when the most sporting owner in the last decade is unable to race his dirt champion on a dirt surface in the most important US-based raced of the year.

the most sporting owner in the last decade? i disagree. i would think lord derby might be able to claim that title, with shipping his wonderful mare ouija board all over the world, and to the bc twice, to contest her title.

jess jackson had nothing to lose by going to santa anita-who will hold the loss against curlin? no one. but it was either have curlin lay around all year and do nothing, or race him-no stud farm was interested in that drama.

thankfully, the 20% ownership of midnight cry will be resolved in two weeks at keeeneland. and then you'll see how sporting he really is, as curlin will be retired to stud.

The surface was fair. The best horses won.

DIRT is old news. Fair racing TRUMPS biases.

i disagree. how one can call a synthetic surface a fair surface is beyond me.

There were eight main track races. That's 16 horses that were in the exactas. Of those 16:

-9 have never raced on actual dirt.

-all 16 had either won on grass or on synthetics before yesterday.

-5 had won stakes on grass (Ventura, Church Service, Rebellion, Raven's Pass, and Henrythenavigator).

-4 had won stakes on dirt (Indian Blessing, Zenyatta, Cocoa Beach, Midnight Lute).

Anyone that doesn't see how this stuff leans towards producing results favorable towards grass horses just doesn't want to see it.

interesting stuff. especially the figure that only 1/4th had won on dirt, compared to all 16 having won on turf or awt previously.

Hey trip king, do you think Albarado moved a little early with Curlin?

Wouldn't have mattered when Albarado decided to ask him. The two superior Euros would've still left him in their dust at some point in the stretch, imo.

Asmussen can say what he wants about it being a 'turf race', but, imo, the mandatory 'roid testing this year and the fact that Curlie finally lined up against a couple legit G1 performers had more to do with his sound defeat than the synthetic surface.

It's a very fair question, DaHoss9698 ... and, frankly, I'm not convinced that Curlie would've been able to handle the Euros at, say, Churchill or Belmont. Heck, he was barely beating mediocrities like Wanderin Boy and Past the Point in his dirt races this season. And his speed figures (at least his Beyers) have been nothing to write home about.

He simply doesn't seem to be as formidable when he's not getting a regular 'roid fix ... like he did last season.



By the way, was it hard tearing up your $2.00 win ticket on Curlie last Saturday? lol

My opinion is that the surface didn't get him beaten nor did any premature moves. I thought it was the same move he made at Saratoga and Belmont. The difference was that this wasn't Past the Point and Wanderin Boy he was facing in the stretch. These were two proven top class horses that had a surface that they could take to. Curlin's never looked to be that type that has that quick acceleration that you need to win turf races or synthetic track races since they play like turf. I think that if he was facing the same fields he had faced in NY this year in the BC Classic, he would have won the same way he did those two races. It's sort of like Cigar in 1995/96. He didn't regress at all in 1996. Look at the horses he was facing in 1995. When he faced those same horses in the 1996 Woodward, he won the same way, with the same ease he did in 1995. But when he was facing grade one horses like Skip Away, Louis Quatorze, and Alphabet Soup, those horses weren't as easy to run away from in the lane. Curlin didn't regress this year or move too soon in the BC. He just didn't progress and he faced better horses in the BC.

DaHoss says that his numbers this year are on par with his numbers from last year, minus that BC Classic. I don't know what he would have gotten in the Dubai race but I know that none of his other figures reached the 114 he got last year in the JCGC. They were in the same area though (112 Woodward, 111 JCGC). That's part of the problem though. Generally, we expect horses to improve from their 2yo year to their 3yo year and also from their 3yo year to their 4yo year. How many times do we bemoan the early retirements of our 3yo stars and wonder how much better they would have been as a 4yo? Here, we got a chance to see one continue on and he didn't improve.

Lol ... yeah, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that the colt hasn't improved as a 4-year-old. Frankly, it's pretty embarrassing that his numbers this year are just "on par" with the ones he threw as a 3yo.

Can you imagine if GZ's Beyers at ages 4 and 5 would've stayed "on par" with those he earned at 3? lol



Could the fact that he wasn't on a 'roid regimen this season have anything ... anything at all ... to do with this embarrassing situation, DaHoss9698?

My mind is numb... Exactly when was the last Euro horse to win a Breeders cup race on dirt ?

I know they weren't wins but there were definitely some winning efforts put in by Sakhee and Giant's Causeway in the 2000 and 2001 Classics. Swain in the 1998 one too if he doesn't try to visit the grandstand.

Didn't we have this same steroid argument with Big Brown sometime in the general vicinity of the Preakness and Belmont, and didn't Cannon Shell pretty much poke holes in every theory out there that steroids drastically improve a horse's performance?

Lol ... come on, Duh-Hoss9698, just admit it ... Curlie didn't improve as a 4-year-old because they took away his Winny.


Thankfully, though, we got to see the REAL Curlie this year. A Curlie which struggled to get by turf titans like Wanderin Boy and Past the Point ... a Curlie which threw sub-par BSFs ... and a Curlie which got his head handed to him by a couple Euros in the BCC.

Such things never would've happened to the old, pharmacologically-altered Curlie…

Man, I wish I could have a horse whose sub-par Beyers litter the DRF leaderboard for races over a mile.

I have never iggified anyone because there was always something to take from the poster. But this "Curlie" stuff is like nails on a chalkboard while watching harness racing..unbearable.

Relatively speaking, yes they are. Obviously, they were among the best of this year and he was consistent with them. But when the talk comes to him being among the best of the decade or best of the past 25 years (though I know you personally don't subscribe to that), then yes, those numbers are subpar to what the horses that actually deserve to be in those conversations put up. And I still argue that when you have a horse that's put up a 111 as a 3yo in his fifth career start and a 114 and 119 later that same year, it's not expecting too much to see improvement from a maturing 4yo with more experience. Asmussen always talked about how he was physically better and mentally better but his speed figures were consistently lower than what he was able to reach last year. This is not opinion. Par is relative and I believe his were subpar based on what we have seen from him in the past and the natural progression that we expected to see this year. But they were above par for the 2008 older male division which is why he was able to win the races he did.

I did acknowledge in my post that I know you don't subscribe to all that talk about him being some superhorse. And the argument here, at least not from me, isn't about trying to diminish what he did accomplish this year. Without question, he was the best older male to compete in the U.S this year. I don't think anyone is disputing that. His accomplishments are what they are. The only thing I'm arguing is that if a horse has established that he can run at the 114-119 level then he's set his par there. If he comes back and goes 110, 111, 112, that's below the par he's set for himself. My part of the argument has nothing to do with what he did this year or how good he was this year in comparison to what he had to face. He's not running below the par for the competition but he's below his personal par.

Of course they are, KG. Amazing how some people feel they are fine numbers for a supposed top-flight G1 animal.


If they would've just let Curlie be Curlie ... er, I should say Curlie be the old, chemically-altered Curlie (let's call him SuperCurlie ... lol), then he would've been throwing much better BSFs this season, imo...

But that's relative too. For 2008, those were fine numbers for a top flight grade one horse. They got him the wins they did.

I won't ever profess to know which horses were chemically altered or how much the chemicals had to do with performance. I'm not doctor or a physicist so I'll stay out of that area. All I'll deal with are facts. Facts are that he didn't go up in his numbers this year. There could be a number of factors for that. It could be the absence of chemicals he was using last year. It's just as likely that it's the fact that he's been in constant training since he started racing without any prolonged break and he's just worn down. Before the emergence of the Dubai races and the huge increase in popularity of the races in Japan and Hong Kong at the end of the year, horses used to get the winter off and have a chance to regroup and re-energize. That's almost a thing of the past. European horses used to end their season in early October and wouldn't be racing again until April or May. Horses here would run through the BC and then for the most part, would have 2-3 months off. No longer. If I had to put my money on anything, it would be that as the reason why horses in general and Curlin in particular don't progress the way they used to from year to year. The natural mental and physical improvement is cancelled out by the continuous training and wear and tear.

I would not agree or disagree because that is an area that I honestly know nothing about. I do suspect that a lot of horses were getting help of some sorts but I have nothing to base it on factually other than my own suspicions and rumors. I will say this though. If the difference in Curlin was strictly because he was using them last year and he wasn't this year, it was such a minimal difference that maybe that will discourage more people from using them. If he had dropped off noticeably, that would have been a problem but even if he was below his numbers from last year, and as I said in the previous post, that could have had as much to do with being worn out from constant training as it did with being off steroids, he was still close enough to show that the difference made is not worth the risk taken.

Fact: Curlin's median Beyer in stakes races was higher in 2008 than 2007, and that includes the turf effort this year.

When it's a horse that has exhibited signs of greatness from the start, I'm more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. When it's a horse like say Cost of Freedom (or Whatsthescript or Dearest Trickski.....but I'm not making accusations here), that suddenly jumps from lower levels and becomes a graded stakes monster, I have real doubts. We all have our beliefs and suspicions. Curlin is one that for some reason, I've never had my suspicions about. Perhaps I would have if he had started out with Asmussen but I remember his first race and thinking that he really had something.

Some good points

In response to the sentences in bold ... no question those numbers were good enough when he was facing horses like Wanderin Boy and Past the Point, but we all saw what happened to Curlin when he finally ran into a couple legit G1 animals last weekend ... and they were both younger than him, no less.


Like I said, I don't buy the Pro-Ride excuse for a second. The colt looked fine when he made his move on the turn. He also had a very nice 5f workout over the surface. He simply got outrun in the lane by a couple superior animals, imo.

Also not convinced that he would've handled RP on a traditional dirt surface either. Isn't RP by Elusive Quality? Last time I checked, that sire has thrown a decent dirt runner or two.

Quick: name the second.

The mare which took the BC F & M Sprint in Jersey last year

Yeah, I laughed too when I saw Curlin getting steamrolled in the lane by those 3-year-olds, DaHoss9698.

You'd think that a supposedly top-class 4yo would have a maturity edge over a top-class 3yo like RP ... and would defeat him more often than not.

Sure didn't look that way last weekend.



At any rate, things might get even better ... maybe they'll give that Horse-of-the-Year award to the filly.

Wouldn't that be sweeeeeeeeeeeet!