Afleet Alex
 

Newbie here and this is my first post. I'm extremely entry level in comparison to most of you who post here.

I have been a fan of Triple Crown horseracing most of my life and always make sure those three Saturday afternoons that I am watching all the festivities leading up to the race and am always compelled. Other than that, I'm not really involved.

I placed my first wager on a horse race at the 2005 Preakness and won by picking Afleet Alex. The reason I was proud of myself for winning is that I watched the Kentucky Derby and wasn't really familiar with any of the horses and Bellamy Road was the favorite. As I watched the special on the Kentucky Derby and watched the race, I said to myself that Afleet Alex looked like the best horse of this group (especially the most athletic). So I couldn't wait for the Preakness to bet him. His recovery along with Jeremy Rose's control after the clipping of Scrappy T's heel was scary for all of us. So it was so exciting when he won. Of course I bet him in the Belmont too. That was such a great ride he had in the Belmont, waiting in the back and then passed by Giacomo as if "he were standing still" I think was the announcers call.

So here is my question after that long qualification of me. Afleet Alex lost the Kentucky Derby by only one length (I think), won the Preakness, and won the Belmont. Plus I believe he had a few wins prior to the Derby. Why didn't Afleet Alex win Horse Of The Year and the horse that did win, how was that determined a better horse? Thanks for any insight!

AA won the 3yo Eclipse, but he did not beat older horses, and St. Liam won The Donn, Stephen Foster, Suburban, and the Breeders Cup Classic, so he beat all of the best horses older and younger.

I understand that the Breeders Cup is a major race. Shouldn't the Triple Crown Races have more weight to them? I don't recall the name St. Liam even racing in the Triple Crown, why not?

I am curious for your opinion that if Afleet Alex did not retire after the Belmont, could he have beaten St. Liam?

Thanks for your response.

The Breeders Cup races are more important.

The HOY is basically given to the BC Classic winner unless a 3yr old can win the TC. Afleet Alex couldn't beat Giacomo in the big one so it is hard to give him HOY over the older horses.

He got what he deserved, the 3YO Eclipse, but personally I don't think he would have beaten Saint Liam even had he not gotten hurt. The 3yr olds were just a terrible group that year, so beating them doesn't really count for much in the HOY race.

No knock on AA, but he beat garbage in the Preakness and Belmont. Scrappy T and Giacomo were nothing special, and the Belmont was so bad a maiden ran third.

What does that mean? I'm confused. Other than the Breeders Cup, only the Triple Crown Races are covered on national TV (not counting ESPN, etc). I really am a newbie!

Fall racing means more. The 3yr olds no longer are running against 3yr olds, they have to take on the older horses. As a general rule of thumb, although I expect Bernardini to prove me wrong, the older horses usually are better than the 3yr olds.

We will never know if Afleet Alex could have beaten St. Liam, but I can tell you one thing for certain.....

There is an absolute brilliant monster named Bernardini running right now that could urinate on both Afleet Alex and St. Liam with his leg in the air.

Now this pretty much clears it up for me. Was St. Liam older than three? So I guess that's the reason he didn't run in the Triple Crown Races. The only disappointment I have from your post is it doesn't sound like Afleet Alex is ranked very high compared to past years.

AA was very very good. He might have even beaten the top older horses if he continued to progress. Moot point though.

There is an absolute brilliant monster named Bernardini running right now that could urinate on both Afleet Alex and St. Liam with his leg in the air.[/quote]

But would Bernardini be a "brilliant monster" if Barbaro doesn't pull up lame? Unfortunately, we could never know the answer.

But would Bernardini be a "brilliant monster" if Barbaro doesn't pull up lame? Unfortunately, we could never know the answer.[/quote]

They both appeared to be monsters, although Bernardini might be a little better on the dirt. Barbaro though had the look of a great dirt horse and arguably the best turf horse many have ever seen.

I was being facetious

I liked AA alot and was very impressed by him, who wouldn't be, but I am not even sure he was the best 3yo by the end of the year. I would give that to Flower Alley.

St. Liam was a 5yo, he switched trainers at 4 and he really improved, some horses aren't ready for the rigors of the Triple Crown, so that's why you wouldn't see them in the Triple Crown races.

The racing is really starting to get going again. Flower Alley is running Saturday and so will alot of good horses between now and the Breeders Cup, alot of these races will be on ESPN. Always refreshing to see Racing from someone new, I have been into it, since 1998, and love it more every year.

The Triple Crown Races are restricted to 3 year olds. If you wanted to compare 3 year olds during the Triple Crown to humans, I would say the 3 year olds are like 18 year old humans in terms of physical maturity. They definitely have not yet fully matured or reached their full potential. So the best 3 year old in the country is usually not the best horse in the country. There are usually a few good 4 or 5 year olds that can beat the best 3 year old, but not always. Once in a while you will see a great 3 yeard old who can beat the older horses.
Afleet Alex looked like a really good horse. If he didn't get hurt, he may have had a shot against Saint Liam.

I agree with the other posters that Bernardidni looks like a really good horse. He is definitely in the top few best horses in the country and may even be the best. We will find out in a couple of months when he faces older horses. If I personally had to pick one horse to own for the rest of the year, I would definitely pick Bernardini.

not Henny?...Would be an interesting selection..Both have serious upside because they haven't been squeezed dry yet....I actually would take Henny the more I think about it. Sprint division isn't that tough, 3 year old or even the older, where Bern is going to get feed to the wolves in the gold cup, I still think Flower Alley dusts this horse, we will see if he is the same Flower as he was last year, FA loves Toga and Pletcher should have him LOADED for the Whitney

I like Henny but I would always take a distance horse over a sprinter. The big money is in the classic races not the sprints. Henny will be running for $2 million in the BC Sprint but Bernardidni will be running for $5 million in the Classic.

depends on who you ask.

alex didn't win the horse of the year because he never competed in open company. altho the tc is very prestigious, it is still restricted to three year olds. had alex won just one race against older he may have won horse of the year. maybe.

3 yr olds and horses in general
 

Horses go through form cycles. Most everyone under the sun with a three yr old (stake horse) is pointing that horse to the Kentucy Derby. The Pinnacle of all the races for 3 yr olds. After he has reached the mountain top he may plateau and remain good enough to beat the same kind of horses in the Preakness or Belmont but rarely both. After that he has no where to go but down.

Afleet Alex like many triple crown horses has no insentive to keep racing. Their stock in the breeding shed can only go down if they continue and prove they cannot beat older horses.

However there are always exceptions. Funny Cide is a gelding and continues to be a decent horse but not a grade I horse.

The host of this website Steve has a million stories to tell and I think you will be glad if you stick around and read his stuff.

Well it does seem like you have a lot to learn, but don't let ANYONE tell you that Afleet Alex was not a monster. If he would have kept running I think he would have beaten up on Flower Alley and St Liam last year. Jeremy Rose had finally learned how to ride the horse (use that amazing one-run ability he had). In the last 4 races of his career Rose rode him that way in the Arkansas, Preakness, and Belmont and he flat out destroyed those fields. Rose gave him a ride in the Derby that was technically okay, but did not fit the horse's running style and it got Alex beat. After that race Rose learned his lesson and if the horse hadn't been injured I believe he would have added victories in the Travers and the BCC to his already impressive accomplishments.

Also just so you know for comparison sake, the Breeders' Cup Classic has a larger purse than all three Triple Crown races COMBINED. It is pretty damn important.

You know, I was just thinking about recent 3YO's who won the HOY award:

Point Given
Charismatic
Favorite Trick (2YO!!!!)
AP Indy
SUnday Silence

This is totally a new topic, I realize this, but I find it suspect that horses like Favorite Trick and Charismatic won the HOY award, but Afleet Alex and Smarty Jones - two of the best 3YO's we'll see in a while - finished second to Ghostzapper and Saint Liam, respectively.

Don't have anything else to add besides that to be honest.

It is all just luck really. I think most people would agree that Smarty Jones and Afleet Alex were better horses - and had better years - than someone like Charismatic. It just so happened that in 2004 and 2005 there was a fairly clear cut champion in the older horse division. When this is the case, that horse will usually win HOY. In 1999 you had a situation where the BCC was won by Cat Thief who had won only one other stakes race that year, and who had actually been beaten by Charismatic in the Derby. So obviously Cat Thief isn't going to be HOY....thus Charasmatic wins by default.

I don't know how you can say Smarty and Afleet Alex had better years than Charismatic:

All three won a G2 then 2/3rd's of the Triple Crown, looks pretty even to me. Charismatic got really good in the Lexington Stakes and then went from there...

Smarty Jones won six stakes races in 2004 while Charismatic won three in 1999. Seems like pretty simple math to me.

How many of those were graded? People forget that Smarty needed to win or place in the Arkansas Derby to even qualify for the Kentucky Derby.

Lots of horses need to have good showings in their final preps to qualify for the Derby. Smarty had a brilliant 3YO career, I don't think that can be argued. Charismatic - as great as he was - was running in claiming races early in 1999. I think there's a pretty clear distinction betwixt the two.

They had not figured Charismatic out yet, he did run in 2 Graded Stakes before the Lexington Stakes. I liked all three, but to declare one had a better season than the others, is revisionist history...

Do you really think it was? I guess we can look at the competition in the various seasons in which they ran. Some of the best horses Charismatic beat in his Derby year were Lemon Drop Kid, Menifee, Cat Thief, Prime Timber, and Stephen Got Even, to name a few. Meanwhile, Smarty beat Castledale, Rock Hard Ten, Lion Heart, Limehouse, Borrego, Eddington, and Pollard's Vision, not to mention Birdstone and others.

Based on that, I'd still go with Smarty - and I'm not sure it's even that close. Charismatic was a wonderful animal and a great story, but certainly not in the same league as Smarty Jones.

Okay, now these statements are in the same league as something Rockhead would say:

Let's see:
LDK-Won the Belmont, Travers, and a bunch of stakes his 4yo year
Menifee-Won the Blue Grass and Haskell, then retired
Cat Thief-Breeders Cup Classic Winner, also won one of the Strub
Prime Timber-I believe was hurt and retired after the Derby
General Challenge-Won the Pacific Classic as a 3yo and the Big Cap

Geez, Slot are you done with me blitzkrieging that theory? Really, this is revisionist history to say that AA and SJ were so much better, just look at the facts.

There are so many things to consider here. First off Alex was a very very good horse. But also keep in mind that he was running in the MRLS year. The competition was diluted to say the least. But he still won and he looked good doing it.

In my opinion, The Breeders Cup is bad for racing when you look at older horses. Also too much emphasis is put on a Breeders Cup win for older horses. This is why we only see the best older horses racing 5 times a year. Without the Breeders Cup we would see more and more older horses running earlier in the year.

Horse of the Year is a joke of an award. I have been sour on the award ever since Favorite Trick won the award.

IMO Alex wouldnt have even come close to St Liam in the Classic. In fact, I dont think he would have been Flower Alley. I would even go as far as saying that 3 year olds should not be running against older horses.

Come on, Mace, I wasn't saying that those guys weren't great horses, but I much prefer the exploits of Rock Hard Ten, Eddington, and Castledale, that's all I'm saying. No need to go the blockheadd route with me.

I think the bottom line for me is that of the two horses I saw with my own two eyes - Smarty was the better racehorse.

Okay, I'll leave the nitwit out of it, I shouldn't have said that...

I would say that Charismatic faced better competition and he would have won the Triple Crown, had he not broken down. SJ ran a monster Belmont, but he still lost racing, Charismatic lost because of injury, don't forget he was up on a hot pace as well.

I did not see Smarty race in person, but I saw Charismatic twice, his Lexington Stakes victory was very impressive....

TCharismatic was already a beaten horse before the injury occured.

Really, he lost the race on the turn for home?
That's where I heard the injury happened...

They both had the same # of graded stakes wins and they both won the Derby, the Preakness, and their last Derby prep. So in that way they are the same, and some other criteria must be used. Outside of those races, Smarty Jones won 3 stakes races and Charismatic won zero. Were races like the Southwest graded? No, but I am willing to bet that it was a better race than the claiming races that Charismatic was competing in.
Now maybe you are right and that wasn't his fault and his connections just hadn't figured him out. But in judging something like HOY you have to go with the results on the track and you can't realistically say that Smarty didn't have a better year overall. He accomplished everything that Char did, + more. Maybe it wasn't a ton more, but it was more nonetheless. Therefore he had a better overall year than Char. If you look at wins, stakes wins, $ earned, overall record....Smarty beats him in all of those things. To me that makes for a better year.

Charismatic ran in the SA Derby as well...

How can you include overall wins for a HOY? I believe the criteria the committe would use would be Graded Stakes, that they are equal...

Now I have never heard that before.

He ran in the SA Derby huh? Well how did he finish?

Smarty Jones won more stakes races and earned more money than Charismatic. Based on that criteria I would say he had a better year. I ask you, is there any criteria in which one could argue that Charismatic had a better year?

Nolan's Cat may have been a maiden, but he's definitely not what I would call garbage.

Well if you want to get technical about it they were not equal in graded stakes. Smarty Jones finished second in the graded stakes race he didn't win, while Charasmatic finished third.
Obviously graded stakes victories is probably the most important criteria used in determining HOY. But if all things are equal in that category - as they are here - other criteria are used. Criteria like total stakes won, money earned, finishes in other graded stakes races etc. In ALL of those categories SJ is better than Char.