Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tector
Well, I am sure glad that you are NOT saying "MTB would have been a lock for The Belmont".
First of all, MTB almost certainly does NOT win the Preakness if RA is not in the race--in fact, he probably finishes substanitally worse. HE BEAT MUSKET MAN BY A HALF LENGTH WITH THE BEST PACE SCENARIO HE COULD HAVE REASONABLY EXPECTED. Yes, he had some traffic problems--that is what happens to dead closers. In fact, it happens MORE often to dead closers in fields without a solid pace since the field does not stretch out as much--which is very well may have happened without RA in the Preakness. In short his task would have been MUCH harder with RA out of that race.
I don't expect casual fans to understand that, but I thought posters here might get it. The idea that RA "cost" MTB a chance at the Triple Crown is laughable--in fact, she GAVE him a better chance.
I mean, is the first time some people have ever seen a closer like this? I had a 50-1 future bet on Concern in the BC Classic, but as nice a horse as he turned out to be, I cashed my frigging ticket just as much because of Bertrando as Concern--it is not rocket science at this level.
So, returning to the Belmont, hell yes MTB's connections wanted RA in the race--not because they wanted to "prove" something, but because THEY NEED SOME FRIGGING PACE. They'd prefer cheap garbage on the pace, sure, but they'd take quality pace over no pace any day.
|
I disagree. I think MTB would have most likely still won the Preakness if RA was not in the race. The pace would have been a little slower but I think MTB would have still won. Without RA in the race, Big Drama probably would have gotten the lead in about :47. I don't see any reason why MTB wouldn't have still won the race.
MTB is certainly at his best coming from well out of it in a race with a fast pace but that's not the only way he can win. In the Derby, the pace wasn't all that fast and he won by almost 7 lengths. I bet if he came from 10 length back that day instead of 18 lengths back, he still wins. He would have probably won by 3 lengths instead of 7 lengths. And as a 2 year old, he won 3 stakes races in a row and he was close to the pace in all of those races. Don't get me wrong, I think he's better when there is a fast pace and he comes from way out of it, but I don't think he's completely one-dimensional. His PPs clearly show that he is versatile.
All that being said, I wouldn't be surprised to see him throw in a clunker in the Belmont. Not so much because of the pace but because he just ran back to back hard races. He's not a very big horse. I would be surprised if he didn't regress quite a bit in the Belmont.
With regard to whether MTB would have had a better shot in the Belmont if RA was in there, I would say it would have depended whether RA fired or not. If she was knocked out from the Preakness and was going to simply show speed and quit, then I agree with you that she would have helped MTB's chances. But assuming that Borel was right that she didn't even handle the track at Pimlico and assuming that she would have run her best in the Belmont, then I think she would have hurt MTB's chances. It's really hard to know how RA would have run coming back in 3 weeks after a very hard race. She would probably have gotten a much better pace scenario in the Belmont than she got in the Preakness. She might have been able to get an easy lead in slow fractions in the Belmont.