Breakdowns on Big days

eajinabi · #1 05-04-2008, 02:09 PM

Is there some co-realtion to Breakdowns and the Big Days of racing?

Barbabro, GEorge Washington, Eight Belles and Chelokee. There was also a Ogden phipps horse that broke down in the distaff in the 2006 BC.

How many breakdowns do we see on regular days??
There are some but percenatge wise seems like it happens more on the big days. Not a very good image for horse racing especialy on the national stage.

Why do they need to sup up the track on the big days. Maybe someone should look at that.

ateamstupid · #2 05-04-2008, 02:09 PM

It's mostly Churchill.

philcski · #3 05-04-2008, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

It's mostly Churchill.

Oddly enough, normally Churchill is one of the safest dirt tracks. Just some very unfortunate incidents lately, I'm afraid.

Not a knock on the super there as 5" of rain is tough to deal with anywhere, but that track looked REALLY hard yesterday.

Danzig · #4 05-04-2008, 03:19 PM

i don't think it's more on big days, it's just that big name horses get more press.
most of the time, if it's not an a list horse, you don't hear about it. you only know if you're there to see a horse go down, or are viewing on t.v.

pointman · #5 05-04-2008, 03:37 PM

Frankly, I believe that Eight Belles should have run in the Oaks and not the Derby. I believed it before the race and even though she ran teriffically, she had to run her heart out to chase that monster which probably contributed to her breakdown. It is a shame that Rick Porter wanted to get into the Derby so bad, they should have learned their lesson from Rags last year. While Rags won the Belmont, it was at the cost of her racing career. It is a shame, this one could have been one of the great fillies.

ArlJim78 · #6 05-04-2008, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pointman

Frankly, I believe that Eight Belles should have run in the Oaks and not the Derby. I believed it before the race and even though she ran teriffically, she had to run her heart out to chase that monster which probably contributed to her breakdown. It is a shame that Rick Porter wanted to get into the Derby so bad, they should have learned their lesson from Rags last year. While Rags won the Belmont, it was at the cost of her racing career. It is a shame, this one could have been one of the great fillies.

I don't blame the connections, and I don't feel it was the competition that led to the accident. If so, why didn't any of the overmatched colts break down? Weren't they chasing the same monster and running their hearts out?

pointman · #7 05-04-2008, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I don't blame the connections, and I don't feel it was the competition that led to the accident. If so, why didn't any of the overmatched colts break down? Weren't they chasing the same monster and running their hearts out?

Jim, they were, but this was her first shot against the boys and in the Kentucky Derby. All the previous fillys that won had run against the boys in the past. Most of the boys quit, she didn't and ran really hard. This is a clear tragedy, but after what happened to Rags last year, I just thought, and still do, that at this point it was best for her to go into the Oaks. I am not saying that this was the cause of it, just not discounting it either.

Danzig · #8 05-04-2008, 03:47 PM

no, it's only when fillies face colts. colts chasing colts...well, that's another story. filly might be as big as a colt, as strong, as fast, she's still just a lousy weak female and thus a lesser animal who should be kept in her place.
you know, like rags, who got injured in her next start, not the belmont. a loss, to a filly, in a race vs 'her own kind'. not against colts. but that wouldn't support the theory that fillies shouldn't race against colts, so just ignore the facts surrounding her injury and when it occurred....

nfliehman · #9 05-04-2008, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pointman

Frankly, I believe that Eight Belles should have run in the Oaks and not the Derby. I believed it before the race and even though she ran teriffically, she had to run her heart out to chase that monster which probably contributed to her breakdown. It is a shame that Rick Porter wanted to get into the Derby so bad, they should have learned their lesson from Rags last year. While Rags won the Belmont, it was at the cost of her racing career. It is a shame, this one could have been one of the great fillies.

I agree but at the same time im thinking it was just a freak thing that happened. I told my girlfriend before the race I would gladly lose the money I bet yesterday on that race to see all the horses come out healthy and unfort it just didnt happen that way. I wish they wouldnt have shown her on the ground though...

pointman · #10 05-04-2008, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nfliehman

I agree but at the same time im thinking it was just a freak thing that happened. I told my girlfriend before the race I would gladly lose the money I bet yesterday on that race to see all the horses come out healthy and unfort it just didnt happen that way. I wish they wouldnt have shown her on the ground though...

I agree 100%. I am not the only one that questioned the decision. Deb, I think you read way too far into what I said. I didn't say that she couldn't run against the boys, but it is where she was spotted for the first run against them is what I question. If they wanted to go to the Derby, it may have been a better decision to run her against the boys in one of the preps. I am not a big fan of Porter and believe that he was just dying to get a horse in the Derby, which IMO, and it is only my opinion, had more to do with entering her in the Derby instead of going into a spot where she was better placed. As far as Rags, IMO, and again it is just only an opionion, she was never the same horse after the Belmont. It took quite some time to just get her into a race.

Danzig · #11 05-04-2008, 05:08 PM

i think had rags or eight belles struggled in their races vs boys, you'd have a point. but putting in a good effort doesn't lead to injury. fighting an unfamiliar surface, or not running right due to discomfort-yeah, that can lead to injury. they both did so well, i don't think the fact that their opponents were of another sex had anything to do with it.
both fillies put in races equal to their male counterparts in previous races. the 10f derby was a first for all 20 horses yesterday.
for whatever reason, after the finish, eight belles went down. but i don't feel the fact she faced males was the contributing factor, nor the distance run.

Danzig · #12 05-04-2008, 05:09 PM

and i apologize for my tone in my previous post. i'm in a foul mood, and i'm taking it out on the wrong people.

Payson Dave · #13 05-04-2008, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

and i apologize for my tone in my previous post. i'm in a foul mood, and i'm taking it out on the wrong people.

don't appologize....the filly had every right to be in the race....she beat all but one of the colts....her breakdown had nothing to do with the fact that she was running against colts...

Danzig · #14 05-04-2008, 05:23 PM

yeah, but i don't have to be a sarcastic smart ass about it either....

i think we could/should have more fillies trying more colts, they do overseas. but then something like this happens, and it sets us back. there's no reason why they can't compete against each other. eight belles showed us that yesterday, rags last year. as for rags' injury, her value imo had more to do with her retirement due to injury than the injury itself. i just think it's a sad coincidence that eight belles broke down after racing colts, but i don't think the fact she had just raced vs them had to do with it. but that's just my opinion, and there's really no way to prove or disprove it-or those who take the opposite view. but the way rick porter and larry jones and co must feel..i just hate to see anyone pile on them about the decision.
we want sporting folks, and then this happens...second guessing follows.

ateamstupid · #15 05-04-2008, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't think it's more on big days, it's just that big name horses get more press.
most of the time, if it's not an a list horse, you don't hear about it. you only know if you're there to see a horse go down, or are viewing on t.v.

Really? Four breakdowns in the last five big days at Churchill, two of them fatal, and it's not more on big days?

fpsoxfan · #16 05-04-2008, 05:37 PM

Well, here we go again. Because the breakdown occurred on the big stage, both NBC and CBS have done stories on the evening news about the dangers of horse racing. The answer according to the "experts" is synthetic tracks.
The CBS report claims that horse racing deaths are down 25% on tracks that have converted to synthetic. How long do you give Churchill? A year? Two years? Seems like the only time our sport makes the news is when something like this happens. This is Bullshiat!!!!!!!

Payson Dave · #17 05-04-2008, 05:46 PM

There was I believe, a breakdown in the first at Belmont today....

Danzig · #18 05-04-2008, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Really? Four breakdowns in the last five big days at Churchill, two of them fatal, and it's not more on big days?

i don't know that it's more, or less. there are more small days than big days, so i guess there would be more on small days...just because of the #'s involved. you'd also think that big horses would be taken care of better than the other horses, so they'd have less breakdowns. but they'd also get more coverage.
i just think, based on the fact that about 80% of the horses being raced are claimers, that they would also have more of the injuries-but less of the press.

JJP · #19 05-04-2008, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eajinabi

Is there some co-realtion to Breakdowns and the Big Days of racing?

Barbabro, GEorge Washington, Eight Belles and Chelokee. There was also a Ogden phipps horse that broke down in the distaff in the 2006 BC.

How many breakdowns do we see on regular days??
There are some but percenatge wise seems like it happens more on the big days. Not a very good image for horse racing especialy on the national stage.

Why do they need to sup up the track on the big days. Maybe someone should look at that.

Interesting question. Tracks have been noted to "soup up" their track for some reason or another on big days. I've never understood it but we've seen evidence of it. Real handicappers know the unadjusted time is meaningless and I can't see non-racing fans getting all excited because a horse runs a 1:35 mile instead of maybe a 1:36 3/5 over a deeper track. But a harder track could contribute to more breakdowns.

The George Washington breakdown drew lots of criticism since many (myself included) felt that he had no business running in the BC Classic. Considering how EIght Belles ran, she certainly wasn't overmatched by the other 18 non Big Brown males. Have to also think that Grade 1 caliber performers might try a little harder and that riders may be putting forth as much effort as possible. Put it all together and I can see why there's more breakdowns in these scenarios.

Suffolk Shippers · #20 05-04-2008, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't think it's more on big days, it's just that big name horses get more press.
most of the time, if it's not an a list horse, you don't hear about it. you only know if you're there to see a horse go down, or are viewing on t.v.

Good point...also, if it's on national TV, it's a lock to make news for a few media cycles.

Fact is, as most of us are aware, this happens more often than we'd like to acknowledge. In my eyes, it is just as unfortunate when a 6 yr old $4,000 claimer breaks down in a race at Prairie Meadows as when a highly touted star like Eight Belles, George Washington or Barbaro does. The only difference is, at Prairie Meadows only the 38 people in attendance and simulcast watchers see it. On days like yesterday, millions see it, and hear Larry Blamalage lay it out cold that the filly had to be put down.