Random post-Derby thoughts

[justindew]

-I think any hopes of removing the graded earnings system currently in place for determining Derby starters have died their final death. Had any different system been put in place before this year, there is little chance Mine That Bird would have made the race had more than 20 horses entered this year. In fact, his name was often brought up by folks, myself included, who thought there was a problem with the current system. I can't remember where Mine That Bird ranked ultimately among the 20 starters, but at one point just before the Derby he was #20. It seems likely he would made the Derby field only under the current system. Also, it didn't seem like he was even being pointed for the Derby until he reached #22 or #21 on the list. It reminds me of 2002 when It'sallinthechase was entered in the Derby after his owner all but admitted the race wasn't on their radar until they learned the horse had the earnings to run if they wanted.

Anyway, I can't see the rules for Derby entry being changed now.

-I understand and respect the opinions of those who took a stand against Pioneerof The Nile in the Derby. Obviously, as a bettor, you have to draw a line somewhere. And eliminating POTN from one's wagers made perfect sense. He was among the favorites and had never run a fast figure, nor had he run on dirt. He was arguably the most logical toss among the favorites. However, those who tossed him must admit that they were tossing him based on what they suspected might happen, rather than what the horse had indicated would happen. It was a toss based almost entirely on speculation (unless you were persuaded to bet against him based on his premature moves in some of his preps). And no horseplayer can fairly say that a stand against POTN was irrational. However, in reading the arguments of some who feel that his 2nd-place finish proved nothing (or even that it reinforced their position that he's "not a dirt horse"), I have to ask what POTN needs to do to show he's likely to be as good dirt as turf and synetetic. By almost every account, he handled the Churchill Downs surface beautifully all week long. Not one professional observer with whom I spoke, be they trainers or clockers, said that he showed anything other than a strong liking for the dirt. Several even said he was a standout. When you combine this (subjective) "fact" with his 2nd-place finish, why do some people continue to insist that he is not a dirt horse? And what does that mean, anyway? Does that mean he is not good enough on dirt to win a graded stakes? A Grade I? Any race? What exactly is the criterion? Is the argument a matter of whether dirt is his favorite surface? It seems like when it comes to this horse, people are arguing different questions, such as...

-Will Pioneerof The Nile handle dirt?
-Is he better on dirt than turf/synthetic?
-Is he good enough on dirt to win major races on dirt?
-Is he a turf horse?

In reading the different arguments regarding this horse, it seems like there is more agreement than some people think. For instance, maybe he IS better on turf than dirt. But does that mean he can't win a Grade I on dirt? Of course not. And if he wins a Grade I, or even a Grade III on dirt, will those who claim he's "not a dirt horse" then retract their claims? Or will they just blame the weak competition or some other factor?

I guess my questions are, what is the exact argument against POTN, and how are we measuring who is right, and who is wrong? Because my feeling is that he ran a pretty good race in the Derby, and showed that he is capable of running well enough on dirt to win major races.

-I have no reason whatsoever to believe that Mine That Bird's win was aided by any kind of illegal activity. That being said, if everything was on the up and up, then I don't see how his win can be attributed merely to a liking for the surface or a rail-skimming trip. The way that horse was moving in the final 3/8 was not the way you typically see a ground-saving mud-lover move. And I get the fact that he was way back off the pace, but for a horse to close the way he did, there has to be some genuine talent. It's not like he was just moving less slowly than everyone else. His final fractions were simply fast. So, if the win was legit, then I think Mine That Bird is probably as good as the win suggested, rather than just the beneficiary of a million different factors.

[blackthroatedwind]

What's the over/under on number of people that will actually read that in its entirety?

0.0

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

0.0

Has Sumitas finally been banned?

[Danzig]

charismatic also would have missed the derby had there been different rules. what, there would have been no derby winner that year had he been left out? or mine that bird this year? horses get left out every year. the fact that on occasion a horse wins who may have been excluded doesn't reinforce anything except the adage that every dog has its day.

and no, i didn't read it in its entirety. i have james joyces ulysses on the shelf for when i want to read long winded writing.

[Bobby Fischer]

Originally Posted by justindew

-
-I understand and respect the opinions of those who took a stand against Pioneerof The Nile in the Derby. Obviously, as a bettor, you have to draw a line somewhere. And eliminating POTN from one's wagers made perfect sense. He was among the favorites and had never run a fast figure, nor had he run on dirt. He was arguably the most logical toss among the favorites. However, those who tossed him must admit that they were tossing him based on what they suspected might happen, rather than what the horse had indicated would happen. It was a toss based almost entirely on speculation (unless you were persuaded to bet against him based on his premature moves in some of his preps). And no horseplayer can fairly say that a stand against POTN was irrational. However, in reading the arguments of some who feel that his 2nd-place finish proved nothing (or even that it reinforced their position that he's "not a dirt horse"), I have to ask what POTN needs to do to show he's likely to be as good dirt as turf and synetetic. By almost every account, he handled the Churchill Downs surface beautifully all week long. Not one professional observer with whom I spoke, be they trainers or clockers, said that he showed anything other than a strong liking for the dirt. Several even said he was a standout. When you combine this (subjective) "fact" with his 2nd-place finish, why do some people continue to insist that he is not a dirt horse? And what does that mean, anyway? Does that mean he is not good enough on dirt to win a graded stakes? A Grade I? Any race? What exactly is the criterion? Is the argument a matter of whether dirt is his favorite surface? It seems like when it comes to this horse, people are arguing different questions, such as...

pretty good article.

From my own unique perspective I never doubted whether or not POTN would like dirt. He should be just as comfortable on the dirt as a synthetic. The question for me was whether or not he could get the distance and how he would fare over that added distance against better horses.
He ran a fairly solid race in the Derby. It was basically his average run. It was probably good enough for 5th, 4th or maybe even 3rd in most derbys. He was fortunate to run 2nd with the foul that Gomez committed in the stretch.

He had a great thing going in the prep season on that synthetic that he will never have again. In some ways he is a little like Colonel John - a horse who had advantages on the synthetic prep season in Ca. but could handle dirt just fine, but wasn't able to compete with the better dirt horses.

POTN should be competitive in the Preakness, he isn't capable of running a BIG race, but he can run his same kind of race and hope for a collapse.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and no, i didn't read it in its entirety. i have james joyces ulysses on the shelf for when i want to read long winded writing.

If you didn't read it how do you know it's long-winded? Because I wrote it? Or because your idols mocked it and you desperately want to be part of their clique?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by justindew

If you didn't read it how do you know it's long-winded? Because I wrote it? Or because your idols mocked it and you desperately want to be part of their clique?

Don't be mad that I have a blog now too.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Don't be mad that I have a blog now too.

'

Yeah but is it on Twitter?

[Suffolk Shippers]

Originally Posted by justindew

-I understand and respect the opinions of those who took a stand against Pioneerof The Nile in the Derby. Obviously, as a bettor, you have to draw a line somewhere. And eliminating POTN from one's wagers made perfect sense. He was among the favorites and had never run a fast figure, nor had he run on dirt. He was arguably the most logical toss among the favorites. However, those who tossed him must admit that they were tossing him based on what they suspected might happen, rather than what the horse had indicated would happen. It was a toss based almost entirely on speculation (unless you were persuaded to bet against him based on his premature moves in some of his preps). And no horseplayer can fairly say that a stand against POTN was irrational. However, in reading the arguments of some who feel that his 2nd-place finish proved nothing (or even that it reinforced their position that he's "not a dirt horse"), I have to ask what POTN needs to do to show he's likely to be as good dirt as turf and synetetic. By almost every account, he handled the Churchill Downs surface beautifully all week long. Not one professional observer with whom I spoke, be they trainers or clockers, said that he showed anything other than a strong liking for the dirt. Several even said he was a standout. When you combine this (subjective) "fact" with his 2nd-place finish, why do some people continue to insist that he is not a dirt horse? And what does that mean, anyway? Does that mean he is not good enough on dirt to win a graded stakes? A Grade I? Any race? What exactly is the criterion? Is the argument a matter of whether dirt is his favorite surface? It seems like when it comes to this horse, people are arguing different questions, such as...

First off, I did not toss POTN from any of my tickets. But my point goes to the bolded position. I don't
think you could have gotten an accurate read on this horse based on the entirety of resume. Whether you
included or tossed, you were just doing so on speculation. He wasn't convincing in any area enough to sway
one way or another, and there in lies the issue. Since there was no basis to feel up or down on him, one can't
really gauge where he stands today.

He was off my board until IWR came up lame and the track stayed sloppy/muddy. Considering the breeding, POTN
was worth including in the mud at 6-1 or 7-1. Since the track was off, you can't yet gauge his overall effectiveness
on dirt. More than likely, he can handle it, but for now, it's still up in the air. I'd say the Derby answered some questions about him, but not all of them.

[Scurlogue Champ]

I read it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by justindew

If you didn't read it how do you know it's long-winded? Because I wrote it? Or because your idols mocked it and you desperately want to be part of their clique?

[fpsoxfan]

I wouldn't be cheerleading about a horse that would have been hammered worse if QR and/or IWR was in this race. He had everything he could do to hold off the 3rd and 4th place finisher and bumped one of them quite hard in doing so. All and all I think the horse still sucks and his backers shouldn't be chest thumping over that performance or writing a thesis about it either.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by fpsoxfan

I wouldn't be cheerleading about a horse that would have been hammered worse if QR and/or IWR was in this race. He had everything he could do to hold off the 3rd and 4th place finisher and bumped one of them quite hard in doing so. All and all I think the horse still sucks and his backers shouldn't be chest thumping over that performance or writing a thesis about it either.

What about asking serious questions about the nature of the debate? Are you as opposed to that as you are to my "cheerleading" and "chest thumping"?

[fpsoxfan]

O.K. Cheer all you want. I just don't think he's proved a thing. It's been debated over and over. As a safety/saver bet I used him in a few gimmicks, but I still think he has a lot to prove. If he goes and wins the Preakness he will do it without my money and then you can say you were right.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by justindew

What about asking serious questions about the nature of the debate? Are you as opposed to that as you are to my "cheerleading" and "chest thumping"?

The thing is this, you clearly saw some validation of your opinion in Pioneerof the Nile running 2nd in the Derby. That's OK, you should feel good about him being your pick. However, if you think him being a distant 2nd in a race that was completely wiped out by the winner (does TFM have a trademark on that phrase?) while he ran basically the same average figure and interfered with the 3-4 finishers enough to hold 2nd is enough for the people on this board or anywhere to say they were wrong about POTN, it's not going to happen. No excessively verbose plea will ever get that to happen.

NT

[justindew]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

The thing is this, you clearly saw some validation of your opinion in Pioneerof the Nile running 2nd in the Derby. That's OK, you should feel good about him being your pick. However, if you think him being a distant 2nd in a race that was completely wiped out by the winner (does TFM have a trademark on that phrase?) while he ran basically the same average figure and interfered with the 3-4 finishers enough to hold 2nd is enough for the people on this board or anywhere to say they were wrong about POTN, it's not going to happen. No excessively verbose plea will ever get that to happen.

NT

While I appreciate your non-confrontational response, I must remind you that I never said anyone was wrong or that I was right. I merely asked those who are anti-POTN to state, for the record, exactly what they think about the horse AND what has to happen for them to change their minds.

When I asked "What does POTN have to do...", I legitimately wanted to know what they feel he has to do.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Don't be mad that I have a blog now too.

insecure

prima donna

petulant child

[blackthroatedwind]

He has to run at least one race that isn't below average for a supposed good horse. You can call this obstinacy on my part, but it really isn't, it's merely realism. His synthetic races are mediocre and his dirt race was no better. I am surprised that he even ran roughly as well on dirt, be it a sloppy track, as he did on the synthetics, but he surely didn't improve as many claimed he would.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

He has to run at least one race that isn't below average for a supposed good horse. You can call this obstinacy on my part, but it really isn't, it's merely realism. His synthetic races are mediocre and his dirt race was no better. I am surprised that he even ran roughly as well on dirt, be it a sloppy track, as he did on the synthetics, but he surely didn't improve as many claimed he would.

Andy, I respect your opinions. But this has to be the most vague answer to a specific question that I have ever seen on DT.