Belmont allowance lost in the shuffle

[parsixfarms]

With all of the stakes action going on last week, I didn't see any commentary on what was a very salty NW2X allowance race at Belmont last Thursday. Both the winner (Treat Gently) and the runner-up (Cable) look like serious fillies on turf. Cable, by Clement's statements in DRF, has her issues (probably the reason she's only had 4 lifetime starts). However, given her performance in this slow-paced affair and the back class that she exhibited in Europe, couldn't the Juddmonte-owned Treat Gently be a factor in a race like the Diana should they spot her aggressively for her next start?

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

given her performance in this slow-paced affair

I'm puzzled about something. Typically, I've thought as slow paced races favoring those on the lead. And, we see countless examples of this, especially on the turf. But in this race they went 6-3-4-2-5-1 (qtr positions) and 6-4-3-2-5-1 (half positions) around the track. So, where does the 'slow pace' part come in?

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

I'm puzzled about something. Typically, I've thought as slow paced races favoring those on the lead. And, we see countless examples of this, especially on the turf. But in this race they went 6-3-4-2-5-1 (qtr positions) and 6-4-3-2-5-1 (half positions) around the track. So, where does the 'slow pace' part come in?

I'd call a 25.1 quarter and a 49.1 half a "slow pace" in light of the distance, the caliber of fillies involved, and the condition (pretty hard) of the course. Obviously, the final part of the race was very quick, with the "lead's" last 5/16 of a mile completed in a shade over 28 seconds.

[the_fat_man]

So, a 'slow-pace' can result in a race collapsing as well as a wire job? If this is the case, then why bother noting the pace, why not just look at the final time? In other words, just the speed figures? But this wouldn't work either, would it, as 'slow' paces typically result in 'slow' final times.

And, it can't be the case that better horses are better able to handle 'slow-paces', because, they're consistently bent over by lesser rivals with 'pace' advantages as well.

Of course, in any other group race, having the lead is a HUGE disadvantage, no matter how 'slow" (or 'fast') the pace is.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

So, a 'slow-pace' can result in a race collapsing as well as a wire job? If this is the case, then why bother noting the pace, why not just look at the final time? In other words, just the speed figures? But this wouldn't work either, would it, as 'slow' paces typically result in 'slow' final times.

And, it can't be the case that better horses are better able to handle 'slow-paces', because, they're consistently bent over by lesser rivals with 'pace' advantages as well.

Of course, in any other group race, having the lead is a HUGE disadvantage, no matter how 'slow" (or 'fast') the pace is.

This was not a race that fell apart late. Treat Gently ran over the top of the field despite the slow pace.

Having the lead is not necessarily a huge disadvantage. It all depends upon race dynamics and distribution of energy; these principles apply in a sport such as track and field (in which I competed) just as they do in horse racing. Why else is that horses that are uncontested on loose leads are so dangerous in races? I'd put them at an advantage, not a disadvantage.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

This was not a race that fell apart late. Treat Gently ran over the top of the field despite the slow pace.

Having the lead is not necessarily a huge disadvantage. It all depends upon race dynamics and distribution of energy; these principles apply in a sport such as track and field (in which I competed) just as they do in horse racing. Why else is that horses that are uncontested on loose leads are so dangerous in races? I'd put them at an advantage, not a disadvantage.

If those behind them are drafting and move in a timely fashion, rather than prematurely, which is the norm, then the front runner will always be at a disadvantage. Check out the daily results over at the Tour de France. And, actually, the race did kind of fall apart. It was very nearly a 'wipe-out'. I do agree, however, that race dynamics trump 'fast' or 'slow' pace just about every time. But old habits are hard to break.

[Bobby Fischer]

well, it collapsed AND Treat Gently also ran a pretty good race.

Cable made a fairly game effort too

Love Tune didn't really tell anything about the setup other than the fix wasn't in. Not a competitive factor.

The 2 favorites came in 1-2, without any significant trouble, how much revelations can we really make about "overcoming" anything??

a look at the winner's form and she is tons the best , provided she holds form and suits the American style. For all the credit she deserves for the 2nd 1/8th of the race when everyone was riding foot-in the dash vs. these pigs , the lack of a competitive horse on a harder pace probably HELPED HER. She didn't face anything new or american in style this day.


Kristi with a K is an ok filly who's paper-form could mislead some into thinking she is a hard hitter, but she probably gave the best indication of setup in that she didn't walk away with an advantage to place(which is the only way she can be competitive @ that class). She really should have been 8-1 , but we had two 25-1 shots running up the field.

While Garcia was finessing Cable out into the Stretch, Treat Gently was suddenly urged by Dominguez. Cable didn't really carry much if any advantage into the stretch. Maybe it was a disadvantage for Cable being the "prey", but Treat Gently was clearly best.