Curlin & the Classic

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

112, 111 and 110 beyers are subpar? Interesting...Your understanding of the game continues to shine. Yes, the real Curlin steroids or not proved he was the best dirt horse in training last year and this. He won the Dubai World Cup, Stephan Foster, Whitney, Jockey Club Gold Cup and was second to a former BC winner in his first and only turf start this year, a year you admit he was steroid free. He also, for all the flack he took ran in the BC on a surface foreign to him that favors horses that run on the turf. He was 4th. What a fraud. So, I ask again, what more could he have done this year? Run faster. I laughed.

Relatively speaking, yes they are. Obviously, they were among the best of this year and he was consistent with them. But when the talk comes to him being among the best of the decade or best of the past 25 years (though I know you personally don't subscribe to that), then yes, those numbers are subpar to what the horses that actually deserve to be in those conversations put up. And I still argue that when you have a horse that's put up a 111 as a 3yo in his fifth career start and a 114 and 119 later that same year, it's not expecting too much to see improvement from a maturing 4yo with more experience. Asmussen always talked about how he was physically better and mentally better but his speed figures were consistently lower than what he was able to reach last year. This is not opinion. Par is relative and I believe his were subpar based on what we have seen from him in the past and the natural progression that we expected to see this year. But they were above par for the 2008 older male division which is why he was able to win the races he did.

[Smooth Operator]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Relatively speaking, yes they are. Obviously, they were among the best of this year and he was consistent with them. But when the talk comes to him being among the best of the decade or best of the past 25 years (though I know you personally don't subscribe to that), then yes, those numbers are subpar to what the horses that actually deserve to be in those conversations put up. And I still argue that when you have a horse that's put up a 111 as a 3yo in his fifth career start and a 114 and 119 later that same year, it's not expecting too much to see improvement from a maturing 4yo with more experience. Asmussen always talked about how he was physically better and mentally better but his speed figures were consistently lower than what he was able to reach last year. This is not opinion. Par is relative and I believe his were subpar based on what we have seen from him in the past and the natural progression that we expected to see this year. But they were above par for the 2008 older male division which is why he was able to win the races he did.

Of course they are, KG. Amazing how some people feel they are fine numbers for a supposed top-flight G1 animal.


If they would've just let Curlie be Curlie ... er, I should say Curlie be the old, chemically-altered Curlie (let's call him SuperCurlie ... lol), then he would've been throwing much better BSFs this season, imo...

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Smooth Operator

Of course they are, KG. Amazing how some people feel they are fine numbers for a supposed top-flight G1 animal.


If they would've just let Curlie be Curlie ... er, I should say Curlie be the old, chemically-altered Curlie (let's call him SuperCurlie ... lol), then he would've been throwing much better BSFs this season, imo...

But that's relative too. For 2008, those were fine numbers for a top flight grade one horse. They got him the wins they did.

I won't ever profess to know which horses were chemically altered or how much the chemicals had to do with performance. I'm not doctor or a physicist so I'll stay out of that area. All I'll deal with are facts. Facts are that he didn't go up in his numbers this year. There could be a number of factors for that. It could be the absence of chemicals he was using last year. It's just as likely that it's the fact that he's been in constant training since he started racing without any prolonged break and he's just worn down. Before the emergence of the Dubai races and the huge increase in popularity of the races in Japan and Hong Kong at the end of the year, horses used to get the winter off and have a chance to regroup and re-energize. That's almost a thing of the past. European horses used to end their season in early October and wouldn't be racing again until April or May. Horses here would run through the BC and then for the most part, would have 2-3 months off. No longer. If I had to put my money on anything, it would be that as the reason why horses in general and Curlin in particular don't progress the way they used to from year to year. The natural mental and physical improvement is cancelled out by the continuous training and wear and tear.

[slotdirt]

Fact: Curlin's median Beyer in stakes races was higher in 2008 than 2007, and that includes the turf effort this year.

[Smooth Operator]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

But that's relative too. For 2008, those were fine numbers for a top flight grade one horse. They got him the wins they did.

I won't ever profess to know which horses were chemically altered or how much the chemicals had to do with performance. I'm not doctor or a physicist so I'll stay out of that area. All I'll deal with are facts. Facts are that he didn't go up in his numbers this year. There could be a number of factors for that. It could be the absence of chemicals he was using last year. It's just as likely that it's the fact that he's been in constant training since he started racing without any prolonged break and he's just worn down. Before the emergence of the Dubai races and the huge increase in popularity of the races in Japan and Hong Kong at the end of the year, horses used to get the winter off and have a chance to regroup and re-energize. That's almost a thing of the past. European horses used to end their season in early October and wouldn't be racing again until April or May. Horses here would run through the BC and then for the most part, would have 2-3 months off. No longer. If I had to put my money on anything, it would be that as the reason why horses in general and Curlin in particular don't progress the way they used to from year to year. The natural mental and physical improvement is cancelled out by the continuous training and wear and tear.

Some good points

In response to the sentences in bold ... no question those numbers were good enough when he was facing horses like Wanderin Boy and Past the Point, but we all saw what happened to Curlin when he finally ran into a couple legit G1 animals last weekend ... and they were both younger than him, no less.


Like I said, I don't buy the Pro-Ride excuse for a second. The colt looked fine when he made his move on the turn. He also had a very nice 5f workout over the surface. He simply got outrun in the lane by a couple superior animals, imo.

Also not convinced that he would've handled RP on a traditional dirt surface either. Isn't RP by Elusive Quality? Last time I checked, that sire has thrown a decent dirt runner or two.

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by Smooth Operator

Some good points
Isn't RP by Elusive Quality? Last time I checked, that sire has thrown a decent dirt runner or two.

Quick: name the second.

[Smooth Operator]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Quick: name the second.

The mare which took the BC F & M Sprint in Jersey last year

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by Smooth Operator

The mare which took the BC F & M Sprint in Jersey last year

Nice. She was so memorable, she doesn't even have a name.

No point here other than Elusive Quality is pretty darn overrated and overpriced as a dirt sire.

[Smooth Operator]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Younger than him? thanks for the laugh.

Yeah, I laughed too when I saw Curlin getting steamrolled in the lane by those 3-year-olds, DaHoss9698.

You'd think that a supposedly top-class 4yo would have a maturity edge over a top-class 3yo like RP ... and would defeat him more often than not.

Sure didn't look that way last weekend.



At any rate, things might get even better ... maybe they'll give that Horse-of-the-Year award to the filly.

Wouldn't that be sweeeeeeeeeeeet!

[Smooth Operator]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Keep avoiding it. The maturity edge stuff might be your finest work to date. Do you have a relative named Hrfan? 3 year olds have now won 9 of 25 runnings of the classic. Including Curlin last year. It's not a big deal for 3 year olds to beat elders late in the season. But, someone so on the ball probably already knew that.

Lol ... you're too funny, DaHoss9698.

Did you even think before making that stellar post ... or did you just go off half-cocked and start typing?

Of course 3-year-olds will win their share of BCCs ... because many years the older division is so painfully mediocre. Last year was a perfect example of this. You didn't have to be a charter member of MENSA to figure out that the strong contingent of 3yos was gonna dominate the contest in Jersey.

What I said in the previous post is that a "TOP-CLASS" older horse will usually have an edge over a top 3yo. 2006 is a perfect example when the very nice 3yo Bernardini couldn't hang in the stretch with the older, high-quality Invasor.

How many of the 3yos did you see finishing ahead of SL in the '05 BCC ... or in front of GZ and RiM in '04? How 'bout PP in '03?

All top-class older runners which got the best of their younger rivals in the big race.

Heck, go back to the late '70s when the Triple Crown (and near TC) winners squared off against each other. The 4yo Slew got the best of Affirmed in '78 ... and, not surprisingly, the 4yo Affirmed took care of business against Spectacular Bid in 1979.

[slotdirt]

Funny how the most widely-regarded 3YO's had already been retired before the Breeders Cup Classic in both 2003, 2004, and 2005. That really makes your point for you.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Smooth Operator

2006 is a perfect example when the very nice 3yo Bernardini couldn't hang in the stretch with the older, high-quality Invasor.

That's a terrible example of a generally true situation. Perhaps Affirmed vs. Seattle Slew or Spectacular Bid vs. Affirmed would have been accurate examples.

Bernardini ran a better race than Invasor that day and lost due to a very premature move. Given similar trips, Bernardini would have won.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

As I have stated many times in the past, I'm not sure who is calling Curlin this great horse, but it has never been me. I don't personally believe he was among the best of the last 25 years. What I have maintained is he was a very good horse on dirt. He was consistent, accomplished a hell of a lot in a short amount of time and was a very good horse in a time when that is rare.

Frankly, I could care less how he stacks up with champs of the past. Like I said earlier in this thread, there is no speed figure for his World Cup win, but if i had to take a guess, I think it would be closer to the 115-119 range you guys were looking for. You follow the game, do horses progress like they used to? Horses that run for trainers that take their time seem to. But I just don't think that a horse that wins the Preakness in his 5th start, 3 months after his career began is going to take the big step forward like some do as a 4 year old. Maybe if Curlin was a superhorse he would have, but he clearly is not. I'm not sure who says he is, but he is not. I could really care less what Asmussen says, because you know well enough to take trainerspeak as what it is.

I guess the arguement here is because Curlin wasn't running beyers in the 120 range that it somehow diminishes what he did. Sorry, I disagree. It's 2008. The game has changed, and for the worse. but, I know you know that. The days of the champs of the past are over.

I did acknowledge in my post that I know you don't subscribe to all that talk about him being some superhorse. And the argument here, at least not from me, isn't about trying to diminish what he did accomplish this year. Without question, he was the best older male to compete in the U.S this year. I don't think anyone is disputing that. His accomplishments are what they are. The only thing I'm arguing is that if a horse has established that he can run at the 114-119 level then he's set his par there. If he comes back and goes 110, 111, 112, that's below the par he's set for himself. My part of the argument has nothing to do with what he did this year or how good he was this year in comparison to what he had to face. He's not running below the par for the competition but he's below his personal par.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Gotcha. That makes sense. Although i do think his World Cup was the Curlin of last year. He was pretty good that night. Maybe the trip took that much out of him, but I doubt it. Maybe he peaked last year. I just don't subscribe to the theory that he is any noticeably different with or without steroids, because he wasn't on steroids in Dubai and he was pretty good. And, would you not agree that we watched champions for decads that were on steroids?

I would not agree or disagree because that is an area that I honestly know nothing about. I do suspect that a lot of horses were getting help of some sorts but I have nothing to base it on factually other than my own suspicions and rumors. I will say this though. If the difference in Curlin was strictly because he was using them last year and he wasn't this year, it was such a minimal difference that maybe that will discourage more people from using them. If he had dropped off noticeably, that would have been a problem but even if he was below his numbers from last year, and as I said in the previous post, that could have had as much to do with being worn out from constant training as it did with being off steroids, he was still close enough to show that the difference made is not worth the risk taken.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I appreciate the logical way you are looking at the whole thing. It's refreshing. I'm not sure who was using what then or now. But I know that Lukas was rumored to have been using steroids before everyone. Who had more champions than he in the 80's or 90's? My point is, the whole thing is speculation. We hear about Ghostzapper a lot when it comes to Curlin. Curlin isn't Ghostzapper. Ghostzapper was a special horse. But, I think it would be extremely naive to think Ghostzapper was on nothing but oats and water in his career. I'm not accusing him of anything, but come on.

When it's a horse that has exhibited signs of greatness from the start, I'm more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. When it's a horse like say Cost of Freedom (or Whatsthescript or Dearest Trickski.....but I'm not making accusations here), that suddenly jumps from lower levels and becomes a graded stakes monster, I have real doubts. We all have our beliefs and suspicions. Curlin is one that for some reason, I've never had my suspicions about. Perhaps I would have if he had started out with Asmussen but I remember his first race and thinking that he really had something.