Curlin & the Classic

[King Glorious]

I know they weren't wins but there were definitely some winning efforts put in by Sakhee and Giant's Causeway in the 2000 and 2001 Classics. Swain in the 1998 one too if he doesn't try to visit the grandstand.

[slotdirt]

Didn't we have this same steroid argument with Big Brown sometime in the general vicinity of the Preakness and Belmont, and didn't Cannon Shell pretty much poke holes in every theory out there that steroids drastically improve a horse's performance?

[Smooth Operator]

Lol ... come on, Duh-Hoss9698, just admit it ... Curlie didn't improve as a 4-year-old because they took away his Winny.


Thankfully, though, we got to see the REAL Curlie this year. A Curlie which struggled to get by turf titans like Wanderin Boy and Past the Point ... a Curlie which threw sub-par BSFs ... and a Curlie which got his head handed to him by a couple Euros in the BCC.

Such things never would've happened to the old, pharmacologically-altered Curlie…

[slotdirt]

Man, I wish I could have a horse whose sub-par Beyers litter the DRF leaderboard for races over a mile.

[GBBob]

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.

The funniest thing about all of this is I don't even really like Curlin that much. I was a big fan of Street Sense. I just dislike stupidity so much that I have no problem defending him when stupidity rears it's ugly head. I have no idea what your real hard on for him is, but whatever it is, it's kind of sad.

You can ignore my points about the countless horses the last couple decades that were on the same steroid regimens that Curlin was. You can ignore my point that his progression, like a lot of horses that are rushed into the Triple Crown was not what you would have liked to see. But, he progressed so much in so little time it was almost impossible for him to show the progressin like horses used to. I'm not sure what more you would have liked him to accomplish, but his record speaks for himself. It's fine. Racing has changed.

You seem angry that Curlin, while winning every dirt race he ran in this year didn't do it fast enough for you. That's quite the compelling arguement. I think it's pretty obvious who the real fraud is and it's not Curlin....

I have never iggified anyone because there was always something to take from the poster. But this "Curlie" stuff is like nails on a chalkboard while watching harness racing..unbearable.

[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 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!

[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.