134th Preakness Field Close to Set

Originally Posted by gales0678

dumb $ can account for some it , not all of it , certainly not the majority of it

It's a conspiracy!!!

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

It's a conspiracy!!!

coach surely you don't think every horse is trying every time they run - do you really think that?

trainers send horses out to run in a race just for a run thye don't try, then wham bam , they come back the next time or the time after that and the horse wins and outruns his form and they get a better price to win

fig's people scratch their head at this thinking this horse was an underlay and shoudn't be bet, but , it can't always be explained away by saying it was dumb $ in the pools , dumb $ don't last forever

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by gales0678

coach surely you don't think every horse is trying every time they run - do you really think that?

trainers send horses out to run in a race just for a run thye don't try, then wham bam , they come back the next time or the time after that and the horse wins and outruns his form and they get a better price on the win

fig's people scratch their head at this thinking this horse was an underlay and shoudn't be bet, but , it can't always be explained away by saying it was dumb $ in the polls , dumb $ don't last forever

I think horses "don"t try" a lot less than you, or others may think. And you are giving trainers (and owners) too much credit for manipulating a race so there is a better "price ( not sure what you mean by that?? odds??) next time out. Just getting a horse to a race is a bigger challenge than actually winning sometimes so wasting a start as a set up is very risky. There may be a low expectation, but to not try and win a race or have the horse go all out is asking for trouble most of the time.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I think horses "don"t try" a lot less than you, or others may think. And you are giving trainers (and owners) too much credit for manipulating a race so there is a better "price ( not sure what you mean by that?? odds??) next time out. Just getting a horse to a race is a bigger challenge than actually winning sometimes so wasting a start as a set up is very risky. There may be a low expectation, but to not try and win a race or have the horse go all out is asking for trouble most of the time.

bob - i don't disagree with you on that , maybe i think it goes on more than it really does

but - to think that it doesn't go on ever at all is not right either

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Just so I'm clear, Gales are saying that maybe the connections weren't trying in the Sunland races, so they could cash in big in the Derby?

There is more than one Gales?




Regarding his point, if indeed there are horses/connections out there "not trying", I can pretty much guarantee they are not on the Derby trail doing it.

[gales0678]

perhaps steve can get a breakdown of how much was bet on the horse in Canada in particular at Woodbine , this would be interesting to see

perhpas some of the sharp players at Woodbine knew this horse had talent - they saw a big time jockey switch as the green light to bet this horse

[JerseyJ]

Originally Posted by gales0678

perhaps steve can get a breakdown of how much was bet on the horse in Canada in particular at Woodbine , this would be interesting to see

perhpas some of the sharp players at Woodbine knew this horse had talent - they saw a big time jockey switch as the green light to bet this horse

It doesn't really matter where people were betting on him from...the mutuel pool for the Derby was $43,434,837...every horse is going to get some money on them in that pool. It has no difference, especially when there are a number of longshot/50-1 ML horses.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by gales0678

perhaps steve can get a breakdown of how much was bet on the horse in Canada in particular at Woodbine , this would be interesting to see

perhpas some of the sharp players at Woodbine knew this horse had talent - they saw a big time jockey switch as the green light to bet this horse

perhaps there is no freaking way to explain it. Even if the horse had won the Freaking Sunland Park derby he would have been 40-1 at best. And we all would have tossed his ass out still. He showed grit as a two year old but he showed nothing as a three year old Marty. Nothing we come up with after the race would justify betting him in the race. Nothing

the only thing i disagree with is writing this horse off after he just won the Derby by 7 with a 105 Beyer. I'd like to see him run a few more times before writing him off... Am I going to use him him the Preakness?? most likely not unless somehow he's high odds (15-1 or higher) which is very unlikely. I'm probably not going to bet the Preakness at all... I'm still pissed at my piss poor opinion of the Derby.

I also agree with Coach that the Derby made a lot of horses look really bad... and I dont think the 2nd, 3rd or 4th finishers were impressive at all...

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Just so I'm clear, Gales are saying that maybe the connections weren't trying in the Sunland races, so they could cash in big in the Derby?

I think it is quite apparent the connections had no intention of running in the Derby. They bought the horse with hopes of running in the lucrative Sunland 3 yr old raced focusing on the Sunland Derby and if all went well there perhaps the Belmont Stakes. There was great uproar over Dunkirk's 150,000 graded earnings not being enough. At the start of 2009, with the 138,000 graded earnings of Mine That Bird I'm sure the connections weren't thinking that was enough and they made no attempt to run in a graded race. For anyone to say they weren't trying in the Sunland races is absolutely nuts. Those races were the reason they purchased the horse. A win in the Sunland Derby would have earned them more than what they paid for him.

Once the calvacade of injuries started...lo and behold they actually had enough graded earnings to get in the Derby and the legendary left footed drive to Louisville commenced. Their only goal in the Derby was to not get embarrased and finish top 10 and do enough to move on to the Belmont Stakes. Things changed.

[Antitrust32]

while its obvious this will be Rachel Alexandra's toughest race ever...

I wonder what her racing style will be with Big Drama and speed in that race... Hope she doesnt get caught up in a speed duel and fades.. but she might even be good enough to be in a speed duel and still put them away and win by open lengths.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

while its obvious this will be Rachel Alexandra's toughest race ever...

I wonder what her racing style will be with Big Drama and speed in that race... Hope she doesnt get caught up in a speed duel and fades.. but she might even be good enough to be in a speed duel and still put them away and win by open lengths.

lori if there is a wicked speed duel why wouldn't MTB be able to come off the pace and beat her ?

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by gales0678

coach surely you don't think every horse is trying every time they run - do you really think that?

trainers send horses out to run in a race just for a run thye don't try, then wham bam , they come back the next time or the time after that and the horse wins and outruns his form and they get a better price to win
r

I've certainly seen trainers run their horses at distances and over trips that the horse had demonstrated it despises, often as the first off the layoff. Like a 2-turn turf horse starting in a dirt sprint. And running them way over their heads in a race at the right distance, with no obvious reason (like it won by 10 last out). Is that what you are talking about? Or more like putting the wrong equipment on him (changing the bit) or getting a new jock, and telling him the wrong way to ride him? None of it technically a violation of the rules, but the sort of thing that leads to suspicions of skulduggery.