6/11 (BEL): Belmont Stakes Probables/Possibles

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

All those horses you noted also ran in the Kentucky Derby. Alternation was only making his 2nd stakes appearance in the Peter Pan.

So your argument is that horses that run in the Belmont Stakes can also win the Travers if they ran in the Kentucky Derby.
But....
If they didn't run in the Kentucky Derby, then running in the Belmont would ruin their chances of winning the Travers?

That doesn't make any sense to me.

Personally I don't think the horse is a particularly likely winner of either the Belmont or the Travers, but I don't see how running in this race would negatively affect his chances to win the Travers.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by miraja2

So your argument is that horses that run in the Belmont Stakes can also win the Travers if they ran in the Kentucky Derby.
But....
If they didn't run in the Kentucky Derby, then running in the Belmont would ruin their chances of winning the Travers?

Nope.

That doesn't make any sense to me.

The point not literally spelled out with my comment was that Alternation is, relatively speaking, "behind" those other horses (with the possible exception of Summer Bird) in terms of seasoning, particularly in the graded stakes ranks.

Personally I don't think the horse is a particularly likely winner of either the Belmont or the Travers, but I don't see how running in this race would negatively affect his chances to win the Travers.

I wasn't really trying to comment on his ability to win the Travers. I was merely playing Devil's Advocate with regards to skipping the Belmont.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

The point not literally spelled out with my comment was that Alternation is, relatively speaking, "behind" those other horses (with the possible exception of Summer Bird) in terms of seasoning, particularly in the graded stakes ranks.

All the more reason to run in the Belmont. The idea of "let's sit our horse on the sidelines because he doesn't have enough seasoning in graded stakes races" is like saying "I don't want to learn to play the guitar because I don't currently know how to play all my favorite songs." Its circular logic.

Also, is his "seasoning" really that far behind Animal Kingdom's....the likely favorite? Haven't they both made the same number of lifetime starts?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by miraja2

All the more reason to run in the Belmont. The idea of "let's sit our horse on the sidelines because he doesn't have enough seasoning in graded stakes races" is like saying "I don't want to learn to play the guitar because I don't currently know how to play all my favorite songs." Its circular logic.

That is a ridiculous comparison. Why would someone use a mile-and-one-half classic race to develop a horse?

It would be more like: "I'm learning to play the guitar and I'll be filling in for Eddie Van Halen during Van Halen's summer tour to get some experience."

Also, is his "seasoning" really that far behind Animal Kingdom's....the likely favorite? Haven't they both made the same number of lifetime starts?

Animal Kingdom not only ran early during his 2yo year (Alternation broke his maiden in December), but he also has run in both the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness. He has a decided edge on Alternation in terms of experience, regardless of total number of starts.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

That is a ridiculous comparison. Why would someone use a mile-and-one-half classic race to develop a horse?

It would be more like: "I'm learning to play the guitar and I'll be filling in for Eddie Van Halen during Van Halen's summer tour to get some experience."

Animal Kingdom not only ran early during his 2yo year (Alternation broke his maiden in December), but he also has run in both the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness. He has a decided edge on Alternation in terms of experience, regardless of total number of starts.

So now....not only does a horse have to have run in the Kentucky Derby for it to make sense to enter the horse in the Belmont, but it also needs to have run "early during his 2yo year."
Your argument makes less sense to me the more you make it.
The horse just won a G2 race and defeated another decent Graded stakes winner in the process. You act like a horse needs to run in a certain number of races or a certain number of graded stakes races to have a shot in a big G1 race. That's just absolutely not the case in the game today.

The connections have apparently made their decision for whatever reason. It seems odd to me, but oh well. Perhaps they agree with you that it would be foolish to enter a horse in a big G1 race in June of his 3yo year because he didn't break his maiden until December of his 2yo year. If so, I think that's a pretty crappy reason.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by miraja2

So now....not only does a horse have to have run in the Kentucky Derby for it to make sense to enter the horse in the Belmont, but it also needs to have run "early during his 2yo year."

No. You just keep setting up straw men to knock down. You said Alternation wasn't spotting Animal Kingdom any seasoning because they had an equal number of starts. I simply countered that the latter started his racing career months before Alternation.

I certainly didn't claim some sort of magical calendar date after which a horse became ineligible to win the Belmont Stakes.

Your argument makes less sense to me the more you make it.

That's because you're trying to make hard and fast rules based on specifics I note about Alternation's career. The point was that Alternation is slightly behind the current top 3yos, so bypassing the Belmont is hardly a shocking development.

The horse just won a G2 race and defeated another decent Graded stakes winner in the process. You act like a horse needs to run in a certain number of races or a certain number of graded stakes races to have a shot in a big G1 race. That's just absolutely not the case in the game today.

Well, you yourself said that Alternation was unlikely to win the Belmont Stakes. What are some of the reasons that formed that opinion?

The connections have apparently made their decision for whatever reason. It seems odd to me, but oh well. Perhaps they agree with you that it would be foolish to enter a horse in a big G1 race in June of his 3yo year because he didn't break his maiden until December of his 2yo year. If so, I think that's a pretty crappy reason.

If it seems odd its because this is nothing but more straw man arguments.

Maybe the Wizard of Oz or Elton John can help you out. Just follow the yellow brick road.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

The point was that Alternation is slightly behind the current top 3yos, so bypassing the Belmont is hardly a shocking development.

It's a moot point because he is, but I do find it borderline shocking when a horse wins the Peter Pan and is not going to the Belmont in a year where all horses are lightly raced and relatively even on ability.

I would even say, barring injury, 9.5 times out of ten with any random horse/trainer/owner, the horse is in the gate in two Saturdays.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

No. You just keep setting up straw men to knock down. You said Alternation wasn't spotting Animal Kingdom any seasoning because they had an equal number of starts.

You accuse me of setting up straw men...and then you wildly misstate what I said. Go back and read my post again on the topic of Animal Kingdom and Alternation's seasoning. I certainly didn't say that Alternation "wasn't spotting Animal Kingdom any seasoning."
But I assume you already knew that.