Beyer: Espinoza's ride could have cost Chrome Crown

[ateamstupid]

Anyone blaming Espinoza for Chrome's loss is completely grasping at straws. He saved ground on the first turn, had zero significant traffic trouble and gave his horse a clear shot to reel in the leaders in the stretch. The horse wasn't good enough to get it done.

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

It took a few things to happen for this horse to lose to these, and they did happen.

I thought he was the lock of the century?!

[JohnGalt1]

I thought he ran well, finishing only 1 3/4 lengths behind the winner, for a horse with a bloody gash in his foot.

[ScottJ]

Beyer's article does represent one view, but I had a slightly different take on Victor Espinoza's ride that has not been discussed : If you (as Espinoza did) decide to tuck after the opening quarter, what do you do after that point? As they headed up the backstretch, I was sure that Espinoza had sufficient horse to sit the pocket and pick a seam coming to the head of the stretch. Yes, this was a risky strategy, but it was how to play the pocket trip at Belmont once you decide to relinquish the lead.

Instead, my view was that the race was lost heading into the far turn. With my cheering, I implored Victor to stay inside. Instead, he swung four wide heading into the far turn losing a great deal of momentum in the process.

Now, was that a deciding factor? I am not sure - the Trakus data shows Tonalist running 8081 feet with every other competitor running less distance (which was a shocker to me) including California Chrome (-38), Commissioner (-67), Medal Count (-64), and Wicked Strong (-18).

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Anyone blaming Espinoza for Chrome's loss is completely grasping at straws. He saved ground on the first turn, had zero significant traffic trouble and gave his horse a clear shot to reel in the leaders in the stretch. The horse wasn't good enough to get it done.



I thought he was the lock of the century?!

He was. It really should be obvious to you that he was best.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

He was. It really should be obvious to you that he was best.

I don't know how you make that case without using the foot as an excuse.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I don't know how you make that case without using the foot as an excuse.

He stated his case before the race...

California Chrome can't lose unless he does...in which case I am right that he can't lose.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

He stated his case before the race...

California Chrome can't lose unless he does...in which case I am right that he can't lose.

Don't forget him chiding people who liked Tonalist for some reason.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Don't forget him chiding people who liked Tonalist for some reason.

Tonalist won because the favorite was badly compromised. Much like BTWs attempt to mock my reasoning goes.

That was a freaking terribly run race by everyone. I'm not sure how that is not obvious to anyone who has watched racing for any number of years.

I singled out Tonalist before the race because he was the one newcomer, or relatively unknown quality coming into this race, having never faced the horses who were already running in the other TC races.

Clement told a friend of mine that he liked his horses chances alot in the Belmont, but let's face it, that race he ran would not have touched CC in either the Derby or Preakness.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Clement told a friend of mine that he liked his horses chances alot in the Belmont, but let's face it, that race he ran would not have touched CC in either the Derby or Preakness.

Nobody ever said that Tonalist would have won the Derby or Preakness. The question was whether he would have a good chance to beat CC running 1 1/2 miles when it will be CC's third race in 5 weeks. That was the only thing that mattered. When I'm handicapping the Belmont, it is irrelevant to me how a horse would do running 1 1/4 miles against CC when both horses are fresh. The only thing that mattered to me when handicapping the Belmont was who will win going 1 1/2 miles when it is CC's third race in 5 weeks.

I can't tell you whether the grabbed quarter made a difference. It may have. There is no way to know for sure. That's not the point. The point was that nobody ever said Tonalist is better than CC. The only question was whether CC might be vulnerable under the specific circumstances (the distance plus the short rest) that he would be facing in the Belmont. I can't tell you for a 100% fact that those things made the difference. But I can tell you that the vast majority of the time that those factors will make a huge difference. If you expect a horse that wins the Derby and Preakness to run the same way in the Belmont, you will be in for a big disappointment the vast majority of times.

[JJP]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Clement told a friend of mine that he liked his horses chances alot in the Belmont, but let's face it, that race he ran would not have touched CC in either the Derby or Preakness.

He didn't have to beat Chrome in Louisville or Baltimore. Just in New York. At 1 1/2 miles. And he did it, despite more ground loss than anyone else in the race.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Tonalist won because the favorite was badly compromised. Much like BTWs attempt to mock my reasoning goes.

That was a freaking terribly run race by everyone. I'm not sure how that is not obvious to anyone who has watched racing for any number of years.

I singled out Tonalist before the race because he was the one newcomer, or relatively unknown quality coming into this race, having never faced the horses who were already running in the other TC races.

Clement told a friend of mine that he liked his horses chances alot in the Belmont, but let's face it, that race he ran would not have touched CC in either the Derby or Preakness.

We all praised Chrome for being a good horse who used his quality to work out great trips in Derby and Preakness and rightfully so. His trip in Belmont was fine he simply wasnt best.