Curlin & the Classic

[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.

[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.

[slotdirt]

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

[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.

[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

[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!

[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]

Whatever, slotdirt ... the point is, EQ did throw another millionaire dirt runner in addition to The Jones.


Face it, Curlin was overrated this year ... and he finally (and thankfully) got exposed in the BCC. And I don't think it's a given that he would've handled those Euros on conventional dirt.

He simply didn't appear to be the same horse when the 'roids started to clear his system...

[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.

[Smooth Operator]

Brilliant stuff there, slot

Too bad you never got a chance to purchase that win ticket on SJ in the '04 BCC. Would've been a pleasure taking your money.

And do you actually believe that EM would've finished ahead of PP (or MdO and Cong, for that matter) in '03? How'd FC do in that little contest, btw?

Granted, AA may've had a shot to take down SL in '05, but I probably wouldn't have wagered a nickel on it.

[slotdirt]

Hey, I'm not the one that is using St. Liam holding off the brilliant Flower Alley in 2005 as evidence that good 4YO's always beat 3YO's in the Breeders Cup Classic.

[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.

[Smooth Operator]

Too bad we never got to see a rematch, Throat.

No doubt there are better examples, but I'll stand by that one as a good example of a high-quality older runner getting the best of his talented younger rival.

Frankly, I thought that Bernardini would win that day because Invasor hadn't raced for a while and was coming back in a 10-furlong contest. Thought he might be a bit short, but McLaughlin obviously did a great job preparing him for the big race.

[Smooth Operator]

Well, it's been almost two weeks now ... hopefully crybaby Asmussen has finally come to grips with the real reasons why his overrated colt lost last month.

[slotdirt]