- This topic has 146 replies, 56 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
I guess those stock fund guys who thought that horses were stock must feel like cattlemen now.
Wasn’t this the first time the horse has run drug free? Maybe that is a possible reason.
LGR, the distance had no bearing on what happened, he was beaten too far out for that to be the case.
The horse didn’t appear to be happy at any stage in the race, gave me the impression that he was feeling something, perhaps the foot?!
A big prize and a place in history against what appeared to be a ‘weak’ field, you can see why they might have thought that they might get away with it, just my opinion, of course.
Colin
In decreasing order of importance, the reasons for his defeat might be – no steroids, basic unsoundness, inability to stay 12f.
The run was surely too bad to be true.
I wouldn’t have the first clue as to whether he would trouble Curlin over 10f when BB is 100% but I don’t think that we should be writing him off on the back of one lousy performance, particularly when he may have been running carrying an injury.
Is ‘got at’ a possibility?
Never one for conspiracies, but this thought did cross my mind. The horse did not look comfortable during any stage of the race. His trainer was asked before the race by the American interviewer if Big Brown’s foot was alright and he answered, yes.
He did not seem happy to be questioned and was rather tetchy I thought.
The triple crown is not handed lightly to horses. There is a good reason why only a few horses have achieved to win all three. Since Affirmed, great horses such Spectacular Bid failed at the final hurdle. Belmont has simply proved a step too far for some very good colts.
That said, it may well have been the hoof that was causing the colt problems. The run was just too bad to be true.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
I can’t have distance, the hoof or ‘just not being good enough’ as factors in his defeat. He was beaten a very, very long way out, he appeared completely sound (and fit, so missed work not a factor), and he had already given a thorough kicking to most of the field.
My initial thought was ‘got at’, followed by the more prosiac ‘anti-got at’ – that without his usual medicated routine he is not the same horse. Either reason would be extremely sad for US racing.
TBH I think a third reason is more realistic – simply that the Triple Crown was too intense a demand for him and he was burnt out, unable to produce a third strenuous effort in the short space of time.
Just seen a recording on Youtube and the jockey gave him an awful ride, from box 1 he took him wide and should have kept him in on the rail to give him plenty of cover, from 4f out he was treading water and had no petrol in the tank whatsoever.
As usuall it is the last leg which always finds them out, Belmont as i have said before is a very European style of course in its shape and formation yet some jockeys ride it like a 1m oval and always peak to early, A French or Oz jock might have gone to the front then slowed it down before kicking on for home.
Is ‘got at’ a possibility?
Not really the same incentive to stop one there is there Z ? can’t imagine you could lay it for enough in Vegas without arousing suspicion?
Carvs, a great many significant backers in the US play with "moody" bookies based in Costa Rica, the Bahamas etc. Most of the betting is done on the phone.
These bookies give rebates to big boys – had the Saudi who lost 100 mil plus to Ladbrokes been betting with an underground outfit over there, he would have got 10% back in rake.
Most of this info comes from a fantastic racing book "Horseplayers" by Scott McLelland (who is a Chicago Tribune journalist). I also remember Cantor himself being interviewed on the Morning Line (when it was good) and he confirmed the position I describe.
There is incentive – and that wasn’t the Big Brown we all know and love.
Big Brown’s eclipse on his first drug-free run further illustrated the need for US racing to change it’s policy on this issue.
They should embark on a programme of ensuring all their racing surfaces are upgraded/changed and then outlaw the drugs which they currently allow and which are not allowed elsewhere.I was about to say that racing should set up a World body to administer/rule on this but then remembered – Athletics have that!
Corm, the problem with the "withdrawal" hypothesis is that Rick Dutrow stated on Friday that the last time BB was given Winstrol (the steroid in question) was April 15th.
That means BB won the Kentucky Derby AND Preakness without the steroid and that the Belmont was approached under identical conditions to the two other races.
ATR’s Sunday Forum and other European analysis of this has focused on this factor to the virtual exclusion of other reasons for the eclipse such as:
a)The quartercrack which left him a gallop or two short.
b)The distance. Imo he was beaten too far for this to be an issue – Smarty Jones for example was beaten inside the last 100 yards.
c)The depth of the track. Belmont yesterday resembled Southwell and the horses finished like three mile chasers.
d)The jockey’s move from inner to outer – a long shot. He made a similar move in the early stages of the Florida Derby.
e)The heat (severe for many horses).
f)The "got at" theory (horse racing authorities hate this one – after Gorytus went down in the 1982 Dewhurst, the last reason explicitly discussed was the possibility of nobbling even though Dick Hern knew for certain that his wonder 2-y-o was got at).
g)The Triple Crown is too tough. The challenge is now a severe test. The breed is no longer as tough as it was due to the outbreeding of stamina in the era of Northern Dancer and now Storm Cat. For the first time ever, some top American judges are calling for the TC to be spread out.
h) and finally…"horses are not machines". Big Brown simply didn’t fancy it and downed tools. In the end, this might be the most likely explanation for such a disappointing run.
Of course, it might be the steroid withdrawal. But then, it could be any of the above – or the alignment of the planets! We simply don’t know and as interested observers, at this point we can merely be hanging our instincts – and prejudices – on the coat rack.
when he was moved to the outside he had quite a bump with the fourth placed horse..could he have tweaked a muscle or something?
I wouldn’t mind betting that an injury, real or imagined, comes to light in the coming days and that we don’t see him again.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.