Siberian Summer - Great Value at $5k

[Rokeby Forever]

Oh, by the way, Maven - Swap Fliparoo DESTROYED Oonagh Maccool today. Allen Jerkens is the BEST trainer that ever lived. Period!

[Maven]

Like I said, preaching to the choir... Swap Fliparoo is a very talented mare. I stated before, that family continues to get better with age even when bred to speed. I expect good things from her.

Oonagh Maccool does have some very good excuses for a poor showing. First race off a long layoff, poor post position, and was under pressure the whole way.

Swap Fliparoo was much the best today but I wouldnt be surprised to see OM take one from her later in the year.

[Rokeby Forever]

I wouldn't expect OM to make it through a full year....don't forget what barn she's in.

[Maven]

I try not to focus on what *may* happen. I've been around this sport long enough to know you go one race at a time or else you get disappointed very easily and readily.

Here's hoping she stays sound and it ends up being a strong distaff division.

[Rokeby Forever]

"Stay sound"? Having flashbacks to the 1970s?

[Rokeby Forever]

By the way, Jerkens won the other stake today with Any Limit. We're lucky to be alive in an era when this guy trains.

[Sam]

Sam I still haven't heard an answer to my question about Bernardini. You said it makes no sense for a horse to run in the Preakness if it's not going to run in the Belmont. Was it a mistake to run Bernardini in just the Preakness? Yes or no???

No. But then you're trying to make "Mistake" mean the same as "makes no sense" and that only works in your world.

It's never a "mistake" to run in any race unless you lose or breakdown.

HOWEVER, if he'd been MINE, no I would not have bothered with the Preakness unless I thought there was a horse entered capable of winning it and the Belmont (and no, I did NOT think Barbaro would win the Preakness... which is why I posted less than a day after the Derby that he should skip the Preakness and wait for the Belmont. I thought he looked off, but not necessarily 'unsound') OR I felt he could win the Preakness but not the Belmont because of distance limitations.

I personally don't give a damn about "tradition" and I never fell for the mystique of the triple crown. I care about year end championships. That means you only have to win two legs of the triple crown and I'd rather win the Belmont than the Preakness (a race I've never hid my disdain for). If I owned a Derby winner and felt it was in his/her best interest to skip the Preakness, you're damn right I would.

The triple crown is a chess match to the 3yo Championship. Win two legs and you lock up the title. You can sit on your ass for the rest of the year because the ONLY way a horse takes a 3yo CH. from a dual classic winner is to win MULTIPLE G1s against OLDER horses. It takes a Holy Bull or Key To The Mint to take a championship away from a dual classic winner and those horses don't come around often.

I had no reason to believe Barbaro would win the Preakness and knew when he lost, he would not be going on to the Belmont. Which meant the 3yo championship was up for grabs. Run in the Preakness ONLY if you think you can win it and the Belmont then sit out most or all of the rest of the year. If you don't think you can win both, you don't run in both. Pick one then aim for a Fall G1 like the Haskell or Travers then go into the Breeders' Cup.

Had Bernardini been mine, I'd have run in the Belmont then gone to the Travers and/or the Jockey Club Gold Cup before the Classic... which means I would have done almost the exact same campaign as Darley. For some reason they felt he was better suited to the Preakness and Jazil was better suited to the Belmont -- obviously they were correct.

Where is Jazil now?

The only reason the Preakness means anything is because it is the bridge race between the Derby and the Belmont. If not for its place in the Triple Crown, I doubt even half the Derby winners in it in the last 30 years would bother with it and it sure as hell would not be a G1.

[Rokeby Forever]

So, let me understand....the Belmont Stakes should stay Grade 1? How many Grade 1 winners ran in the Belmont Stakes last year....Bob & John and WHO ELSE??? One horse out of 12 was a Grade 1 winner and the race should stay Grade 1...brilliant!

What you posted the other day was that there was no reason to run in the Preakness unless the horse would also run in the Belmont. So, with that pearl of wisdom, I asked if it applied to Bernardini. Who the hell is talking about tradition or Barbaro???? Can't you stay on ONE subject?

Did it make sense for Bernardini to run in the Preakness and not the Belmont? That's the question...who cares about Barbaro or tradition?

[Rokeby Forever]

OK Sam, forgetting Bernardini....how about the case of Red Bullet?

Joe Orseno never had any intention of racing Red Bullet in the Belmont Stakes, before or after his Preakness start. What other race did Red Bullet ever win that gave him a right to become a stallion? It "made no sense" to just run the horse in the Preakness? Would he be at stud right now if he didn't?

Or...are you going to start talking about Barbaro again?

[Patuxet]

This discussion is incredibly painful for this old man. It's like a eulogy for the sport I knew and loved wherein a 3-y-o would race through the classics and then take on his elders at weight-for-age in the 2-mile Jockey Club Gold Cup at the end of the season to determine HOY.

And sometimes a horse would do even more, like Arts And Letter, who took on older horses in the Metropolitan Mile between running in the Preakness and the Belmont.

The other sport in which I participated at a fairly high level was tennis. Thank God it hasn't lowered the net or changed the court like racing has.

[Rokeby Forever]

You've got that right, Patuxet. Now, because we breed unsound horses that can't race 15 times a year any more, the Preakness is now an abomination. Fillies can't run 1 1/2 miles, so we shorten the CCA Oaks. Horses can't run 2 miles any more, so the JCGC was shortened. The sport is conforming to the horse instead of the other way around.

Why not make the KY Derby a 1 1/8th mile race? 17 or 18 out of the 20 don't want more than that, anyway.

[Sam]

the Belmont Stakes should stay Grade 1?

Please show me where I said that.

My preference for the Belmont has to do with my preference for the distance and the track. I still adhere to the old adage of "The luckiest horse wins the Derby, the fastest wins the Preakness and the best horse wins the Belmont." Unfortunately, the Belmont has become a race of attrition in the last few years, so the best horse is no longer the one that wins it. Some feel that is because the breed is unsound and can't run that far anymore. I happen to believe it's because people don't know how to train horses to run that far anymore.

Based on the last 10 runnings or so, no, I don't think it should be a G1 either... but you didn't ask that.

What you posted the other day was that there was no reason to run in the Preakness unless the horse would also run in the Belmont.

Actually, what I posted was that I personally feel (IOW, my own OPINION, and I don't give a damn what you think of that opinion) there is no need to run in the Preakness unless you'd won the Derby OR you feel you can win both the Preakness and Belmont OR you believe neither you nor the Derby winner can win the Belmont.

My opinion of the Preakness is that it is only as valuable as its ability to help your horse coast through the rest of its 3yo campaign to year end championship.

To lock up the 3yo title, you only need to win two out of the three classics. So pick two and aim for those. That means you aim for the Derby/Preakness, Derby/Belmont or the Preakness/Belmont. I'd rather space the races out so I would pick the Derby/Belmont combo.

So, with that pearl of wisdom, I asked if it applied to Bernardini.

If he were mine, yes.

I felt he was capable of winning BOTH races and THOUGHT Darley would be racing him in the Belmont. Had I known they were only going to run in one of the classics, I personally would have opted for the Belmont over the Preakness. Maybe I'd have been wrong, maybe I'd have been right. We will never know.

Did it make sense for Bernardini to run in the Preakness and not the Belmont?

If he were mine, no. But then I've already answered that... twice.

MY PERSONAL OPINION (something you seem to have a hard time grasping) is that there is no compelling reason to run in the Preakness. I do not like Pimlico racetrack and the Preakness of late is not the race it was even 15 years ago, regardless of its ranking or purse. If it's a choice between the Preakness and the Peter Pan, I will run in the Peter Pan.

You asked me if I thought racing in it was a "mistake" and I answered the only time running is a mistake is if you lose or breakdown.

Barbaro made a mistake. Bernardini did not.

Joe Orseno never had any intention of racing Red Bullet in the Belmont Stakes, before or after his Preakness start.

I'm not Joe Orseno.

What other race did Red Bullet ever win that gave him a right to become a stallion?

I don't think winning ANY single race gives ANY horse the 'right to be a stallion'. I think winning more than one single stake MAY earn a chance at stud. I also think there are other things that can earn a horse the chance at stud.

It "made no sense" to just run the horse in the Preakness?

For those connections with that horse, it did. *I* wouldn't have bothered.

What part of "I (ME, MYSELF, MY PERSONAL OPINION) don't feel there is a compelling reason to run in that race except under specific terms" aren't you understanding?

Would he be at stud right now if he didn't?

I'm not convinced he should be at stud, at least not where he is and for what he's getting as a stud fee.

Dead end discussion. You really don't care what you say so long as you get a response and I'm not doing this dance with you again. I've stated my opinion more than enough times for even a chimp to understand it. Your inabilty to grasp it is your character flaw, as is your need to pick fights with anyone who will grant you a little attention.

[Sam]

This discussion is incredibly painful for this old man. It's like a eulogy for the sport I knew and loved wherein a 3-y-o would race through the classics and then take on his elders at weight-for-age in the 2-mile Jockey Club Gold Cup at the end of the season to determine HOY.

Times change and we have to change with them.

I would love for racing to go back to what it used to be since I missed it all the first time, but that isn't going to happen and you have to either adapt to the rules now or find something else.

I'd rather see the entire Triple Crown abolished than see a change made to it. I've accepted the reality that it won't happen.

Pimlico won't be around 15 years from now. The Preakness will be moved and at some point, I expect the dates and distances to change because that's what the new trainers appear to want (since they don't seem capable of conditioning a horse to run 3 races in 5 weeks or to run more than 9 furlongs). Right now, the only one of the three I believe will remain untouched for the next 10-15 years will be the Derby.

[Rokeby Forever]

People now see you for what you are, Sam....I think they've laughed enough. End of discussion.

[Rokeby Forever]

It's too funny that Sam writes,"I don't think winning ANY single race gives ANY horse the 'right to be a stallion", but she writes, "Times change and we have to change with them."

Which is it? Sky Mesa won only the Hopeful and buyers jumped all over his yearlings. Tale Of The Cat won only the King's Bishop and he has over 1,000 foals on the ground.

Sam also writes, "I also think there are other things that can earn a horse the chance at stud." Like what...pedigree? If so, then you don't mind 100 unraced sons of Storm cat at stud. Or, you don't mind a well bred horse with one stake win standing stud? Exactly what "other things" earn a chance at stud?

Oh, Sam...try to stop contradicting yourself so often...OK?