$30,000 Stallions

[bcassidy]

Liberty, sorry about the excuse, I love AA and I am very concerned about his derby chances. Ritchie ran him in the small stake where AA runs his tail off and then Ritchie brings him right back in a longer race without enough rest in between. Ritchie plans to run him again after running some antibiotics through him for a few days. What A mistake this will turn out to be. I really feel like he has already compromised AA's chances of even making it to the derby. The problem with a guy like Ritchie is that just making it to the dance will be good enough for him. This horse needs rest and he won't get it in this barn. As far as Northern Afleet goes he will have many other runners to prove what kind of stallion he is, he is no one horse wonder. As I have said on previous posts, his best value may be as a world class turf sire. Mark my words, no one has seen the best of this stallion yet and I am very confident about his breeding value------Incredible bargain!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bcassidy]

libery, By my way of thinking, Servis kept Elliot on Smarty and cost him the triple crown. These are exactly the kind of trainer errors I am referring to. Smarty was absolutely the best 3 yr old in the country last year and should be the triple crown winner. Servis blew it with Elliot. How many mile and a half races do you think Elliot rides in a year????????????
Similarly, Barclay Tagg has absolutely mishandled Funny Cide since the triple crown series. Another very good horse being poorly mananged and I hardly think mentioning Captain Bodgit's 2nd and 3rd warrant special consideration for the trainer--he didn't even win a triple crown race. I think all you have done is prove my point. I would like to have seen the outcomes for these horses had they been in other more TC experienced barns. These are not your average trainer skills we are talking about. I have noticed a huge difference in Baffert's training plans since he had some early success with the TC races and I would venture a guess that he would do some things very different if he could run some of those races again with the same horses. You would have thought that Sevis would have learned something about a mile and half race from watching what happened to Real Quiet-- there is no education like experience and I doubt either Baffert or Servis would make that mistake again. I want as much TC experience on my side of the table as I can get. Just my humble opinion.

[saintlyCZ]

bcassidy: sorry to say this, but do you like at least one trainer? I'm far from NA racing, but from your posts I have the feeling that every single flop of every single horse is trainer's mistake...
Yes, I agree - Smarty could won Triple Crown (not should, but could) and Funny Cide too. They didn't, okay. But I don't understand where you see trainers' mistakes? Were they riding those horses? All their chances were lost during the race, Funny's chances also some days before in training...
All trainers are doing mistakes sometimes. Bringing Tizdubai to Great Britain was mistake, for example. Azeri's last year's career was one of the biggest mistakes I've ever seen. Not whole, but some parts were. But I don't think every lose of every horse is trainer's mistake... And above all, I don't think that this is enough for saying that those trainers are bad... but that's just in opinions. However, I don't agree with you at all.

[KAL]

Neither Servis or Elliott cost Smarty the Triple Crown... he simply was beaten by a horse that was better at that distance, on that track, on that day. To think otherwise is simply rubbish supported by emotional conjecture with no way for it to ever be proven.

Of course, I understand the reasons for wanting to believe this... and even have some understanding for the arguement... but the more one looks at the race in a clear, concise, and unemotional manner; the more one evaluates the race (especially in retrospect) the more the winner seems logical. Sure, Elliott's ride wasn't perfect, but on that day, even perfect probably would not have been good enough. Besides, he may not have had a choice... had he wrangled with Smarty, they probably would not have hit the board.

If for no other reason, look at pedigree... Birdstone's sire Grindstone won the Derby. Birdstone's 1/2 sister won G I's at Belmont. Birdstone had shown an affinity for the surface, as had his sis... and had the pedigree to get the distance.

I actually wasn't much of a Smarty fan until the Belmont. He impressed me with his heart, determination, and talent. He also seemed to be a horse who enjoyed the challenge. All these things simply were not enough on that particular day, on that particular track, against that particular horse. In my opinion, he probably didn't even figure as second best... but there he was... with an impressive performance... and further proof that he was enough horse to give people cause to erroneously blame either his jockey or trainer, rather than admit his defeat.

On another note... Silverghost... I tend to agree with LSB. Of course, to be slightly more diplomatic, I would be more accepting if you would identify yourself and your attachment to the site then invite us to comment on your review. The way you are doing it now is fairly childish... "what do you think about what I....err.... I mean....what this site has to say about..." . Comeon... if it is your opinion and you feel it is legitimate, come on here proudly ready to defend your point... don't act as if you are disconnected from the site. Heck, it is a pretty nice piece of work, even if I don't completely agree with everything you say on it. If it is not your site, why are you pandering so hard for us to visit it?

[bcassidy]

saintlyCZ---I love to gamble on the horses and this has taught me to be a good student of the game. When you risk your money you pay attention to a lot of details about trainers and their methods. I truely feel Smarty Jones was by far and away the best 3 yr old last year and should have easily won the triple crown, he didn't win the TC because of an inexperienced ride by a jockey who was unfamilar with the distance and gave the horse a bad trip. I certainly don't think you can blame the horse for not winning that race when you watch a replay of the race. Elliot made two fatal mistakes and the horse still ran huge. I will try and back these statements up with some facts as I see them.
1. The speed sheets had Smarty Jones as one of the fastest 3 yr olds to have ever raced at 3. No fluke and the horse raced for a trainer which historically has a very clean reputation, not like some trainers which shall remain nameless that consistently get great performances from horses only at certain tracks. Smarty was also amazingly consistent with his performances. Another unique attribute to support my premise. For a young horse-- he put some amazing races back to back to back, a very difficult thing for a young horse to do and he did it while traveling extensively to different tracks. He raced at different distances and track surfaces, all in a very short amount of time. For a young 3 yr old---His performance was amazing.
2. Because of the tracks Elliot typically rides at, the mile and a half race is a very uncommon race for him to actually ride in. His timing and race strategy were off the day of the Belmont and he cost Smarty Jones the TC.
3 I believe Elliot felt he had the best horse that day and he rode him like trip and pace didn't matter----- unfortunately experience tells me it does----- and it did. I truely believe if he saves ground and rates him off the pace, Smarty wins the race easily. It was jockey error which cost him the race and the TC. I was at the race in person and I called the mistake after the first turn, he was too wide and then he hit the accelerator too soon. A very common mistake for a jockey who doesn't ride that distance very often. Bailey, Prado or Velazquez doesn't make that mistake, Desormeaux and Elliot do.
4. Watching someone like Baffert gain the experience to compete and win the TC races is an exciting process to watch. There are many great trainers out there but few who have gained the experience to really have a shot at winning the triple crown. The horse certainly matters but to win the TC---so does the trainer!
I was critical of Elliot during the race and I will always believe that Elliot cost Smarty Jones the TC.

[bcassidy]

KAL--In addition to what I wrote to saintlyCZ I would like to add as a reply to your post "that pace makes the race" and no where would that be more correct than a race at a mile and a half. Jockeys can get incredibly good at gauging pace for races at varying distances and if a jockey does not have the timing to be competetive at a longer distance you certainly can't blame the horse for that. Not only did Elliot blow the pace scenario but he also was three wide for most of the race. Smarty could probably have overcome one of these mistakes but he certainly couldn't overcome both of them. I think for reasons far from just the ability of the horse, the TC is a very difficult task to conquer. To think other wise is as you say "rubbish". It takes a great horse, trainer and jockey to win the TC today. In Smarty's case they may have had 2 of the 3. I truely believe Elliot rode Smarty like he couldn't lose the race and he cost the horse the TC. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the race.

[Ryeno]

Brendan,

I agree and disagree with a lot of your points.The one about Elliot and Smarty Jones I do not agree with.Your stance is full of "who shot John".If he would have,if he could have etc.Bottom line the horse and rider won 2/3 of the triple crown.Elliot erred by moving to early on to quick of a pace.Agreed but hindsight is always 20/20.Elliot did what he felt was right.Instead of taking a hold and possibly finding himself in a blind switch somewhere at the head of the lane he went for it.I think you would have found Jerry,Pat or Johnny V do the same thing.Another part of your post I completley disagree with is your take on Bobby B. You seem to be a big fan of his so I'll be nice but I think you are putting in to much credit for a guy who starts off year after year with some of the most promising horses in the country and ends up having to buy a Derby contender(War Emblem).I know I watch and read a lot of races and forms from Cali and it is apparent he is lucky to have the owners that are willing to plunk down HUGE dollars for minimal results.Remember a Sea of Secrets colt they paid a few million for and the horse cant break and 87 beyer?I had one I paid 1000 bucks for do that!I also laugh at the fact he works every horse as fast as they can go.Horse works 3/4's in 110 and change and then runs in a Mdn Spw that goes in 110:4 and runs 5th?Whats up with that?Interesting how many of his 675,000$ yearling and two year old purchases I see runnng first out for 50g's????Sometimes less.I have also been told by very good sources that Baffert is only as good as his assistant trainers.Bobby B doesnt do dirty so obviously it is someone else checking things out.Also interesting that Pegram has more and more horses with Mike Puich.As far as AA needing a new trainer I disagree with that.The mistake I feel Richey made was changing riders! When had Johnny V ever been on the horse before?Does he know his idiocincricies,traits?I dont believe so as Jeremy Rose rode him in his prep for the Rebel and worked him leading up to it.Kharma works in mysterous ways.

[bcassidy]

Ryeno, I agree with your comments about Baffert, I was merely trying to point out the progression he made as a trainer while chasing the three TC races individually and then as a whole. It is difficult to point out other trainers because so few are fortunate to have the stock to be competitive year after year. The subtlety I was trying to point out was the way he conditioned his horses going into the TC races now vs his early attempts. You or I may not like him or the way he trains, but if he has the horse and it is healthy, I would take him as a trainer to win the TC over most other trainers in the country. I would certainly take him over Lukas, Pletcher or Mandella for sure because I think he has focused more on trying to win it than they might. It is a unique goal and I think it has its own prescription for success. It will take a special trainer to win it, one who will focus on it and someone who consistently gets the stock to go for it. Which is why I think Baffert will win it before any other trainer. His owners want to win it and so does he, that is why he keeps getting the horses. Hope this helps explain my POV.

[bcassidy]

Reyno, another point I want to make about trip handicapping. As an owner, I am amazed at the apparent lack of commitment to a trip stratgey before a race by some trainers and jockeys. I know the great jockeys are students of the form and aren't afraid to commit to a strategy before a race. I think the trainers and jockeys who don't commit before a race are afraid to admit they don't know what will work best for them that day and have a built in excuse after the race to say what ever they want about why they didn't win the race. I find an incredible lack of skill in most poor jockeys to guage pace and save ground, by definition they are therefore bad jockeys. The best are unbelievable good at both of these skills and it is the exact reason why they are so good at their profession. Years of experience have taught me how to read a form and nothing pleases me more than finding a jockey that can do the same and then execute his winning strategy. Most people I know in the game are afraid to take a stand and would rather have circumstances dictate what happens during a race then trying to put your horse in the best situation to win the race. I am not one of those people.

[bcassidy]

reyno-- I don't mean to sound harsh but to think that changing from Rose to Velasquez is a mistake is incredibly naive. The jockey is a huge part of a horses success and I strongly recomment you don't follow your instincts at the betting window. You will lose more often than you win.

[FOS]

hi Brendan...hello all

Some great points, insights etc from all re: Smarty Jones (and company) and the Belmont etc.

But...respectfully...I suggest that Nick Zito may have played his best hand of trainer's poker ever (going into the Belmont) and he had his horse prepared for the performance of a lifetime that day. I suggest that in retrospect Smarty Jones...Servis and Elliott had little chance that day (unless of course Birdstone fell down).

It appeared to me that between the Preakness and the Belmont, Servis fell victim to the news and sports media and genuinely felt he was unbeatable...with Smarty Jones.

This is where Zito comes in. His horse was training at Saratoga like a monster...and Zito knew it (yet no one else seemed to know or care about it). When interviewed, Zito NEVER talked about his horse...basically he went along with everyones accolades re: Smarty Jones...and he NEVER said (as Zito is capable of doing) 'forget Smarty Jones my horse (Birdstone) is training ike a monster and it'll take one hell of a racehorse to beat us.' Any comment such as like that would have drawn attention from Servis (and the media)...and I do not recall Servis ever referencing Birdstone in any of his pre-Belmont interviews as a serious adversary.

Zito is a media-darling (at least to some extent) yet he played his cards VERY close. NEVER even a miniscule hint of braggadocio. He clearly did not want to draw any attention to his horse...Nothing...Nada...Zero.

Instead...Zito...piled up the compliments on Smarty Jones. He even said at one point that Smarty Jones looked unbeatable (but Zito knew different).

Zito KNEW his horse was training PERFECTLY coming into the Belmont, yet he never even once (to my knowledge) even hinted at it.

Point I'm making is that trainer Servis totally ignored Birdstone...and clearly focused on the horses which the media focused on...Rock Hard Ten arguably being the biggest attention getter.

Again...Birdstone was rarely if ever mentioned...Servis was lulled into his confidence...yet Zito and Birdstone clearly had Smarty Jones in their crosshairs.

I suggest that the 2004 Belmont was no fluke win for Birdstone...simply a Very good horse (Birdstone)...trained and ready-for-bear by a guy who simply outfoxed everyone...and ridden by a guy who followed the strategy and game-plan to the tee...Edgar Prado.

I also suggest strongly that Birdstone...Zito and Prado were perfectly prepared to win the Belmont (conditioning and strategy-wise) and would have won regardless if Elliott had ridden his horse differently. Birdstone was definitely the best horse on Belmont day.

This debate may go on forever...but not in my mind...Birdstone BEAT Smarty Jones fair and square...and exposed the mortality of Smarty Jones and his team.

But...as always Brendan...I respect and appreciate your thoughts and insights always.

Respectfully

To suggest that

[halo]

What Kal said.

To add 2 more cents worth to that, you'll never connvince me that Smarty Jones was a true mile and a half horse. The fact that he ran as well as he did showed to me he was a far better horse than perhaps anyone realized up to that time. The list of great horses who came up short in the Belmont is endless; Smarty was beaten less than 2 lengths. He proved his talent to me that day. Sorta like when Seattle Slew was running. He really never touched me until the day he lost to Exceller. From that point on, he had my respect.

Had Birdstone not been in the race, Smarty would have won by daylight.

Smarty was the real deal; he lost the Belmont fair and square. To pin blame on Elliot or Servis for the defeat is ridiculous.

That was more like 25 cents worth.

And for anyone to think that Afleet Alex didnt have enough time between the Mountain Valley and the Rebel, then you would also have to think he wouldnt have a prayer in the Triple Crown races. Those are, after all, 2 weeks apart.

[Ryeno]

Hi Brendan,

Do i feel Jeremy Rose is a better rider than Johnny V?No i do not but I also believe in going with what has worked.Rose has been quite succesfull on AA and horses find a comfort zone with a certain rider and when sat upon by someone they do not know and doesnt know them can yield poor results.You gave me advice about gambling that I can not follow.If i was to play Johnny V all the time I would be highly disapointed as granted he wins a lot of races unfortunalty the majority of them are even money or quite close to that.Even if he wins 25% of his races it is still a losing proposition.I have been quite successful wagering on little known jocks on live horses that you apparently wont bet.Bad for you good for me.If i can get Jeremy Rose home on a 12-1 shot or Johny V on a 5-2 shot who would you rather bet?I'll take the price as you dont have to hit as many to turn a profit.AS a gambler I have a rule where i dont play horse under 7-1.How many times a year do you think a Johnny V,Baile or Pat Day get bet down to less than that just because they are in the Irons?One of the biggest and best scores I ever made gambling on the simulcast was on S.Cali racing on a rider named Luis Jauregi?He had a win % the same as the Milk i drink but it didint stop me from betting and hitting because the horse fit what iwas looking for and won and paid 112$ dollars up here on the Canadian simulcast.
Ryeno

[bcassidy]

FOS, I can certainly see your point of view, although I would add that in post race interviews even Zito appeared to be stunned that he beat Smarty, clearly the mile and a half distance is a significant variable but just as you feel strongly about Birdstone being the best horse that day, I will forever feel that it was a huge jockey error that cost Smarty the triple crown.

Halo, my point about the time in between the Mountain Valley and the Rebel has nothing to do with whether it is sufficient time under normal conditions but if, as Ritchie says the horse was sick, shouldn't he have known that before the race? And even worse now, knowing his horse was sick after the Rebel, his stated course of action, is to run some antibiotics through him for a couple of days and then run him in the Arkansas Derby, does that sound plausible to you? Big efforts--like AA ran in the mountain valley can certainly lower a horses resistance to sickness, (which in my opinion is why AA came up sick for the Rebel) but to think you can run some anitbiotics through him for a couple of days, then run him in the Arkansas and hope to run him in the Kentucky is absurd. No way will this happen! If Ritchie runs AA in the Ark he has no shot of winning the Kentucky Derby. I would pass on the Ark and let AA get as healthy as possible and then head straight to the Kentucky Derby. This unfortunately is exactly why I was commenting about Ritchie's "lack of experience" to get this horse through the TC races. He doesn't have the experience to get it done. AA is one hell of a horse. Unfortunatly he is in very inept hands. He will get eaten alive if Ritchie stays with his stated course of action and to later blame it on the horse is even more of a shame. Just as people will say that Smarty wasn't good enough to get it done on Belmont day the same people will also say that AA was not good enough to win the Derby. If a trainer can take loads of credit when a horse runs good why can't we also look at that trainers methods when a horse runs poorly. I am going on record before the races saying Ritchie won't get it done if he stays with the current plan. Do I think AA is good enough to win the Derby--- absolutely, but not with the way he is being handled right now.

Halo, how many true mile and a half horses are even stabled in this country? Why would you own one? there are so few races for them to run in, especially on the dirt and certainly not at tracks where Stew Elliot rides which is why I say Stew didn't have the skill to compete in that race. You admit that Smarty only loses by two lengths after a horrible pace and trip scenario and you still think he couldn't have won the Belmont with a better trip--- Please. Smarty lost more than two lengths coming out of the first turn!

Reyno. I understand value as well as anyone. My point is-- if you have a choice of either Valasquez or Rose to ride the same horse--- who do you select? No contest---Velasquez, and you better get 20-1 not 7-1 if you want to bet Rose over Velasquez on equal horses. Clearly even Ritchie can see that difference (a la the jockey change), how many horses do you think Ritchie has in his barn that Velasquez would even consider riding? My other point about the importance of a good trip is exactly why a 20-1 shot can beat a 5-2 shot. When a 20-1 shot wins, it usually happens because that horse got a better trip, not because he was a better horse. It's racing and stuff happens. Look at what happened to Smarty--- a bad trip did him in. Unfortunately, bad jockeys give good horses bad trips all the time, it is more rare to see a good jockey give a good horse a bad trip but even that happens. Sometimes though, even a bad jockey can get a lucky trip---hence the 20-1 payoff, but the ability to get a good trip consistently is exactly what separates good jockeys from bad jockeys. Not enough trainers, jockeys or owners understand the importance of pace and ground lost or ground saved--- the best jockeys do and the great jockeys master both of these skills! Heck I knew exercise riders that when told to breeze a horse in 48 flat or 48.3 could do it 9 out of 10 times, these are the skills that separate the great from the good and the good from the bad. The more even the field---the more important the jockey becomes.

Respectfully, Brendan.

[FOS]

hi Brendan

You wrote "...I would add that in post race interviews even Zito appeared to be stunned that he beat Smarty, clearly the mile and a half distance is a significant variable but just as you feel strongly about Birdstone being the best horse that day, I will forever feel that it was a huge jockey error that cost Smarty the triple crown."

Zito stunned that "he beat Smarty?"...absolutely not...exhilarated and relieved yes (maybe stunned in that sense yes)...and thrilled that he had won his first Belmont. But not stunned that Birdstone "beat Smarty"...I suggest that he was very confident that he had the horse to do that on Belmont day.

As you recall the world (or most of it) thought that Smarty J was all but a cinch to win the Belmont. I expect that it's probably fair to say that Belmont day was expected by many (if not most) to be a coronation of Smarty Jones. The fans and media (to a large degree) may have been stunned...but not Zito (other than the huge pressure was now over).

In the weeks coming-up to the Belmont, Zito was EXTREMELY confident...although he was careful not to expose that to the press...or in his on-TV interviews. Zito was cool...calm...and complimentary to everyone and Smarty Jones (I suggest in an effort not to draw much attention to his horse). Zito knew how exceptionally well his horse was training and coming up to the race...and he and Edgar Prado had the perfect strategy...and the horse to pull it off.

Post race...as you might imagine...the world (or most of it) seemed disappointed (and maybe that's a huge understatement)...and I suggest that Zito had wisdom enough not to gloat or rub anyone's nose in it. Maybe that demeanor is what you might have interpreted as "stunned."

It was a very rare post-race scene...peoples expectations (and arguably some hopes and dreams) were shattered...and Zito and his connections sensed that...and were very careful to show great respect...to all.

Stunned...no...Zito was not "stunned" (as you wrote)...simply relieved...very relieved (I'm sure the pressure was enormous coming up to the Belmont). And (again) everyone in the Birdstone camp was extremely respectful...noticeably-so on TV. It almost seemed surrealistic...like millions of viewers were attending a tragic moment (at least that's how it seemed to be reported)...and it seemed like team-Zito was apologizing for their victory...instead of jumping for joy...or jubilation. You might agree...the post-Belmont tone was very unique.

My take on-it-all aside...your views and insights are always appreciated...and valued highly.

Best to you...always.

Respectfully