OCTAVE-the-RAVE

First, my sincere thanks to all who stepped-up to the plate on the Barbaro v. Bernardini issue.  To restate, the final tally was 9 votes for Barbaro, 1 for Bernardini, with 1 noticable abstention.  The issue also officially has been put to bed over on the DRF blog-a-sphere.  Here was Dan Illman's final take on the issue:

"I finally have concluded that it is futile to argue which of the two is the better horse, Barbaro or Bernardini.  The answer is that we will never know.  They raced once, and it was compromised by Barbaro's breakdown.  Only on the racetrack do we find answers to these questions.  In this case, there is no answer.  Both are great horses.  Both would be deserving 3-year-old champions.  I have a very soft spot in my heart for Bernardini.  I have the same soft spot for Barbaro.  I do feel strongly that Bernardini deserves the award, even though I noticed over on Horseplayerdaily.com that I got crushed in the voting, and that only one little peckerhead agreed with me.  I'm still voting for Bernardini.  Tomorrow we'll discuss why I believe Filet au Pauve goes better with those little cartons of apple juice sucked through a straw rather than a '63 Chateau Mouton Lafite Rothschild.   Stay tuned ..."

Octave-the-Rave

With TEN precincts now reporting, the 3YO Male Horse of the Year voting currently stands as follows:

BARBARO:  (9) The HoarseHorsePlayer; Silver Charm; Caesar's Ghost; Singspeil; Octave-the-Rave; Judge JP; Ruffian; Lady Horse Player; The Old Hozer.

BERNARDINI: (1) McKinney

Octave-the-Rave

Amazing.  The points made on here so far about the 3YO champion being required to prove himself in the "Classics" I swear to you have not been mentioned over on the DRF by anyone, including Illman.  To me, they are just so sensible, and came flying forth from our bloggers.  Like, "What?  What are you kidding?  Bernardini?  Excuse me?"  Still, go there ... read that ... and you won't believe how many folks solidly are in Bernardini's camp.  Here's another vote for Barbaro, with a somewhat different perspective, acknowledging the previous blogs -- and The "Classics" mandate as penned -- as what should be, in my mind as well, the overwhelming criteria.

******************************************************************************************

Secretariat - 23.20  (1973)

Barbaro - 24.34  (2006)

Unbridled - 24.70 (1990)

Spectacular Bid - 24.90  (1979)

Monarchos - 24.97  (2001)

Seattle Slew - 25.10  (1977)

Fusaichi Pegasus - 25.38  (2000)

Thunder Gulch - 25.59  (1995)

Spend a Buck - 25.70  (1985)

Affirmed - 25.70  (1978)

Ferdinand - 25.80  (1986)

Riva Ridge - 25.80 (1972)

Swale - 26.00  (1984)

Bold Forbes - 26.00  (1976)

Foolish Pleasure - 26.00  (1975)

Winning Colors - 26.20  (1988)

Alysheba - 26.60  (1987)

Smarty Jones - 26.71  (2004)

Final "quarter times" of Kentucky Derby winners 1972 - 2006

******************************************************************************

If you aspire to the adage, as I do, that "it ain't how you start that counts, it's how you finish," then one way aptly to judge the performance of Kentucky Derby winners over the years is to evaluate their final quarter times.  Is there a shard of doubt in anyone's mind that the greatest racehorse ever to look through a bridle was the immortal Secretariat?  Does it come as a surprise to anyone that his final "quarter" time in the 1973 Kentucky Derby not only is the fastest time ever recorded, but also is a full second faster than anyone ever has run that final quarter in Kentucky Derby history?  I wasn't in Louisville in 1973.  Those who were, almost to a man, universally have gone on record as saying it was something "they'll never forget for as long as they live."

I was in Louisville, Kentucky on May 6, 2006.  What I saw that day I never will forget for as long as I live, either.  It was the most astonishing performance of any race horse I personally have ever witnessed.  Moreover, I can't recall another that even comes close.  Still, more than the race itself, Derby Day 2006 left me with two life-lasting visuals that I strongly would recommend all revisit.  In my mind, they portend to the only extent possible given his exceeding brief career a knowing glimpse into the astonishing athlete that was Barbaro; and the twice-in-a-lifetime horse he was going to be had we all not been so deprived.

The first is a photo that appeared in the Louisville-Courier on the Sunday following the Derby.  If you go to the site and pull a "photo archive," you can view it with your own eyes.  It was a still shot taken from the press box with a zoom lens of Barbaro sandwiched between Keyed Entry, Sinister Minister, and Showing-Up going into the first turn.  The angle is from the rear.  Just take a long, hard look at it.  The freight-train rear-end that literally is twice the size of any of those other three horses belongs to Barbaro.  The other three look deformed by comparison.  Like Shetland ponies surrounding a Clydesdale.  Physically, he already was a freak of nature, yet he hadn't even come close to growing into his full and finished racing body.

The other was the gallop-out following his astonishing Derby victory.  Brisbet's video archives show about a third of it before the tape cuts off.  I just remember standing on a chair with my jaw on my chest watching Edgar struggling mightily to gather him up, and the outrider pony taking-off full-bore after him as though he was running after a riderless horse who had escaped during post parade.  It was astonishing.  It was as if he wanted to go around again.  As if he didn't want to stop doing what he loved more than anything else in the world.  By the time he finally was gathered-up by the outrider, the next closest horse was 25 lengths in his rear-view mirror, and he still wasn't blowing a lick.  Anyone who saw it that day never, ever will forget it.

Bernardini was a very nice racehorse.  He was no Barbaro.  We may never in our lifetimes see another Barbaro.  I pray we do.  The likelihood, however, is extremely slim.  What I know with absolute clarity is this: 20, 30, 50 years from now, they'll still be showing his Derby victory every year on television.  I'm convinced its legend only will grow over time.

Who in 2050 do you think even will remember the name Bernardini?  What races of his will they be showing 20, 30, 50 years from now?  You want the quintessential and ONLY reason why Barbaro must be named 2006 3YO of the Year? 

Grandkids!

The grandkids who in 2050 while sitting around with friends viewing Barbaro's astonishing Derby victory from 44 years earlier will have to fess-up that their grandpa the moron was on the Committee, and voted some horse named Bernardini over Barbaro that year as 3YO Champion!

Think about that lasting legacy, Committee members, before you vote!

Octave-the-Rave

As I'm sure most of you know, Dan Illman at the DRF has a running blog with horse players.  Right now, the big topic of discussion is Barbaro vs. Bernardini for 3YO (colt) of the year.  I've been monitoring it for several days.  This morning, I was compelled to opine.  It begins, "Dan, you ignorant slut!" 

Well, not quite, but almost as indignant.  Illman solidly is in the Bernardini camp, which should come as no surprise to anyone who thinks his racing acumen suspect.  His latest pearl of profundity hit the wires this morning.  Of Barbaro's spectacular Derby victory, Illman opined that the only reason Barbaro won was "because none of the others ran their races that day!"

Sweet Haysoos, this guy writes books on handicapping, for God's sake! 

I'm not suggesting a solid case can't be made for Bernardini as 3YO of the Year.  I am pointedly submitting that "logic" like Illman's is extremely well-suited for the DRF, and its audience.  Here, I suspect we'll do a whole lot better.  No ... not suspect.  I know we will do better.  Moreover, I know many of the voters monitor this site, and that this will be one of the most difficult decisions they ever will have to make.

Let's see if we can't help persuade them.  Personally, I don't think it's even a contest, but then I'm prejudiced toward my buddy.  Should you Bernardini converts convince me, I have no doubt you'll convince the voters, as well.

Who is it?  Whose name belongs at the end of the following sentence: And the Eclipse Award for 3YO Male Horse of the Year goes to ________________________ !

Octave-the-Rave

I just checked my position in Godolphin's Seven Stars Competition, a 9-month long handicapping contest that begins with the World Cup in March, and ends in December.  The leader currently has 299 points.  I have 202, which puts me in 2,047th place!  Sounds pretty bad, right?  That's out of 44,000 entries.  The leader is from Sri Lanka!  Friggen Sri Lanka!  I thought they only raced Caribou in Sri Lanka!  I also noticed where tourney pros like Slotman and Davidowitz are in the Top 50 in the US standings, and still have an outside shot at cashing.  Get this: the grand prize is $100K, plus a 7-day all expense paid trip to the Dubai World Cup, and two suites in the world's only 7-star hotel, the Burj Al Arab.  For you tourney buffs, it's the bomb.  You have to pick 7 horses from among Godolphin's 300 or so, and stick with them for the year.  We all took Electrocutioninst and Discreet Cat, so it came down to a 5-horse contest.  My sleeper was supposed to be Silica's Sister, the undefeated 2YO who was being touted as the next Ouija Board.  Instead she shows up six months later @ CD, then gets beat in a photo in a G3 @ 4:1 in a race where she should have been 1:9 when Robby A. fell asleep at the switch.  Anyway, this is an absolute MUST for you tourney guys.  Bookmark the site, and check back in early March when the 2007 competition gets underway.  Here's the site:

http://www.godolphin.com

Octave-the-Rave

I was going through my blog file last night and came across this piece.  I wrote it some time back and with all the wonderful controversies we've had to debate, it never got posted.  Still, it seems a worthy read.  I hope you agree.

I read sometime back where the International Federation of Horse Racing Authorities had voted Sunday Silence and Alydar "the two most influential sires in the world over the past quarter century."  How those two "also-rans" came to stand atop one of racing's most illustrious lists is amazing enough.  What it could signal for the future of the breeding industry is even more intriguing.

Sunday Silence ...

Even though Sunday Silence won Horse of the Year honors in 1989, Easy Goer remained the fan favorite and the poster boy in the court of public appeal.  Indeed, most racing insiders believed that despite his head-to-head losses, Easy Goer still was the superior athlete.  At the heart of those opinions were the marked physical differences between the two rivals.  Easy Goer was a rock star -a practically perfect physical specimen with a sun-blonde mane, a powerful stride, and a menacing presence.  If Easy Goer was Elvis, then Sunday Silence was Buddy Holly!  He was a gangly, bone-thin, long-necked geek with a splayed-legged action so ugly I remember thinking when he took the lead in the BC Classic, "Please Lord, don't let them big parts go flying in the infield before we get the money!"  When their careers ended and the time came to pass-on their respective genes, naturally everyone in racing assumed Easy Goer would be the vastly superior stallion.  In fact, it wasn't even close!

Alydar ...

Eleven years earlier, Easy Goer's dad Alydar lost the Triple Crown to Affirmed by a total of 1.5 lengths.  Again, the differences between the two rivals were remarkable.  With 17-year-old wunderkind Stevie Cauthen at the helm, Affirmed was America's darling.  Moreover, he was almost machine-like in his consistency.  In each of the Triple Crown races, he easily out-broke the field; sprinted purposefully to the lead; maintained an effortless yet unrelenting tempo down the backside; leveled-out when asked; changed leads on a dime; dug-in when challenged; and crossed the wire first every time, in precisely the same manner as before.

Alydar, by contrast, was a nightmare.  There was no method to his madness.  In the Derby, he was 10 lengths behind turning for home before rallying furiously to finish second, despite not changing leads.  In the Preakness, he made a breath-taking middle move to draw abreast of Affirmed at the top of the lane, and still finished second, again despite not changing leads.  And in the Belmont, he ran the entire race on the front-end battling shoulder-to-shoulder with Affirmed, and still finished second, despite not changing leads yet again!  Three completely different running styles for the same horse in a span of five weeks!  Can anyone fathom such a thing today?  And has anyone seen its equal either before or since? 

And just as they would 11 years later, everyone just naturally assumed when the time came to pass-on their genes that Affirmed, with his robotic perfection, would be the vastly superior stallion over the psychotically erratic Alydar.

Again, it wasn't even a contest!

So how can that be?  How can it be that arguably the two most famous bridesmaids of the past 25 years would wind-up at their deaths firmly atop the list of the greatest and most influential stallions of their generation - a list, curiously enough, that doesn't include in the Top 20 either of their more beloved rivals? 

Well, I think I might know the answer.  Mind you, it's only a theory, but until I hear one better, I forever will be convinced that the common denominator shared by Sunday Silence and Alydar that allowed one to overcome his conformational deformities and hideous action, and the other to push a near-perfect robot to the very limits of his perfection despite unorthodoxies heretofore unprecedented in the game ... was heart! 

When you think about it, what else could it be?

What's so compelling about my hypothesis is this: if I'm right ... if that really was it ... if the key to immortality in the breeding shed is a simple, albeit exceedingly rare intangible ... and assuming the "next great sire" of our lifetime is lurking somewhere amid the recent crop of hot-shots to join Storm Cat and Forestry ... then sniffing him out should be fairly academic, should it not?

Let's consider the current crop of racing's "hot-shots," starting with Officer.  If I'm right, would you breed to Officer?  Not with monopoly money.  He was a heartless little SoCal rat.  Point Given?  Big, heartless SoCal rat.   Fu Peg?  Huge, heartless SoCal rat!  Giant's Causeway?  Giant, international heartless rat.  Smarty Jones?  Who beat him again?  Birdbath?  Birds**t?  Doink!  (Apologies to KF and LadyBelle who LOVE this horse; and The Shark who loves Smarty!)

So let's see, who does that leave?   Oh, yeah: Afleet Alex! 

How about a compact little rocket barely 16 hands high who just two weeks after running his guts out at a mile and a quarter under one of the most questionable rides in recent Derby history, gets knocked to his eyeballs while in full-flight and turning, and has the guts to bounce-up like a ping-pong ball and run away like he'd just stopped to pick-up some loose change on the track? How about the son of a stone-cold sprinter who couldn't be towed around two turns winning the 1.5 miles Belmont just three weeks after that episode by the length of the stretch?

Ya think Afleet Alex had the magic intangible?  Ya think Afleet Alex had heart?  Mind you, it's only a theory, but it sure will be fun to watch play-out in the months and years ahead.

Octave-the-Rave

I've been over-seeing a crew skim-coating my driveway all morning.  (Life of the happy homeowner!)  I came in to take a break a found an e-mail calling my attention to the Old Hard Boot blog.  This sounds a whole lot like a buddy of mine having some fun at JP's expense.  Except the last part.  The last part is really odd.  I never mentioned closing down the track.  I don't recall anyone else making such a suggestion.  And it sure sounds like something an old-timer would suggest.  Still, if it's who I think it is ... I appreciate the support ... but there's been a new wrinkle added to the mix that might part the proverbial clouds, as it were.  Until then, I'm moot and keeping an open mind.  Well, slightly ajar, anyway!

Octave

Move over Don Larson, "Mr. Perfect Game!"  Take a seat Bobby Thompson, "Mr. Shot Heard 'Round the World!"  Fuggedaboutit Al Geiberger, "Mr. 59!"  Go back to knitting Annika Sorenstam, "Ms. 59!"

There's a new king in town, and his name is Caesar's Ghost, "Mr. 1 for 72!"

All hail mighty Caesar!

Octave-the-Rave

PS: I can't wait to hear how you came up with this horse!

Screw the job.  Mall needs the money more than I do anyway!  OK, that's a joke.  But he is a terrific writer.  What?  Who's there?  Sorry, I dozed off for a minute!  Where were we?  Oh, yeah ... this is way more fun!  Never mind it's the hottest topic in the game by a landslide, and we're at the epicenter of the earthquake.  The mouth of the volcano.  The eye of the storm.  The go-to site for monitoring the raging controversy.  Dan Patrick and Kieth Olberman plugged us on their show yesterday.  We even managed to reduce The Dean's DRF thunder on this controversy to little more than a 2-day-old rehash of The Big Blog Pages!  How sweet is that!  We're white-hot, so let's step it up a notch, shall we?  Let's get serious.  Let's see if we can't provide some learned insight into one of the great "mysteries" surrounding our game for centuries, mindful that the only perspective offered to date on this "mystery" has been summarily thrashed by the High Court as everything from immature to downright un-American!

First, I want to set the record straight on something. I personally have had more expensive haircuts than I lost on Saturday.  For me, it NEVER has been about a stinking few dollars.  It's about the sport I love.  It's about how desperately we needed to put our best foot forward at a time when we literally are suffocating like no other time in history on tragedy and controversy, and instead on Saturday only managed to add more tragedy, and more controversy, to our already beleaguered sport.  Anyone who doesn't know that is a moron.  Anyone who doesn't care enough to make that his only priority in this debate is unworthy of participation.  Fortunately, I don't believe that describes anyone on here, top-to-bottom.  The fact that this misconception somehow managed to ooze into these pages at all is a low-water mark for us all.  It's insulting.  It's beneath us.  And it needs to be dispatched forever to the dung heap, and never mentioned again. 

So agreed, let's get back to the burning issue.

McKid says Hawthorne has a rail bias so extreme, so blindly predictable every year, and so completely unbeatable, that a smart college kid can take advantage of it to pay his tuition.  Rog The Ghost clearly believes there was a bias on BC Day.  So, too, does the HoarseHorseplayer, Horse Randy Around the World, and Aparagon4U, who understandably is late to the debate since he's still trying to figure-out how anyone of sound mind could bet on a horse who won from here to Seattle!  Mr. All Button thought it so bad he felt he was back at old Keeneland, only he'll wear-out that "other hand" before we ever see those glory days again.  (Kudos on the blog, and the spot-on tribute to The Immortal Big Red.)  Mall of the Americas, figuratively hung-over from all the election hoopla and sounding not unlike a groggy politician himself, eventually gets around to acknowledging a 3-path-in bias on Breeders' Cup Day so pronounced as to render "suspect" the figures of all who took advantage of it next time out.  Randy Moss mentioned it on Wire to Wire.  Rick Bozich of the Courier-Journal was on it minutes after the event ended.  Dean Beyer's column that begins today in the DRF makes no bones about his feelings of an historic bias, Rock-of-Gibraltar sized grain-of-salt notwithstanding and herewith acknowledged.    Countless others across the nation have chimed-in. HP's own polling indicates that more than 3 out of 4 readers believe the track was biased.  Simply put, if this was election day, the board would be awash in bias-red blood.

So, here's my lingering dilemma v. the Yea-sayers, and my $10M question for everyone on this side of the debate: How the hell do these biases get there?

While the overwhelming majority of folks are willing to acknowledge the existence of "track biases," no one -- categorically NO ONE -- has yet to offer a shard of insight and/or explanation as to how they get there!  Assuming a race track starts out evenly graded and uniformly watered, and all running paths are fair and equitable, TO WIT: every Track Superintendent's primal responsibility to the racing public prior to post time every day on every race track in North America, and there is no rain during the running of the races and the track isn't watered - as was the case for the first four dirt races at CD on Cup Day -- then how does a race track suddenly and mysteriously "resemble an expressway from the 3-path to the rail," as Doug O'Neill opined, and Mall reiterated in his piece? 

How the hell does that happen?

Does it happen by osmosis?  An act of God?  The wind?  The Dirt Ferry?  Does the soil erode/evaporate in perfectly uniform lines around the track in some paths but not others?  Or is there some other natural phenomenon of which I am unaware to explain how the 1-2-3 paths at Churchill Downs on Saturday became an "expressway" -- so-coined by a world-class trainer who walked on it at least 10 times (5 coming/5 going) on Saturday and has walked on thousands of dirt surfaces throughout his career, such that he is unequivocally and unquestionably qualified to make such an observation?

That's all I'm asking.  Explain it to me.  Someone.  Anyone.  Please.  In any form or fashion that makes even marginal sense beyond that which I respectfully request you spare me, TO WIT:  "well ... gee ... you know ... it just happens!"  Please ... no DUHs, OK?

Just help me understand what non-human force of nature creates these mysterious golden highways that we all readily acknowledge exist - and that existed on Saturday -- remembering once again the typical-from-the-dawn-of-time; North American race track; acknowledged, accepted, and mandatory set-up criteria: 

How does an evenly graded, uniformly watered race track with all running paths fair and equitable prior to 1st post that sustains no rain nor external water during its use suddenly develop a pronounced bias?

Octave-the-Rave

I've been having an e-mail tete-a-tete with Dave Bailey, the Director of Racing at Gulfstream Park, ever since I read where Vic Stauffer had been terminated.  His first response read, "Sorry, Bud, it wasn't my decision.  It came from Corporate!"  Did yawl read how "Corporate" informed Stauffer that his contract wasn't being renewed?  Via e-mail!  Real classy, doncha think!  You realize, do you not, that there are people at every major track in America, including Gulfstream Park, who work full-time in Public Relations?  Where do you suppose they find these bozos?  Is it possible no one from an entire staff of "professional" PR types had a bloody clue how crass and cheesy Gulfstream Park would look when the story broke how Stauffer was notified?  Stuff like this almost never happens in other sports, yet in ours it is positively common-place.  We truly have the sports' market cornered on nitwits!  It's unbelievable!

Anyway, I'm praying the announcement comes that Tom Durkin is returning to Florida for the winter, although Mr. Bailey would neither confirm nor deny.  Short of Durkin, I can't imagine to whom they might be leaning, but if anyone has any scoop or worthy speculation, please drop me a comment. 

Octave-the-Rave

PS: That's my boy Barbaro waking from a nap in his pen at Fair Hill the Saturday before the Preakness.  Check out that confirmation!  Know what I think?  If he makes it all the way through THIS ordeal, "doin' the YaYa" will be a walk in the park. And wouldn't that be something?  Barbaro babies!!!

PRELUDE

You know the expression, "More b***s than brains?"  This is it, prime time!  Still, there are few traits I detest more than hypocrisy, and Lord knows our sport is gut-busting at the highest levels with spineless, pandering hypocrites.  No one ever has accused me of that character flaw, nor will they ever, I'm certain - not even long after I'm handicapping the feature at Satanic Downs - accuse Jeremy Plonk.

He won't like it, but he knew it was coming long before he hit the "send" button.

Even though I had an awful week of BC handicapping, I thought I had my best-ever week of blogging.  I sat on the "I'd Rather be Outside Myth" piece for weeks in anticipation of The Cup, then saw 6 of 8 Cup winners come home from inside draws.  Better was a piece about Mike Welch, and how uncannily accurate he has become with he pre-Cup/pre-Derby observations v. work-outs.  As the Cup unfolded, sure enough one after another of Welch's "negative" horses were off-the-board.  Best of all, I thought, was a blog about track set-up and Track Superintendents, and the influence both can wield on the events of the day.  Half way through the day, it began looking more like a prophecy than a blog.  Or so everyone with me on Cup Day who had read it opined.

For all the meaningless drivel I have posted on here over time, those three I believed were important pieces.  Not for me.  For the guys at Horse Player Magazine, and their fledging website.  No one else had this information, nor approached these subjects anywhere that I read pre-Cup, and I think I read every word written by everyone on the globe.  Sure I had good fortune with the timing, but how much more is there to good fortune than being in the right place at the right time?

You know how we talk so often on here about lessons learned?  Every seriously accomplished handicapper I know and have known my entire life, all the way back to my dad, religiously goes back after big days to revisit the experts; read what they wrote; see how right or wrong they were; why; and what lessons can be learned in hindsight.  Revisit these pages pre-Cup and the four horses whose names you'll find most prominently featured are Ouija Board (from everyone in spades); Street Sense (Mall - early and absolutely spot-on), Invasor (from lots of folks), and Octave.  Not a bad day if you had just them.  Add several other key observations from fellow bloggers with these and my three and I defy anyone to find a single location, site, publication, news outlet, etc. more worthy of revisit after the Cup.

I'm serious: I defy you!

Imagine my shock, then, when instead of the full-page ad in the DRF extolling our virtues, I was greeted yesterday morning by that other thing calling me ignorant!  Ignorant!  I knew the piece was coming.  I didn't know why.  I couldn't understand the reason behind even broaching so controversial a topic, especially ... especially ... from the contrarian viewpoint.

I do now.  Or, rather, I have an opinion on that "why." 

First, the what.  Or, more succinctly, the WTF!  I couldn't disagree more that the racing surface on Saturday was fair and equitable, as the piece portends with sledge-hammer assurance!  Here's why.

THE COUNTER ARGUMENT

*****************************************************************************************

"At first we were really down about drawing the rail, but after watching the earlier races we could tell there was a bias towards the inside and we really started to get excited because it was obvious the rail was the place to be," said Doug O'Neill, trainer of Thor's Echo. "We even started joking before the race about how we could probably sell our #1 Post for good money."

Daily Racing Form - November 6, 2006

*************************************************************************************

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that not the most pointed reference you ever have read about an inside bias at a race track?  "We could sell our #1 post position for good money!"  When have you ever heard a world-class trainer make such a condescending remark about a race track, never mind on the biggest racing day of the year?  And I wonder to whom Mr. O'Neill was referring v. his list of prospective buyers for that #1 post?  Do you suppose he was referring to the 13 other trainers with entries in The Sprint?  Because if so, it clearly infers a common knowledge among the principals in the event, and the very people at the track most qualified to espouse such an opinion, of a screaming inside bias.  Mind you, this observation came after only two dirt races.  How do you think Mr. O'Neill felt about this bias after his horse went out and won by daylight from the 1-hole, and the next dirt race also was won by daylight by another bomb in the 1-hole? 

Unless, of course, Doug O'Neill is just plain ignorant!

A point of order before I delve further.  For those who don't know, the water truck came out after the Distaff and prior to The Classic, at which point the track make-up changed completely, as all tracks do after being watered.  For that reason, this "bias" debate necessarily must be relegated ONLY to those dirt races preceding The Classic.

Far be it for me to knock anyone's success at the track who achieved it on the strength of sound handicapping.  Toward that end, let me state categorically that the selections of Street Sense and Thor's Echo were superb handicapping.  Both were overlays; both were sitting on huge races; and both were informed deductions.  Do I think Street Sense was 10 lengths better than the field?  Ridiculous.  Had you told me prior to the race that Thor's Echo would plod through six panels in 1:08.4 and win, would I have believed you?  Absolutely not.  In fact, I wouldn't have believed he'd hit the board in such a pedestrian time.  Instead, he won by four.  By four.  The next fastest horse ran the distance in 1:09.3!!!  In the second-to-last dirt race the day before, a bunch of NX2 mostly 3YOs went 1:10.3 for six panels for their split time in a mile race that went in 1:35 flat.  How can the fastest sprinters on the planet struggle to eclipse that split time less than 24 hours later in the premiere sprint race of the year?  How can that be?

I've earned a s-load of labels over the course of my life, but ignorant has never been one of them.  To the contrary, my well-documented absence of ignorance screams at me that 13 of the fastest sprinters on the planet struggling to break 1:10 for six furlongs in the Breeders' Cup isn't remotely normal.  Nor is it remotely normal for a horse like Friendly Island who's won two races in two years - the last back in May at Pimlico - and who was beaten by 17 of 31 horses in his last three starts, to beat 11 of his competitors in this field.  These things, I believe, are profoundly abnormal!  And since I also do not believe in mass coincidence - another manifestation of my lack of ignorance - then surely there had to be one or more contributing factors to explain so utterly bizarre a scenario. 

Round Pond?  Round Pond whose last six races were against fields of 6, 5, 6, 5, 6, and 6 horses?  Who was beaten last out by Fleet Indian and Balletto by seven lengths without an excuse?  Who couldn't beat Promenade Girl two back at .50 on the dollar, again without an excuse?  OK, maybe, if two of the favs breakdown, the other three throw clunkers, and she "loves" the surroundings.  Under those circumstances, I can see her winning.  But by open daylight?  Four-and-a-half lengths in G1 company is the equivalent to half-a-pole in allowance competition.  Three daylight winners in a row,  all from the #1 post, and two of them absolute bombs?  Once again, my smoldering lack of ignorance screams at me that something isn't right here!  These things just do not happen unless there are contributing factors.  Who doesn't know that?  I'll tell you who: your next door neighbor on his first-ever trip to the oval.  Your Aunt Sophie who goes five times a year and boxes 1/5/6 because those are her street numbers!  Not many others, I assure you, and certainly no one who knows anything about horses in general, and the Breeders' Cup in particular.  THAT person knows instinctually that something just isn't right, assuming, of course, he isn't in a state of euphoric psychosis that temporarily short-circuits his most primal powers of reasoning.

So what, then, was that something?  Could it have been a unfair racing surface, language I prefer over bias, since the term "bias" implies some inexplicable phenomena like the moon phase, or tidal movement, or any of a variety of smokescreen idiocies thrown-up by Track Superintendents and management-types to mask an otherwise badly set-up, non-uniformly watered, poorly/improperly graded, and/or non-compacted racing surface, every one of which WILL manifest itself in some form of a "bias."  Was that the case this past Saturday?  Well, here are some observations I made while reviewing the video replays and studying the charts. After reading them, I'll let you draw your own conclusions v. this debate:

Juvy Fils:  Only Dreaming of Anna and Octave ran their entire races on the rail.  DoA never budged from it, and Octave only got off to launch her rally in deep stretch.  Those two exclusive rail trips left DoA and Octave 15 lengths clear of 62.5 percent of the rest of the field!

Juvy Colts:  Only Street Sense remained on the rail throughout his entire trip.  No other horse. Through the lane, the bulk of the field appeared to be struggling mightily. SS appeared to have a rocket up his ass.  By 10.  BC record margin of victory!

Sprint:  Of the exacta finishers, the Equibase Chart reads as follows:  "Thor's Echo rated just off the pace along the inside ..."; "Friendly Island settled in good position through the first quarter, launched a rally along the inside on the far turn ..."  As for Bordanaro, I thought him the most overrated horse on the entire card going into the day, and he did nothing on Saturday to disprove that belief, despite his "golden" trip.  Bordanaro had no excuses other than the obvious: he wasn't good enough.  Period.  Henny Hughes, by contrast, looked like a horse dragging a ship's anchor.  Granted, all horses have off days.  This horse never had one in his life before Saturday, yet at no point in the race did it appear as if he even belonged in the field.

Distaff:  Round Pond made her winning move when she ducked to the rail and stayed there for much of the back stretch.  Asi Siempre, who in my opinion was equal to if not better than the winner and 5 lengths better than the rest of the field, had the most nightmarish trip of any horse I've seen in Breeders' Cup history, after running a large portion of the race along the rail. 

Once again, for those who don't know, the water truck came out after the Distaff and prior to The Classic, at which point the track make-up changed completely, as all tracks do after being watered.

Saddle cloth numbers aside, 7 of the 8 horses in the exacta in the four Breeders' Cup dirt races prior to the Classic, including all four winners, spent some portion of their race, if not a large portion of their race, along the rail.  To refresh, those exactas paid: $50.80; $181.20; $955.40; and $446.00.  To further refresh, the margins of victory in lengths for the winners was 1.5; 10; 4; and 4.25.

Moreover, seven jockeys on losing fan favorites were interviewed either immediately after the race, or later for inclusion in nationwide print articles.  None were interviewed together.  All gave identical excuses: "their horses were spinning their wheels right out of the gate, and never once took hold of the racing surface."  None - not a single one - ever got near the rail.  None had a clue what the other would say, nor had said, yet every single one made reference to a "loose" race track, while offering no other excuses!  On Breeders' Cup Day!  Do you realize how bizarre it is, never mind how disparaging for the host track, for even one jockey on Breeders' Cup Day to infer that the racing surface was "loose?"  For seven to say it is historic, unconscionable, and indisputable proof that the racing surface this past Saturday was neither "fair" nor "equitable," and in fact was an abomination for racing's greatest day of the year.

At this point, I want to share with all on here, including Jeremy, a nagging suspicion that has been pounding in my brain since the conclusion of The Sprint on Saturday; that stayed with me for the remainder of the day; and that never has left.  Mind you, I have absolutely no proof whatever for what I am going to suggest beyond an overpowering suspicion.  I am going to suggest that Donna Brothers' article in Horse Player Magazine, and her pointed observation that, "for some reason the track at Churchill Downs always is speedy on big days," found its way into the management offices of Churchill Downs.  If that's true, then it seems logical that someone in that office took note of a certain blog on here that tag-teamed that piece.  Again, it's only a hunch, but never in my lifetime of 20+ Derbies can I remember a racing surface even remotely resembling the one on display this past Saturday.  Every other one has been tight-as-a-drum, and lightning fast.  Why the sudden and drastic change?

In any event, those are the circumstances v. this past Saturday as I have gleaned them from observing the events as they unfolded; from comments made by various principals involved in the event; and from numerous media reports in the days immediately following.  I am not standing in a belfry ringing a church bell that they are 100% factual.  By the same token, absent a one-on-one sit down with Butch Lehr and Churchill management and a blow-by-blow rehash of how the track was prepared on Saturday morning disproving the evidence, wild horses couldn't get me to put my name on an industry-wide piece labeling "ignorant" anyone who called into question the equity of the racing surface this past Saturday.

Perhaps a case can be made that the racing surface was "fair."  To date, I have read only one.  It offered as "evidence" little more than horses swinging five wide and finishing 3^rd and 4^th beaten by a pole, and others who were grossly overrated or, in some cases, didn't belong on the card in the first place, and who dropped back after a brief visit to the rail.  In my mind, this "evidence" doesn't remotely satisfy that case, nor is it even in the same ballpark as the mountain of evidence and point-blank protestations by BC principals that scream instead of a poorly-prepared and inequitable racing surface.

**************************************************************************************

ON THE SUBJECT OF "WHY!"

As I mentioned, I have an opinion as to why Jeremy went after this topic in the first place, despite its controversial nature and his own compelling poll numbers on HPdaily.com that show that more than 3 out of 4 readers, a whopping 77 percent, thought there was a bias on Saturday, while less than 1 in 10, or only eight percent, thought there wasn't. Could we all be so wrong?  Could we all be that ignorant?  I think not.  I also believe I know the reason for the intense passion and unwavering conviction with which he penned this piece.

Youthful intemperance!

Jeremy Plonk is the most astute and intuitive handicapper I know.  Period.  This, despite his still tender years.  No smoke.  No BS.  He towers over my crew.  Towers over Beyer and Litfin and Illman and the whole damn bunch @ DRF.  It isn't even a contest.  I'd love to back him against Crist head-up for his lungs.  He is that exceedingly rare combination of left-brain dominance that allows him to process information in a linear, sequential, logical manner, along with scary recall capabilities that border on the photographic.  In other words, he is precisely the guy you do not want in your tournament field, nor to go head-up against for serious money, unless you're a masochist.

The idea that he would take as a personal affront to those considerable talents the notion that a track bias somehow lessened his accomplishments on Cup Day was oozing from every pour of this vapid piece.  And how it hit home!  Twenty years ago, I was WAY MORE cocky and arrogant, though not nearly as accomplished at the craft as Jeremy.  Not even remotely close.  Still, I shutter to think what my piece might have looked like on this subject after having the kind of day he had.  I suspect it would have made his pale by comparison. 

Nonetheless, from the pulpit of experience, I am confident his NTRA piece is one you never will find hanging-in-frame on his office wall!  Moreover, I can tell him with absolute certainty that this sort of knee-jerk, piss-and-vinegar, way-over-the-top, blatantly contrarian reaction will become less and less possible - not likely, mind you, but even possible - with each passing year that his enormous talents play themselves out before a worldwide audience, as I absolutely am certain they will.

Octave-the-Rave  

Forget Baron Von Rat.  Forget Andrew Beyer and Alan Shuback.  Totally disregard Nichole's Dream.  They're all insignificant child's play compared to the 55-gallon drum of acetylene lobbed this a.m. onto the bonfire of controversy still raging in the wake of last Saturday's Breeders' Cup, by the last person on the planet you would dream capable of such incendiary proclivities. 

Yawl remember that stoic, mild-mannered, non-controversial, middle-of-the-fence-on-everything, Arthur Mercante-type who for the past four months has been anchoring the clean-up spot here on The Big Blog Shout-Outs every Tuesday?  Mr. Diplomacy?  Mr.  Mediation?  Mr. "Now, now children, play nice with each other?"

Well, here's a news flash hot-off the Tinsel Town wire service: "And the Academy Award for Best Actor goes to ....................................................... JEREMY PLONK!"

Yawl think I'm a wild man?  I can't carry the lad's muck-tub.  I'm a piker ... a neophyte ... a veritable limp-wristed girly-man compared to The Plonkster!  Seriously, wait ‘til you read this.  You're gonna s**t!

Here's the deal.  Early this morning on NTRA.com, JP posted a blog dispelling in his opinion, and in no uncertain terms, the myth of an inside track bias @ Churchill Downs this past Saturday.  When I say "no uncertain terms," he flat-out called "ignorant" anyone who thinks otherwise!  IGNORANT!  (Yo Shark, you Best Supporting Actor sumbich, you knew all along he was a closet RAVE, didn't you?)

But wait, that's barely the tip o' the iceberg.  Whiners!  Cry babies!  Excuse makers!  Lazy handicappers!  All excoriating and pointedly insulting sledge-hammer assaults on anyone who even has hinted in print or aloud the possibility that the inside of the track on Saturday had an iota of bearing on any of the outcomes! 

Well, you KNOW I disagree, right?  You know I have to respond, right?  And since the lad went out of his way to label me IGNORANT, you can rest assured there will be no holds barred, nor couching of verbiage. 

Meanwhile, this strikes me as a God-send for shaking-off the crash we all experience every year - win or lose - after the incomparable high that only the Breeders' Cup can provide, and the typical lull and down week that necessarily follows.

It's time to cowboy-up, boyz and girls.  Time to be there, or be square time, assuming you have a strong opinion, and can back it up, as Jeremy did, with supporting evidence.  Whether to further his cause of a non-existent bias; summarily reduce it to meandering tripe, as will be my target objective; or something in between.  Starting Wednesday.

http://www.ntra.com/content.aspx?type=feature&id=21768

Octave-the-Rave

Phew, I feel much better now.  These pages are sooooooooooooooo therapeutic TQ & JP should advertise in Psychology Today! Thanks to Charm for the info on ESPN's coverage and the horrendous ratings, sadly predictabe tho it all was.  To me, comparing ESPN's performance this past Saturday to NBC's performance is a bit like comparing one Catholic priest to another in the way each chooses to celebrate mass. It ain't the priest; it's the Church itself.  Mass is too long, and always has been.

So is the Breeders' Cup, and always has been.  Waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long.

Here were the post times: 12:34 (Biancone's 10-rat delaying the start); 1:11; 1:56; 2:38; 3:18; 3:59; 4:43; and 5:31.  Add them up, do the math, and the average time between each race was 42-and-a-half minutes!  That, alone, dooms the event v. television ratings from the outset.

Then consider a more sensible approach: 2:00; 2:30; 3:00; 3:30; 4:00; 4:30; 5:00, and 5:30.  Now you have a 4-hour broadcast instead of a six hour broadcast, and 2 hours less filler-crap that drives even those of us who love the game and all about it absolutely crazy.  Even with that change, Chris Fowler for Tom Hammond was a huge step-down, and I missed Hammond's no non-sense demeanor and 20+ year perspective terribly.  Still, Fowler wasn't nearly the disaster that Trevor Denman was.  Personally, I didn't like his affected style even before the Cup, but then I don't like any of the foreign-born announcers, nor do I think ANY AMERICAN SPORT should be presented to the American public by someone with a foreign accent/dialect.  I enjoy their participation at Wimbledon; during the British Open; at the Ryder Cup.  Still, I want an American voice and an American style on my race calls, always have, and always will.  That said, I gather from these pages that he is extremely popular in California, and also a close friend of at least one principle of HP Mag.  What I don't know is whether his performance on Saturday was typical, or atypically dreadful, since I mute him on replays.  Technically, it clearly was as bad a performance of thoroughbred announcing in recent memory, and I always thought that was supposed to be his strong-suit.  Add the botched calls to the total absence of drama and excitement, and I too will be shocked if he returns next year.  Only Vic Stauffer in my mind comes close to Durkin, and I dearly would love to see him named as the new permanent announcer for the event if Durkin is unable to return.

On a purely technical note, I agree 1000% with Horse Randy that not showing the horses in the paddock prior to the race was just plain bush-league.  Finally, ESPN did an horrendous job advertising the event.  Embarrassingly bad, in my estimation.  They cut one commercial and one commercial only for a 6-hour broadcast, and a bad one at that.  To me, it was as if they already knew they were looking at a ratings disaster well in advance, and simply decided to limit their losses.

All that said, Jerry Bailey single-handedly carried the broadcast on his shoulders, and was superb.  If they make no changes next year, Bailey alone will make it a joy for me for the entire six hours.

Octave-the-Rave

I just finished reading Rog "The Ghost's" latest on Sony & Pony wagering.  My immediate and overwhelming reaction was to send an e-mail to his family dog suggesting he might want to lay low for awhile!  Phew, do I ever know those frustrations.  In my Junior Twit years (and w/apologies in advance to Lady Belle), I used to say, "I'd rather 'em break down than get beat in a photo!"  Of course, I never meant it, but it was borne of the same frustrations The Ghost is now experiencing.

I once had a different idea for an exotic wager based on a query in a Mensa test.  Two guys agree to participate in an unusual horse race with the stipulation that the one whose horse crosses the finish line first is the loser.  Half-way through the race they're going so slow they come to a stop; dismount; and sit down to discuss their quandary.  A stranger comes along and makes a suggestion, after which they jumped on the horses and tore-off toward the finish line as fast as they could.  What was the suggestion?

Of course, the stranger suggested they get on each other's horses.  Duh!  Still, I wondered why such a thing couldn't be introduced into real horse racing.  Unfortunately, it was at a time when most jock colonies were way too "organized" and sleazy to make it a practical possibility.  I forgot about the idea for years, and only remembered it the other day when I noticed that in a race in New York, there was dead heat for last!  Think about that: a dead heat for last!!!  It occurred to me that if my exoctic wagering idea had come to fruition, this clearly would be a manifestation of the single, rarest outcome in all of racing.  Its equivalent to back-to-back perfect games in baseball; a 900 series in bowling; or two holes-in-one in golf in the same round.  Truly, one in 100 million!

My idea was pretty simple: PERFUNCTA wagering.  You hit the PERFUNCTA when you correctly select the race winner, and the horse that runs dead last!  No boxing.  No getting lucky.  A staight wager.  This, then, would have been the exceedingly rare, back-end, DOUBLE PERFUNCTA! 

I know one thing: with Principle Secret, Henny Hughes, Echo of Light, and Germance finishing last in the Breeders' Cup, the PERFUNCTA payouts would have made the PERFECTA payouts look like show payoffs by comparison!  Are you listening, Breeders' Cup folks?  I know yawl are looking for a new wager to replace the ill-fated match-up wager that very few people bet. 

And, geez, how much fun would that be!!!!!!!!  Breeders' Cup Perfuncta wagering! 

Octave-the-Rave

Excellent Breeders' Cup recaps by The Ghost, The Charm, and others, strained ligaments v. back-slapping notwithstanding, although why-the-heck not after that Chinese Jugfuzzle of a day!  On a much larger scale (no pun intended), I have it on excellent authority that The Big Blog Pages' very own street sensical, round pond of Juris-Prognostication miesqued a s**tload of happy tickets yesterday, invasoring his personal best.  We're talking not only his best-ever Cup Day, but best-ever single day at the windows period!  How's that!  (My staff is trying to contact him with an invite to share the complete details as our special guest this Friday on Trainer Speak.  Look for the re-cap under the show-title, "The Chicken Pox Kid Crushes the Cup!"  Should be quarantine-quality stuff.)

Meanwhile, it seems the perfect segway for a quick take on one of the most compelling and attractive features of our game, and the one that in my mind makes it the worthy, lifelong pursuit that it is: its never-ending learning process.  For sure, I have saved my most blistering criticism on these pages for our proverbial diaper dandies.  At 20, I already had 10 solid years of diligent schooling in the game from some life masters.  Still, I knew a scintilla of what they knew, and a veritable pittance of what I have come to discover, absorb, and apply in the 35 years since. And it never ends.  Every year, without fail, is a continuum of discovering, absorbing, and applying.  And purely on the inarguable dictates of that aspect of our sport, I would submit to you that the twenty-somethings in our game qualified to hold a learned opinion, or espouse a meaningful observation, necessarily are exceedingly remote.   I further would submit that some of the best and most lasting lessons-learned are those for which we pay most dearly.  I had one yesterday.

Prior to The Cup, I wrote a blog on the difference between "opinion" and "observation," then strongly suggested everyone pay close attention to the "observations" of Mike Welch.  If you go back and review his final piece for the DRF, "Putting Together a Week of Works," you'll note he had negative opinions of the following horses: David Junior (DNF); Flower Alley (12^th); Cacique (10^th); Spun Sugar (8^th); Bagdaria (7^th); Hollywood Story (10^th); Bushfire (11^th); Henny Hughes (14^th); Siren Lure, who was pounded at the windows (8^th); War Front (7^th); Friendly Island (2^nd); Rob Roy (5^th); Gatorize (12^th); Sutra (9^th); Principle Secret (14^th); and Skip Code (9^th).  As for the winners, he said Dreaming of Anna "worked fast locally;" Street Sense "has finished-up with good energy in both works;" Ouija Board gave "no indication of tailing off;" Thor's Echo has had "a great week in Kentucky;" Round Pond "looks sharp;" and Invasor has "matched Bernardini in his preparations, and shows no ill effects of his layoff."

The only other person prior to the Cup to offer "observation" rather than "opinion" was our own Dave the Maven.  Get this.  Between Cup races, we switched over to Aqueduct's 5^th race and I see this horse Royal Highness getting hammered at the windows at 3/5.  I remembered this horse, whipped out HP Mag, and showed everyone where Dave had him at 40-1 in the Cup, and basically said he was a cut below.  So we tossed him, and bet the other Euro instead.  Pletcher beat us, his only win of the day anywhere of which I am aware.  After that, I went back and re-reviewed Maven's entire "observations," and they were rock solid going into the Turf Classic.  And, truly, for the first time, I noticed he had tossed both Hurricane Run and Scorpion, and liked only Red Rocks in the Turf Classic.  I mean I had noticed, I just hadn't absorbed!  Well, I already had that rat Round Pond deeply absorbed on Butch Lehr's insidious track set-up with those two in P3's going back to Bernardini, and wanted to hedge anyway, so I decided to make late doubles with Red Rocks and two in the Classic.  I made the big one with Bernardini, and got talked into Lawyer Ron on the other instead of Invasor, the only other horse I would have considered.  The bottom line is this: purely on a combination of Welch & Maven - the two non-opinion observers of whom I was aware all week -- and even that late in an otherwise disappointing day that began with yet another BC bonehead display by California's morosely overrated, nitwit jock's colony allowing DoA (pun intended!) to walk through a half in 47:4 and completely compromise what should have been a winning effort by OCTAVE, and I still could have crushed the Cup.

It's a beautiful game, isn't it?  The 2006 Breeders' Cup may have been financially forgettable, but I have no doubt I'll look back someday on the elusive sponduits sucked through the black hole of yesterday's mutual doom merely as more tuition!  Yet another investment in the continuing education curriculum - or, more succinctly, the never-ending education curriculum - that is the greatest sport of all!

Octave-the-Rave

We tried like hell to talk yawl off him, didn't we, no one more so than I.  I didn't like him before his training was interrupted, liked him less after that, and hated him after the procession of rail-trip/1-hole winners all day.  (So much for that myth!) Despite the horrendous ride by Castellano and the way-too-early move on Bernardini, Invasor clearly was the best horse.

Congratulations to the new kid Brian Spencer (McKinney); Roger aka "Caesar's Ghost;" Horse Randy Around the World; and Mr. Queen, who had him on every one of his 5 or 6 tickets!  At 6-1, I hope you guys all stuck to your guns and finished-up a wacky day on a high note. 

If you have time tomorrow, check-out the Louisville Courier's coverage of today's events.  They're the best.  I'll be particularly interested in reading Track Superintendent Butch Lehr's comments about the rail, assuming he didn't leave early for a well-earned vacation.  You know, somewhere near the ocean where they sell dacquaris and cracked crab!

Still ... the second greatest day in sports!

Octave-the-Rave

I just read "The Charm's" ticket.  There are several references to an anticipated "soft turf course."  Since we all stand to benefit by a winning ticket, this becomes fairly critical.  Given the amount of rain recently in Louisville, Charm's assumption of soft turf conditions is not surprising.  However, the following quote appeared in yesterday's Equibase reports.  Track Superintendent Butch Lehr said the turf course is "about as good as I've ever had it. We've got a new irrigation system that really sucks the water out of the turf. It's great." 

Forecast for the next three days is no rain, sunshine, and freezing temperatures at night.  When I asked my brother's opinion based on his experience clocking the turf course, by Saturday he expected it to be (and I'm quoting) "fast, firm, and favoring the Americans, and whatever Euros like firm going."

Just thought you should know that in case you're factoring "soft turf" into your analysis.

Octave-the-Rave

F/M TURF:  Conventional wisdom dictates you should NEVER begin an important P6 ticket with a single, and I will resist the urge here, even though I think Ouija Board absolutely TOWERS OVER this field.  Check-out her dance card over the past six months.  Four G1's on steep, hilly courses, against the best turf males on the planet.  This is a gigantic drop in class from any of those, and she was right there in all.  Not only does she come-in with a huge conditioning edge on her American counterparts, she has never been better.  I'll back her up with Wait a While off her last in a gut-wrenching decision over Film Maker, mainly because I'm convinced she will be much closer to Dancing Edie & My Typhoon than anyone expects with the "winning" strategy being to get the jump on Ouija Board on the far turn and try to open-up quick and big and hope to last, since she has no chance of out-finishing the great mare in the final 3/16ths.  (2 x  )

SPRINT: Perennially my hole card every year.  We all have our strengths and weaknesses.  This is my forte.  My key this year from the beginning was TURN-BACK.  CD's 6.25F distance and long stretch cries out for last-out 7F winners. That said, good luck figuring this out.  The post draw was a nightmare.  I hate Bordonaro.  In his entire career he has beaten exactly NO ONE, and all I wanted out of this race was for him to be inside of Henny Hughes.  Now I have to hope P. Val sits and lets Thor go from the one-hole, which he must, with him and Henny tracking. If so, Henny airs.  If they all get crazy and go, you can toss a coin.  So, let's start with Henny Hughes because what idiot wants to bust-out his ticket on a potential sprint freak-of-nature, no turn-back notwithstanding. Too Much Bling runs GIANT fresh, and is tremendously versatile in a race that often rewards versatility.  Plus, I love the choice of Garrett Gomez.  I'll use the slightly-deeper stalking Pomeroy who's 5 for 6 - 1^st or 2^nd at the distance and also on the turn-back, and finish-up with Siren Lure, this year's heart-attack version of Lit de Justice, and while I hate deep closers, he's also on the turn-back, and will be airborne thru the lane should the race break-down completely.  All-in-all, a well-rounded front/middle/back 4-spot.  (2 x 4 x )

MILE TURF:  A no-brainer, a toss, and a BOMB! Aragorn never worse than second in 7 tries on sod; never beaten more than a length; and I don't care in you're running straight downhill, 1:44-and-change for a mile-and-an-eighth is freaked-out fast.  A repeat of that and forget it.  Plus, his turn of foot in his last at this 1M distance was electrifying. The real deal I believe, his CAL-only form notwithstanding.  I was leery of Gorella before the draw.  With the 12-hole, her heart-attack style, Leparoux's arrogant wait-til-the-bloody-last-minute tactics, and the fact that she was life and death to get by Karen's Caper last out, and I want this filly against colts this year even less than I did last year when she was my first toss on the ticket.   You can have her.  George Washington would have been one of the favs in here had he chosen this spot, and I just can't see Aidan O'Brien passing-up this spot for GW unless he LOVED Ad Valorem in here.  I made a nice bet on this Danzig colt in the G1 Woodbine Mile in Canada when he had a horrible trip, threw a shoe, and still ran giant to get beat by 1.5 lengths.  Ran in this race last year and inexplicably was battling for the lead under Kieran Fallon.  A year older and stronger; re-engages Jamie Spencer; gets the rail; should sit a dream-style "covered-up" Euro trip; gets the juice again; new shoes; an honest pace to stalk; and ... oh, yeah ... Aidan O'Brien.  Find another one with all that for 25-1 and I'll take him instead!  Here's your bomb, kids, in the most wide-open event of the day!  (2 x 4 x 2 x )

DISTAFF: A no-brainer.  Fleet Indian, the speed; Baletto, the stalker; and Pine Island, the closer.  Happy Ticket?  A Louisiana bred Breeders' Cup winner?  NOT in my lifetime. (2 x 4 x 2 x 3 x )

TURF CLASSIC:  Six weeks ago, Hurricane Run was 3/5 in this spot.  Since then, he's run two, credible, TOTALLY PACELESS RACES that appear horrible on paper.  I saw them both.  Check this out.  A month ago, Aiden O'Brien ran Aussie Rules in the G1 Shadwell @ Keeneland.  He won nicely.  What almost no one knows is that the day before the race, O'Brien asked if he could take the horse out on the turf course for a jog.  A jog?  Get this: my brother caught him on the clock going 6F in 1:14.2.  The day before the race!  It would take an American horse 3 days of walking before he even could think about returning to the track just to gallop.  My brother grabbed Leparoux after the "jog" and asked him if he had lost his mind.  His reply was: "That's how they train in Europe!"  And THAT is the kind of conditioning edge the Euros have on us.  Andre Favre must be drooling at the prospect of this horse at 5/2 or 3-1 in a race @ 1.5 miles with a speed ball in the 5-hole and a rabbit (!) in the 3-hole against the likes of whom?  Cacique?  English Channel?  Are you serious?  Potentially, a giant retrospective overlay in a race dominated by Euros for years.  I'll hedge with Scorpion on the Michael Tabor/O'Brien/Euro angle. (2 x 4 x 2 x 3 x 2 x )

CLASSIC:  I loved Electrocutionist in here on my exacta ticket and even called Shiekh MoMo last week about running him dead. Thawed-out I thought he could still hit the board.  The quality of America's handicap division over the past 10 years has gone from mediocre to horrendous, and its only a matter of time before this race becomes an annual annuity for the 3YO Division.  In fact, if Barbaro hadn't gotten hurt, this might well be a 2-horse BC Classic!  Lava Man?  Invasor?  Suave?  Flower Alley?  Excuse me? Those horses are so spectacularly mediocre that DJ's and GW's connections couldn't resist jumping-in here, even though on paper it looks patently idiotic.  They know they have only one horse to beat: Bernardini!  Untested?  Oh yeah?  How about as-yet-unleashed!  Saturday, the racing planet will see his full talents for the first time ever, and I expect it to be visually jaw-dropping, thanks in LARGE MEASURE to one of the most pedestrian and collectively over-rated bunch of plodders ever assembled for a BC Classic.  Not a single.  In my mind, a veritable walk-over. 

Final Ticket:  2 x 4 x 2 x 3 x 2 x 1  =  96  x  $2  =  $192

By the numbers:  (2,7) with (4, 8, 9, 11) with (1, 7) with (2, 7, 14) with (4, 7) with (3)

By the names: Ouija Board & Wait a While; with Henny Hughes, Pomeroy, Too Much Bling, and Silent Lure; with Aragorn & Ad Valorem; with Fleet Indian, Balletto, & Pine Island; with Hurricane Run & Scorpion; with Bernardini

First Alternate for Late Scratches:  Satwa Queen; Thor's Echo; Rob Roy; Round Pond; Red Rocks; George Washington