[str]

Have left unipn rags off my ticket. Not sure why. He will be back early. Might weaken and use him instead of Optimizer or Sabercat. Just not sure. GL.

[Dark Horse]

I'm not getting the preferred separation; field is too closely matched for that. Still trying to figure out how to construct exotic tickets. Normally would pass, but the payout potential for this race makes it almost a must-bet. For what it's worth, based on projected form of day:

Horses that could run a 105 Beyer or higher: Daddy Long Legs, Trinniberg, Daddy Nose Best, Alpha, Hansen, Gemologist, and I'll Have Another.
Horses from 100-104: Bodemeister, Creative Cause, El Padrino, Sabercat, Liaison.
Horses from 95-99: Take Charge Indy, Union Rags, Done Talking
Horses under 95: Optimizer, Dullahan, Rousing Sermon, Prospective, Went the Day Well

Highest projected speed figure: Daddy Nose Best.

[str]

Dropped Optimizer and Dullahan. Added Union Rags and Done Talking.

[Dark Horse]

I'll Have Another made a profit for me, but not anything remotely in the range of the astronomical payouts the Derby can create. Bodemeister now the clear favorite for the Preakness.

Thanks for all the insight, str. The 'real' season has started.

[sandyw123]

I'll Have Another might have a chance to win the Triple Crown, as he's been a consistent winner. Bodemeister is actually a better horse than many people have thought, to have sustained the lead as long as he did and to come in 2nd from an unfavorable post for him. Union Rags and Gemologist, the other 2 favorites didn't show well at all. Well, for a few moments I thought maybe we were seeing history in the making.

[sandyw123]

Str, I looked at the full result report from the Derby. It really gives you an idea of what horses could be better suited for the Preakness or Belmont. Aside from I'll Have Another; I could see Went the Day Well, Dullahan, and Union Rags as Belmont material. They were all three gaining ground down the stretch, with something left in the tank. Union Rags alway seems to get into difficulty early in a race, but starts recovering down the stretch. He might actually need more distance. What do you think?

[str]

Str, I looked at the full result report from the Derby. It really gives you an idea of what horses could be better suited for the Preakness or Belmont. Aside from I'll Have Another; I could see Went the Day Well, Dullahan, and Union Rags as Belmont material. They were all three gaining ground down the stretch, with something left in the tank. Union Rags alway seems to get into difficulty early in a race, but starts recovering down the stretch. He might actually need more distance. What do you think?

He really is not bred to run all day, but his size dictates that he needs more ground or so it seems. I know that he ran quite well the last 1/8th of a mile time wise but I am not sure. He did that in the Fla. Derby as well and my first thought was that I was not very impressed with the effort. Then, I softened my stance on him somewhat after looking at the fractions he cut late and taking into account he was running at Gulfstream. So after this race, I almost feel the same way. The track was very speed favoring especially the last 1/2 of the card. It was really tough for horses to make up ground. He did, but way too late. I just don't know for sure but as a rule I make horses prove things too me at some point. So far, Rags has not.

[str]

As I just said in my last post, I make horses prove too me that they are or are not something special at some point. Although Churchill was very fast and very speed favoring on Derby day, one horse absolutely proved something too me. It was Bodemeister.
Bodemeister did something that NO HORSE in the history of the Kentucky Derby has EVER done. He cut 45 and 4/5ths and in the history of the Derby, only 10 horses have done that. Of those 10 that did, none finished better than 10th. Until last Saturday. Bodemeister finished 2nd and in doing so, really impressed the hell out of me.
Going into the race, I was sure that the pace was going to be that hot. If someone had told me that a horse would cut those fractions and run 2nd I would have said, he will have to show me for me to believe it. Well, Bodemeister did. Too me, what he did was unbelievable! I was expecting Bodemeister to lay 2nd or 3rd, inside of Hansan and with dirt from Trinniberg hitting him in the face. I could not wait to see what he was going to do with that. Well, WRONG AGAIN !
When speed biases exist, they will carry inferior speed further than they ever should go. Those same speed biases will deny closers from closing. Well, maybe both of those things happened, but rarely if ever, do speed biases affect fractions to the extent that Bodemeister ran them AND carry him for as far as they did.
He broke in identical fashion in both the Ark. and Ky. Derby . He ran right out the T.V. in Arkansas and tried to do the same at Churchill. He ran out of gas but make no mistake, he ran a brilliant race. For me, he ran better than the winner . The winner did what no other horse could do. He stayed within range on a speed favoring track and kept running. He ran very well and I do not want to slight him for his effort. But Bode was from another planet in the Ark. Derby and did it again last Saturday.
Andy Beyer wrote an article at DRF.com that is a good read. I am in agreement with him 100% . That does not happen all that often. Known him a long time. Where we part company though is his speed figures. His figures will show an effort that was not as good as in the Arkansas Derby. That is insane IMO. I know that he has to assign a number to each horse and race. What I am saying is that you can't always reflect in a number, the real caliber of effort that took place. I know that Andy realizes this but he has to assign numbers. Just don't think for a minute that this race was not every bit as good or better than his race before. Bias aside, it was that good. After all, in 138 Ky. Derbies he stands alone as the only horse to do what he did. He made Hansan look like a position horse and Trinniberg ( one of the fastest 3 year olds around) had no shot of catching him after they broke.
Lastly, Mike Smith did nothing wrong. Too say that he did something wrong in this race says that he also did something wrong in the Arkansas Derby. The horse beat the gate and was in full gear from the git. No rating was going to take place. He did all that he could do. Bode was not going to slow down for anybody. I don't care who rode him, in his last 2 starts, he has run possessed. Very impressive IMO. I've seen all I need to see.

[sandyw123]

Thanks for your assessment of Union Rags. He ran a good I/16 of a mile, but he does never seem to find a way to win major races. I wondered if maybe it was his jockey, that maybe he wasn't the right rider for him. I did think Bodemeister was the best horse in the race also. His performance was close to totally unbelievable! He ran for 1/8 mile longer than he did in the Arkansas Derby, which makes it even more impressive. He even carries himself well, head and ears up; reminds me of Zenyatta. I didn't wager on him to win the race (because of his post, early running style, and distance of the track). Still I was cheering for him. If he runs as he has been, he should win the Preakness. He's clearly the fastest in a race that seems to favor speed horses. There's another question I wanted to ask you also. I read a story on Doug O'Neill, in the news, concerning a performance enhancing substance he had been charged with using on horses in California recently and is facing a possible suspension, not sure why it was brought up at this time. Anyway, it's called a milkshake (combination of baking soda, sugar, and electrolytes). Is that dangerous to horses? If it works as an upper, couldn't it cause heart and joint problems from overexertion?

[str]

Thanks for your assessment of Union Rags. He ran a good I/16 of a mile, but he does never seem to find a way to win major races. I wondered if maybe it was his jockey, that maybe he wasn't the right rider for him. I did think Bodemeister was the best horse in the race also. His performance was close to totally unbelievable! He ran for 1/8 mile longer than he did in the Arkansas Derby, which makes it even more impressive. He even carries himself well, head and ears up; reminds me of Zenyatta. I didn't wager on him to win the race (because of his post, early running style, and distance of the track). Still I was cheering for him. If he runs as he has been, he should win the Preakness. He's clearly the fastest in a race that seems to favor speed horses. There's another question I wanted to ask you also. I read a story on Doug O'Neill, in the news, concerning a performance enhancing substance he had been charged with using on horses in California recently and is facing a possible suspension, not sure why it was brought up at this time. Anyway, it's called a milkshake (combination of baking soda, sugar, and electrolytes). Is that dangerous to horses? If it works as an upper, couldn't it cause heart and joint problems from overexertion?

Q. If he runs as he has been, he should win the Preakness. He's clearly the fastest in a race that seems to favor speed horses.

A. Pimlico was and still is known as a big speed favoring track. While this was very true for many years, it is no longer the slam dunk speed track that it once was. One big reason for that is that when they build the tunnel to get people in the infield, located between the 3/16s and 1/8th pole as they turn for home, the track was as hard as a rock above the tunnel. speed would carry over it to the point where it got ridiculous. That was attended too and fixed after years of complaining, so that no longer exists at least not to the severity that it used too. The bigger issue is the tight turns as compared to Churchill and certainly Belmont . Every rider is aware of the turns and as a result, they ride a little differently there to make sure that speed does not waltz around there . While Bodemeister is purely faster than those others since having his blinkers removed and being trained to flash all of that speed, he is also running his 3rd race in 35 days . While that used to be no big deal, it is now days. Coming off running on as big a speed bias track as I have seen at Churchill ( totally to his benefit) and running for the 3rd time in 35 days as well as being 6-5 in all probability, call me hard headed but I would be looking elsewhere for a price. Yes, since blinkers off he has shown monster ability. In my mind there is no doubt about that. However, any horse is beatable if put in the wrong position and taking a stand against him if things come up right is probably the way I will go. If he gets beat and takes a little time off and runs back in say the Haskell in July, I would be hard pressed to play against him but in here, I probably will try and beat the short price. We will see how the race shapes up.

Q. There's another question I wanted to ask you also. I read a story on Doug O'Neill, in the news, concerning a performance enhancing substance he had been charged with using on horses in California recently and is facing a possible suspension, not sure why it was brought up at this time. Anyway, it's called a milkshake (combination of baking soda, sugar, and electrolytes). Is that dangerous to horses? If it works as an upper, couldn't it cause heart and joint problems from overexertion?

A. If indeed he administered or was aware that someone administered a milkshake to one of his horses he should be run out of the game. Period! There is no excuse, no reasoning to support it and no defense for it if it was really that other than they were cheating. I had no idea that he was looking at that. It most certainly should be brought up. When Big Brown was training for the Preakness, the steroid question was asked to Rick D. He said that he used it and the world went ballistic. IT WAS TOTALLY LEGAL at the time and almost EVERYONE used them. Taking more than others is NOT an issue. He said that he would not use them for the Preakness and afterwards and when he lost the Belmont, everyone said it was the lack of drugs that got him beat. That is so completely ignorant of the truth it is not really worth talking about, but that's what people say. Those select few that swore that they did not, were mostly full of crap and posturing for the public. The only thing Ricky did was tell the truth and be Ricky although that has not worked out well for him. He needs to tighten his game up but it might already be too late for that .
Milkshakes are strictly forbidden , outlawed and as bad a breach of what a trainer should be doing as there can possibly be. There is no discussion needed if it can be proven. However, if the only proof is the post race test, I suppose that certain circumstances could create a false positive. I do not know what those would be though. I am just not familiar enough with what could cross families within those ingredients, that could give the illusion of a milkshake but not be one.
The bottom line is that the groom knows, the vet knows , the trainer knows, the asst. trainer or foreman knows and if enough people know, the truth will eventually come out. Is it dangerous to horses? Yes. It makes the horse run out of there minds better. Making that happen to anything might cause heart and joint problems.
I will ask a few questions to some of the people I stay in touch with in the next month or so and try and gain some clarity to this. I hope that this is not the case. I do not know him at all. Let's hope not, but I will find out more soon enough.

[sandyw123]

He's I'll Have Another's trainer, but he surely wouldn't have used the milkshake before the Derby on that horse as there is a post race test run. With red flags up on him already, it seems like they would have definitely checked his horse. He's already facing a suspension due to accusations in California, but he's planning to appeal. From what I understand, he was banned from racing in Illinois because of a previous incident with the same thing. There was also another time, so the issue in California would make #3. I'm really surprised that he was even allowed to run a horse in the Kentucky Derby, in light of all this. You just know they would have to be watching him like a hawk. I'll have to locate that article again and see if there's any more on it.

[sandyw123]

I'm posting this link http:/www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/kentucky-derby-winningtra..., I hope I typed it in correctly

[Dark Horse]

Too much of a coincidence for those allegations to come out right after his best win ever, and not even related to the winning horse? At least in terms of timing this has the smell of dirty politics.

[str]

Too much of a coincidence for those allegations to come out right after his best win ever, and not even related to the winning horse? At least in terms of timing this has the smell of dirty politics.

You are 100% correct. Unfortunately, this cynical world that we live in has taken it too a higher level in recent years. Anytime someone dares try and reach anywhere near the pinnacle of a sport , for even a couple of weeks, people find ways to try and knock that person down. The vast majority of opinion is without the true understanding of whatever it is that person accomplished. Labron- 3 MVPs in 4 years ...but he is a choke and selfish right? Michael Phelps, won so many gold medals at the Olympics that he had to rent a U haul to get them home,... but he smokes pot. It never seems to end and sadly, people like it. People judge and have absolutely no idea of what it took to do what ever those people did.
Having said that, and really meaning it, these allegations against O'Neill did not just come out after the Derby. They were public knowledge before last week. People in Calif. knew of them. The rest of us, did not. Dirty politics ? Yes. No question about it. Are the positives and accusations and pending hearings the truth? Yes they are.

When I was training horses, and as I got to know sooooo many different people, I found that there were two different kinds of outlook from the trainers perspective. The first, and the overwhelming majority of trainers that I ever met, cared deeply for the game and the responsibility of maintaining ones integrity that came with the profession. And as simple as that sentence sounds, over the course of time, you better mean what you say and think, because it WILL be tested time and again during your career. The second type was the trainer that said to themselves and anybody that asked, I work 12 hours a day 7 days a week and anything I can gain from that, I deserve. Any edge I can take legal or shady, I will take and screw anybody for telling me I can't or should not. That is the difference from what I saw over 2+ decades of training.
I remember when I first started training, and things started off real well for me, that every now and then, I would hear a negative comment about something related to me . Being 20 years old or 21 at the time, I would let it bother me for weeks at a time. I could hear 99 positive things but if I heard 1 negative thing, it would out weigh all the good. I struggled to learn how to handle that for a long time. Winning a leading trainer award in Md. when I was 24, was at the time, an all time high for me, but within days of that, here came the jeers from wherever they originated and a few people did all they could to rain on my parade ( or as Cecil says, piss in my Wheaties ).

In hind sight I learned a lot about life and people from that experience. I learned that some of the people where really happy for me and glad to see a new name on top instead of the same old Dutrow, Delp, Leatherbury, Tammaro big 4 that dominated the standings, albeit for just one meeting. Those types of people helped show me how to act, how to react, and how to see things. I also learned that wherever you go and no matter how hard you try and please everyone and do the right thing, some people will resent you and say anything to discredit you. That's just the way it is.

So is this stuff about O'Neill warranted? I do not know enough about all of it to say but I will say this. If it is true that at the clockers stand in the morning( where all the gossip at the racetrack starts and ends but many more times than not times it is not an unfounded rumor, but indeed fact that is just starting to circulate) his nickname is Drug O'Neill , which I have read, there is a very real reason for that. It is one thing for the public to say or think something but it is entirely different when the people that are there on the inside every day with you and know you and really know what you are doing, be it right or wrong, says it. And if it can be proven that he has used milkshakes repeatedly and has multiple positives for that, he should not be looking at 180 days IMO, he should be looking at life.

[dogkatcher]

I lost all respect for O'Neil a looooooong time ago.
Read this article by Jeremy Plonk, if you love horses
and horse racing it makes you want to puke.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/hor...emy&id=5464169

[Dark Horse]

I lost all respect for O'Neil a looooooong time ago.
Read this article by Jeremy Plonk, if you love horses
and horse racing it makes you want to puke.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/hor...emy&id=5464169

I do love horse racing, and I'm starting to have a problem with the politicized opinions in such publications as the NY Times. It's devastating when a horse is euthanized at the track. Everybody agrees on that. Part of the shock is that it is so out of place during an event that has the feel of a celebration. What rubs me the wrong way is that people climb to the highest rooftops to shout out their high morals where it comes to a small number of race horses passing away doing what they love. But when they get home they sink their teeth into a juicy slice of one of the millions of cows slaughtered every year. And I'm pretty sure that those cows didn't die doing what they loved. The attacks don't even have to be accurate. As long as they have the ring of truth people love to 'rally'. The recent NY Times article for instance, about deaths at the track, was almost entirely about quarter horses, but never mentioned that. Suddenly the cruelty of thoroughbred racing was a hot topic. Really? If they don't care about millions of cows, why do they suddenly care about thirty horses? I'm learning about horse racing, and have no idea what's going on behind closed doors. That said, based on what I have observed, I have never seen a group of animals being treated with such attention to detail as race horses. Like royalty! In my impression thoroughbreds, as a group, are treated far better than humans as a group. Anyway, didn't mean to sidetrack. /rant off. Preakness coming up!

[dogkatcher]

Dark Horse, I totally agree with you, horses love to run and are perhaps the most pampered
athlete on this planet. What I was trying to point out was the total disdain for this particular
animal, which Mr. O'Neil knowingly entered and perhaps risked the lives of the other horses and
jockeys. To say the animal did not have serious problems, and should NOT be racing you would
have to look the other way. There are many drop downs each day, but how often do you see one
that goes from 25K to 2K. I'm surprised the vets at Los Alamitos let the horse run. I understand
your opinion and it is right on, I just don't understand some trainers. All the Best.

[Dark Horse]

I know you meant that. I just went off on rant, probably because very smart people who know of my interest in horse racing have been bringing up that NY Times article with me, basically accepting its content at face value. Didn't mean to sidetrack. Sorry about that. Of course I'd be disgusted if O'Neill gave horses milkshakes, etc. I just notice a lack of responsible journalism in widely respected publications as the Times where it comes to horse racing (as well as by ESPN, where I recently saw I'll Have Another described as a speed horse who in the Derby ran against his normal style; yet they would never mention Michael Jordan as a high scoring point guard). It bothers me, because it's so easy to paint a picture and set a negative tone, when much of the reading public doesn't know the sport.

[sandyw123]

The media does like to jump on whoever's in the spotlight, no matter what stage they're on. They has a habit of bringing past dirty laundry to the surface when it'll get the most attention. Still there's the fact that O'Nell gave milkshakes to his horses again and again after being caught the first time. He's had 3, no 4, violations. That's a little alarming. I'm sure he wouldn't be brazen enough to give it to I'll Have Another, though I wonder if he would if he had a way to trick the test. Just the fact that he continued to use this stuff after being caught (knowing it's wrong) makes me really not trust the guy that much, though I just don't want to jump to conclusions.

[Dark Horse]

He says he swears on the eyes of his kids that he never gave any horse a milkshake. I don't know the guy, and he could say anything, but that's a big thing to swear on for a father. The accusing party has already won anyway. Look how the mood has swung from celebrating IHA's win to widespread doubt.

[JakeLc]

Drug Oneill had a positive for a horse in the Illinois Derby.Horses aren't "juiced" in just the nickle claiming races.The juice barn I worked for didn't run horses in claiming races.

[sandyw123]

I read an article on testing for milkshake use on horses, and it doesn't look like the testing is very accurate. Certain factors can alter the results. For instance, giving the milkshake to the horse early enough before a race will make detection more difficult. What could really make it hard would be the fact that horses, particularly speed horses, naturally produce a similar substance. Maybe that's why milkshaking has been used so much, a lot harder to prove it.

[Dark Horse]

There's a time to discuss the dark side of horse racing, and I suppose this is as good a time as any. But ... I don't like the idea of being manipulated into a train of thought or belief, and it just strikes me as too much of a coincidence that this comes out right after the biggest US race of the year, and not long after the misrepresentative, politicized attack on horse racing in and through the NY Times. Somebody seems to be very interested in making horse racing look bad, but who and why is unclear to me. There may be a time to look into Doug or Drug O'Neill, but is this that time? Right on the heels of the Kentucky Derby? The one day when America celebrates the magnificence of horse racing. Or does the timing of that seem just as dirty as the worst cheating in horse racing? I don't have any answers. But I would ask the question: why don't we look into Doug O'Neill six months from now?

[JakeLc]

This is the one time of the year that the general public takes a momentary interest in racing. If I were writing an article on racing and I wanted it to reach the most people, this is when I would release it.

[Dark Horse]

Exactly my point.

[sandyw123]

It really doesn't do any good to speculate on how O'Neill's handles his horses. We don't know anything for sure. And I really do get your point - exactly. Look at all this questioning that shouldn't be going on right now. If O'Neill's been guilty of wrongdoing, then he needs to be penalized before there's another tragedy on the racetrack. That'll just have to be addressed in due time. In the meantime, there's another good race coming up in a few days with some great horses. That SHOULD be the main focus.

[JakeLc]

It needs to be out there and the more people that see it the better overall for the game down the road.

[Dark Horse]

It needs to be out there and the more people that see it the better overall for the game down the road.

Maybe. Or maybe another once great sport is being squeezed off to the side. ESPN has narrowed its coverage to three sports. Basically. They talk year round about the NFL now. Didn't used to be that way. The NFL draft, of all things, is a three day event, live coverage. On the day of the Kentucky Derby ESPN's Sports Nation has a poll: what do you look forward to more, the Kentucky Derby or Eli (Manning) on Saturday Night Live. I don't need to tell you the overwhelming response. The question itself is an insult to every professional in horse racing, but it is being asked without blinking and horse racing is too disorganized, compared to other sports, to let its voice be heard. Horse racing's main problem is not drugs or cheating. And if you would agree to this time of year as the ideal period to try to clean it up, the corporate business that sports has become will cheer you all the way.

[JakeLc]

Racing needs to be cleaned up.The more attention brought to this subject the better.
Public perception is this is a rigged game.
Ask 100 non or casual racing fans if the game is rigged and see how many say yes.
Old-timers are dying off, who is going to be left?
I read in an article the average age of a TVG account holder is 55.That is not good.

[Dark Horse]

Racing needs to be cleaned up.The more attention brought to this subject the better.
Public perception is this is a rigged game.
Ask 100 non or casual racing fans if the game is rigged and see how many say yes.
Old-timers are dying off, who is going to be left?
I read in an article the average age of a TVG account holder is 55.That is not good.

We agree on the problem. Just not on the solution. Every sport has a dirty aspect. And the big three deal with it on their terms, at their time, and in a manner that does not undermine the popularity of the sport. In my opinion, horse racing needs to be far better organized, so that it can show corporate muscle, which will then result in more media time and greater popularity. You have to be strong first. The NFL could easily handle the recent scandal about bounties. MLB could easily handle the scandal of widespread steroid use. If you're relatively weak, as horse racing has become (because they didn't organize when other sports did), and allow yourself to be forced into the darkest corner, you're only setting yourself up to be wiped off the field. Survival of the fittest, dog eat dog, corporate warfare, whatever you want to call it. Sometimes, when people are staring you in the eye, like the NY Times with its conscious misrepresentations, you have to stare right back and see who blinks first. But horse racing lacks that strong commissioner type, so it rolls over once again.

[JakeLc]

MLB, and the NFL etc are apples and oranges when trying to compare it to racing.Racing is asking you to wager on it's game.

[Dark Horse]

Comparing any two sports is apples and oranges, but organization has never hurt any. I wasn't around at the time, but once the three big US sports seem to have been baseball, horse racing, and boxing. Of these three, baseball is now the most popular, because it's the best organized. The rise of the NBA since the 1970's is amazing. It took vision and people to execute it. Are you suggesting that, because people wager on horses, the sport can't be better organized?

Anyway. We're not going to solve this here. To get back to the original point. The Triple Crown weeks are to horse racing what the playoffs are to football, basketball, and baseball. This is where these sports shine the most. Give one example where these well organized leagues deal with their darkest problems at such times. Why would they? It would be horrific strategy from a business perspective. There is a time to shine, and a time to look in the mirror.

The Preakness is near. I have a question, but will ask it below.

[Dark Horse]

str, the Preakness won't have the pace of the Derby. Do you think the lightly raced Bodemeister knows how to build in a breather, or is this horse more likely to go all out again and hope nobody catches him?

[sandyw123]

I have a question also. Like Dark Horse said, this race will be different. No early speed horse like Trinninberg. Could I'll Have Another be sent up early this time to try to run with Bodemeister? It might create a different kind of race. If those 2 horses dueled down the stretch and tired, another horse might come from a little farther back and catch them both. Could you see that possibly happenning? None of the horses that were in the Derby were able to do that within the distance of the Preakness, yet there was a lot more traffic.

[str]

He says he swears on the eyes of his kids that he never gave any horse a milkshake. I don't know the guy, and he could say anything, but that's a big thing to swear on for a father. The accusing party has already won anyway. Look how the mood has swung from celebrating IHA's win to widespread doubt.

The problem with guys like that is someone needs to follow up the question with, did you ever have any knowledge that someone else was treating any of your horses with a banned substance prior to any race ever?
Can't imagine that his kids eyes would come into play in that answer but maybe I am wrong. Still looking into others opinions.