One of the greatest 11.25 length defeats by a filly in history

[CSC]

Life at 10 has never gone off higher than 4-1 in her lifetime on dirt, how is she going to be an overlay in her next start? Unless she goes back to turf, but going off of her lone turf try that would be foolish. Furthermore doesn't she regress off of her duel with Rach? Doesn't seem like a great bet to me next out.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by CSC

Life at 10 has never gone off higher than 4-1 in her lifetime on dirt, how is she going to be an overlay in her next start? Unless she goes back to turf, but going off of her lone turf try that would be foolish. Furthermore doesn't she regress off of her duel with Rach? Doesn't seem like a great bet to me next out.

That's exactly the kind of reasoning that DrugS is saying is going to happen next time she runs.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

That's exactly the kind of reasoning that DrugS is saying is going to happen next time she runs.

I know his reasoning, I agree at times a bad last race on paper is a great betting angle, but when a horse has never been higher than 4-1 on dirt in her life, what odds are good odds? Say what you want about Rachel Alexandra, horses that have hooked her have not fared well in their next races. Ie. Unrivaled Belle, Zardana...ect.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by CSC

I know his reasoning, I agree at times a bad last race on paper is a great betting angle, but when a horse has never been higher than 4-1 on dirt in her life, what odds are good odds? Say what you want about Rachel Alexandra, horses that have hooked her have not fared well in their next races. Ie. Unrivaled Belle, Zardana...ect.

True enough.

It's an odd thing that in the three races RA has lost this year, it's been something like double digits lengths back to the third horse.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

True enough.

It's an odd thing that in the three races RA has lost this year, it's been something like double digits lengths back to the third horse.

One thing I do respect about Rachel and I say this in all sincerity, she runs hard and takes no prisoner's in her races. She is a career killer, and who knows what lies ahead for Life At 10. She won a race at 1 1/4 at Delaware on an easy slow lead. That enough should be enough to question if she is a true 1 1/4 horse. I do like her at Belmont BUT if she does run in the Beldame at 4-1 or less, I would steer clear of her. I can't see her as anything higher than 2nd or 3rd choice for that race.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

It's an odd thing that in the three races RA has lost this year, it's been something like double digits lengths back to the third horse.

That doesn't strike me as odd for distance races with five-horse fields of very questionable quality.

[slotdirt]

Even the races she's won have featured huge gaps back to the second and third place horses. What was the margin back to third in that Monmouth race?

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by CSC

One thing I do respect about Rachel and I say this in all sincerity, she runs hard and takes no prisoner's in her races. She is a career killer, and who knows what lies ahead for Life At 10. She won a race at 1 1/4 at Delaware on an easy slow lead. That enough should be enough to question if she is a true 1 1/4 horse. I do like her at Belmont BUT if she does run in the Beldame at 4-1 or less, I would steer clear of her. I can't see her as anything higher than 2nd or 3rd choice for that race.

She does put horses away, even in defeat, very far away and they stay there for a long time. I am not sure enough bettors could recognize that trend though and think the odds you suggest are probably correct. If Blind Luck goes there LAT would float a little higher I think seeing what she can do at 10f.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

She does put horses away, even in defeat, very far away and they stay there for a long time. I am not sure enough bettors could recognize that trend though and think the odds you suggest are probably correct. If Blind Luck goes there LAT would float a little higher I think seeing what she can do at 10f.

The question should be how much does Life at 10 have in the tank after the PE, not whether it may or may not have been the most impressive 11.5 defeat in history? It may have been a compelling post by IDS in all his brilliance, however I never took it seriously at first or second glance.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Instead of opting to concede an easy lead to Rachel Alexandra - which Borel tried to force him to do by floating him out - Johnny V. - no doubt following instructions - decided to go on a suicide mission with Life At Ten. Those two quickly opened up 15 lengths on the rest of the field.







I just wish I had the tools to make pace figures for the half mile instead of the first six furlong - because the pace figures probably would have been in the 130's... and that doesn't even account for the ground loss on the first turn.

Life At Ten's four races this year coming into today look like this...



I realize she won a Grade 1 race by dueling Unrivelled Belle into sound defeat - I realized she toyed with the field and easily won the $750,000 Del Cap at 10 furlongs last time out ... but make no mistake, her performance today - finishing 3rd and beaten only 11.25 lengths by Persistantly while running a Beyer in the low 70's was without a doubt her single best race this year all things considered.

She stepped up and ran huge today.

Let's just pretend that this race was a match-race between Rachel and Life and Ten. Rachel would have obviously been the favorite. But what would the over/under have been in terms of margin of victory by Rachel? It would have been somewhere around 4 lengths or maybe 5 lengths at the absolute most. Life and ten ended up getting beat by Rachel by 10 lengths. So how can you act like Life at Ten ran well? How can you like act like she outperformed expectations? She totally underperformed.

If it would have been a match-race, we would have known that these two fillies would pretty much go head and head. If I would have offered you Life at Ten plus 9 lengths, I'm sure you would have taken that bet in a second. And you would have been extremely disappointed with her performance just like everybody else would have been, myself included. I don't know how you can act like she ran well when Rachel beat her by 10 lengths. Life at Ten totally underperformed expecations and it's not as if anything unexpected happened. If it would have been a match-race, the race would have probably unfolded pretty much identical to the way it happened on Sunday.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Let's just pretend that this race was a match-race between Rachel and Life and Ten. Rachel would have obviously been the favorite. But what would the over/under have been in terms of margin of victory by Rachel? It would have been somewhere around 4 lengths or maybe 5 lengths at the absolute most. Life and ten ended up getting beat by Rachel by 10 lengths. So how can you act like Life at Ten ran well? How can you like act like she outperformed expectations? She totally underperformed.

I judge performances in relation to the running line on the form in which they produce. That involves watching trips, understanding pace, and understanding every horse involved in the race.

I'm not impressed at all when a horse loafs on an uncontested lead - and wins some 750K 10 furlong Grade 2 stakes race for their 6th win a row.

I am impressed when the same horse gets hooked up in a duel with a better horse - is being herded and pushed out through the first turn - and stops to run a Beyer in the 70's and loses dismally to a Persistenly. Those are the kind of performances that I'm a fan of.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

A tale of two trips with Life At Ten and Persistently ...

From finishing 11.25 lengths behind her last time to finishing 8.75 lengths in front of her today. You have a 19 length reversal.

That's basically the joy of dirt racing .. the supposedly fluky nature of it. The fact that one extremely poor tactical decision can cost a horse a city block of ground versus a benefiting rival.

As opposed to synthetic races .. where it basically mostly just boils down to whoever can finish and early speed is often almost worthless on most versions the surface.