Top 25 3yo's 1987-2007

[King Glorious]

I can't believe that some people have listed Europeans, even made a list exclusively of Euros and Lammtarra wasn't on it. Amazing.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I can't believe that some people have listed Europeans, even made a list exclusively of Euros and Lammtarra wasn't on it. Amazing.

4 starts.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

4 starts.

So what. Would it have been better if he had six more starts in 1995 and lost them all? If a 3yo wins the Derby, King George, and Arc, but lost the 2000 Guineas, Irish Derby, and the Juddmonte International, he's had an exceptional year. If an American horse broke his maiden in October then won the Kentucky Derby, Hollywood Gold Cup, and BC Classic, nobody would doubt how good that horse was. Greatness can be seen in one start. Gayle Sayers didn't need to play more than one season for people to know how good he was. People really need to get over this thing about number of starts. I suppose that if an American horse misses all of the preps but then makes his 3yo debut in the Kentucky Derby and wins the TC and retires, he's not great because he only made three starts? That's foolish.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

So what. Would it have been better if he had six more starts in 1995 and lost them all? If a 3yo wins the Derby, King George, and Arc, but lost the 2000 Guineas, Irish Derby, and the Juddmonte International, he's had an exceptional year. If an American horse broke his maiden in October then won the Kentucky Derby, Hollywood Gold Cup, and BC Classic, nobody would doubt how good that horse was. Greatness can be seen in one start. Gayle Sayers didn't need to play more than one season for people to know how good he was. People really need to get over this thing about number of starts. I suppose that if an American horse misses all of the preps but then makes his 3yo debut in the Kentucky Derby and wins the TC and retires, he's not great because he only made three starts? That's foolish.

you can see a great performance in one start. but not necessarily a great horse.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you can see a great performance in one start. but not necessarily a great horse.

If you see three great performances in the three toughest races on the continent, that still can't be enough? I mean, the horse layed off from October to June and then won the Epsom Derby in course record time in his second career race. That alone would have been enough to let me know. But then to top it off with the King George and Arc wins, over older horses in two of the premier races in the world was icing.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

So what. Would it have been better if he had six more starts in 1995 and lost them all? If a 3yo wins the Derby, King George, and Arc, but lost the 2000 Guineas, Irish Derby, and the Juddmonte International, he's had an exceptional year. If an American horse broke his maiden in October then won the Kentucky Derby, Hollywood Gold Cup, and BC Classic, nobody would doubt how good that horse was. Greatness can be seen in one start. Gayle Sayers didn't need to play more than one season for people to know how good he was. People really need to get over this thing about number of starts. I suppose that if an American horse misses all of the preps but then makes his 3yo debut in the Kentucky Derby and wins the TC and retires, he's not great because he only made three starts? That's foolish.

I have attended European sales on a regular basis the last few years, have a number of contacts over there and know quite a few euro types over here and with the exception of you, no one thinks this was some kind of superhorse.

Hey I had a link to a list of PPs for the derby winners from 93-03, so I decided to put the BSF idea to the test. I decided to take the best five BSFs from the sophmore year for those 11 Ky derby winners. You could take 2 races you might take 8, I dunno I took the best 5; I rounded to the nearest half I dont think there was much rounding error. If anyone has more BSF from other seasons I'd like to see them...

Here is the order:


Silver Charm 112 1/2
War Emblem 111
Funny Cide 109
Fu Peg 109
Real Quiet 108 1/2
Go for Gin 107 1/2
Thunder Gulch 107
Charismatic 105
Monarchos 105
Grindtone 101 (four races only)
Sea Hero 100

I dont know what overall conclusions to draw from all this but I will make a few comments about BSF in general as applied to this question:

1) THe avowed purpose of BSF was to make comparisons between horses shipping in from different tracks and those moving up and down in class ranks. At least that is my understanding. I have no doubt that they perform this mission quite well I have serious doubt whether they can perform the same mission when making subtle distinctions among the top horses running in different years.

2) Taking Funny Cide's best 2 races and comparing them to Smarty Jones is not really what the question was about since it is asking for the entire season not just 2 races. You have to consider all the races in the season and you might want to consider the strength of the particular fields they faced. Not sure BSF from one or two races really gets you there.

3) Measuring greatness has to mean more than just final times and/or BSF. Two fine examples of this have to do with Seattle Slews Jockey Club Gold and Personal Ensign in the BC distaff; when the factors that people talk about have to do with trip/adversity that these horses faced. Stuff that is not measured by a BSF or final time. BSF does measure surface in a sense, but Personal's Ensign's run in the slop was more than that.

4) To say that FUnny Cide had a better BSF than Smarty presents an insolvable Chicken/Egg problem. It could mean one of several things: That FUnnyCideis Underrated. That Smarty is OVerrated. Or that BSF are simply not well attuned for this purpose.

In lieu of more information, there is no answer to that question.

[jcs11204]

bernardini and barbaro were both very special
barbaro obvious tragedy
and bernardini loss to invasor only came back to flatter him, with what invasor did afterwards.

[_PAPA_]

My proudest bet I ever kopped, was Lammtarra in the Derby.

He only had one start prior to the race, in a maiden against the speedy Myself. I thought at the time that was a potentially top class horse, but he seemed to get injured all the time, until the derby. The morning of the derby I looked at the form, and I said bugger it, sometimes you gotta go with the breeding. Lammtarra had amazing breeding for the derby, being by a derby winner out of an oaks winner.

I slammed him in, and took 16/1 at Ladbrokes.

All the same, the horse never won a race by more than a length. Therefore we cannot really judge how good he was. Best horses he beat were Pentire, and Freedom Cry, who were good, but I wouldnt put them in the same league as some of the others mentioned on my list.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by _PAPA_

My proudest bet I ever kopped, was Lammtarra in the Derby.

He only had one start prior to the race, in a maiden against the speedy Myself. I thought at the time that was a potentially top class horse, but he seemed to get injured all the time, until the derby. The morning of the derby I looked at the form, and I said bugger it, sometimes you gotta go with the breeding. Lammtarra had amazing breeding for the derby, being by a derby winner out of an oaks winner.

I slammed him in, and took 16/1 at Ladbrokes.

All the same, the horse never won a race by more than a length. Therefore we cannot really judge how good he was. Best horses he beat were Pentire, and Freedom Cry, who were good, but I wouldnt put them in the same league as some of the others mentioned on my list.

I agree with you that Pentire and Freedom Cry weren't all time greats. But they were really good horses. Pentire came back to win the Irish Champion Stakes (Freedom Cry was second) and also won the King George the next year. Pentire also beat out Singspiel (future U.S. turf champ) a couple of times. Freedom Cry was a nose away from winning the BC Turf that year. Lammatarra also beat Swain in that Arc and Swain was a pretty good horse (wins in the King George twice, Coronation Cup, Irish Champion Stakes, seconds in the Dubai World Cup and BC Classic). So he was beating some pretty good horses. To do them in only his 2-4th career starts makes the accomplishment even more amazing, IMO. He also set a course record when winning the Epsom Derby. Also, it's been my opinion that winning margins in European races is very overrated. Many times, you will see a win called dominating and the winning margin was less than a length.

[justindew]

When this thread first appeared, I set the over/under on total posts at 9 1/2.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by justindew

When this thread first appeared, I set the over/under on total posts at 9 1/2.

About the usual results for your opinion.















Somebody had to say it.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

About the usual results for your opinion.



Somebody had to say it.

When I made my last post, I set the over/under on number of minutes before Andy broke my balls at 4 minutes.

Under lock.

[Payson Dave]

I laughed

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The problem that I have is that the testing is so much better now that almost no positive now would be caught under the same test of earlier eras. There is a perception that all our horses now are under the influence of medications of some kind but the truth is that there were far more powerful substances being used in the 70's in particular than there are now. That is not to say that every trainer was using something but drugs like sublimaze and etorphine were used and they are far greater performance enhancers than any steroids or minute clembuterol traces found. Also there were many horses being treated with Lasix except for a long time it was not even published. The thought that horse racing is a dirtier game now simply ignores the reality of earlier eras.

I'm no expert in performance enhancers in horseracing, so I will paraphrase this by saying I am speaking solely from a fans point of view. I agree that all eras new and old probably have had their cheaters. I even remember reading that Tom Smith, Seabiscuit's Trainer was alleged to have been a cheater, though that was a rumour. I'm not convinced though that the drugs of yesterday supercede the more sophistocated drugs of today. Veterinarian's today can easily mask drugs to pass tests, it has happened for atheletes in other sports, that once a drug can be detected the cheaters will find something else that testers cannot detect. Essentially performance enhancers are far more sophisticated than the old milkshakes of years gone by. HGH is the big word for steroids now, and it wasn't just until recently that the public started to become aware of how many atheletes use this drug. One must wonder just how far Trainer's and Owner's will go these days to gain an advantage, but I surmise since it has found its way into Baseball, Football, Track and Field, it has found it's way into horseracing in a big way. Making it a big question mark for me how many Roger Clemons or Barry Bonds we have in horseracing today? I would be far more comfortable calling Secretariat great, rather than Ghostzapper who I regard as 1-2 the fastest horses of this supertrainer era.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by CSC

I'm no expert in performance enhancers in horseracing, so I will paraphrase this by saying I am speaking solely from a fans point of view. I agree that all eras new and old probably have had their cheaters. I even remember reading that Tom Smith, Seabiscuit's Trainer was alleged to have been a cheater, though that was a rumour. I'm not convinced though that the drugs of yesterday supercede the more sophistocated drugs of today. Veterinarian's today can easily mask drugs to pass tests, it has happened for atheletes in other sports, that once a drug can be detected the cheaters will find something else that testers cannot detect. Essentially performance enhancers are far more sophisticated than the old milkshakes of years gone by. HGH is the big word for steroids now, and it wasn't just until recently that the public started to become aware of how many atheletes use this drug. One must wonder just how far Trainer's and Owner's will go these days to gain an advantage, but I surmise since it has found its way into Baseball, Football, Track and Field, it has found it's way into horseracing in a big way. Making it a big question mark for me how many Roger Clemons or Barry Bonds we have in horseracing today? I would be far more comfortable calling Secretariat great, rather than Ghostzapper who I regard as 1-2 the fastest horses of this supertrainer era.

You claim not to be an expert yet go ahead and make statements like "Veterinarian's today can easily mask drugs to pass tests". You know this because of....? There is virtually no drug that can be "masked". If todays labs test for it, they will find it. The difference between horseracing and human athletics is that there are far more substances considered illegal in horse racing. modern drugs are created in labs and tested for in labs. To think that one side would evolve and the other would not does not make sense to even the uninformed. One of the biggest problems we have in regards to drug testing is that the tests are too strong, picking up at levels far greater than even 10 years ago which leads to positives which are totally inconsequential, especially since the levels are based on outdated testing procedures yet when announced as such, fans howl that we are being too "soft" on "cheaters". The issue which should raise concern is the undetecable or unknown drugs that are supposedly being used. Most of these are in fact known but simply not tested for because of the extraordinary amount of substances that are available. While there most certainly are more and further advanced medications available in current times, there are also much more sophisicated tests available and a much stronger push behind trying to detect illegal meds even if the push is led by questionable tactics and suspect leadership. In the days of past there was neither an ability nor a propensity to look real hard.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You claim not to be an expert yet go ahead and make statements like "Veterinarian's today can easily mask drugs to pass tests". You know this because of....? There is virtually no drug that can be "masked". If todays labs test for it, they will find it. The difference between horseracing and human athletics is that there are far more substances considered illegal in horse racing. modern drugs are created in labs and tested for in labs. To think that one side would evolve and the other would not does not make sense to even the uninformed. One of the biggest problems we have in regards to drug testing is that the tests are too strong, picking up at levels far greater than even 10 years ago which leads to positives which are totally inconsequential, especially since the levels are based on outdated testing procedures yet when announced as such, fans howl that we are being too "soft" on "cheaters". The issue which should raise concern is the undetecable or unknown drugs that are supposedly being used. Most of these are in fact known but simply not tested for because of the extraordinary amount of substances that are available. While there most certainly are more and further advanced medications available in current times, there are also much more sophisicated tests available and a much stronger push behind trying to detect illegal meds even if the push is led by questionable tactics and suspect leadership. In the days of past there was neither an ability nor a propensity to look real hard.

According to the Mitchell Report, there’s no test for H.G.H., some, if not many, players will think that they can get away with continuing to use it, or starting to use it. Not all drugs are detectable.

Yes I am no expert in masking agents, but what does that have to do with this discussion? As this is just that... a discussion. It doesn't take much these days to do a little research over the internet. Look horseracing didn't truly start testing until 2006 when Rick Arthur headed a committee in Southern California. Basically horseracing had turned had buried their heads in the sand until a select few starting winning everything in sight. I included below the Feb. 27 congressional hearing on the use of steroids on horseracing's drug policy.

[CSC]

Congressman Criticizes Racehorse Drug Policy
by: Ryan Conley
February 27 2008, Article # 11412
U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky opened a Feb. 27 congressional hearing on the use of steroids in sports by claiming leaders of horse racing have repeatedly failed on promises to self-regulate medication issues.

Whitfield, a Republican from Hopkinsville, spoke during a televised hearing entitled, "Drugs in Sports: Compromising the Health of Athletes and Undermining the Integrity of Competition," which was held during a meeting of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection.

National Thoroughbred Racing Association president and chief executive officer Alex Waldrop was scheduled to testify later Feb. 27 in the second of two panels comprised of major sports commissioners and executives. The first panel heard in the morning included commissioners Bud Selig of Major League Baseball, David Stern of the National Basketball Association, and Roger Goodell of the National Football League, among others.

In his opening remarks, Whitfield chastised United States racing leaders for failing to adopt a uniform policy of banning steroid use, noting most major international racing jurisdictions have already done so.

"Trainers and vets make the decisions, and the horse cannot say no," he told the panel. "England, France, all of Europe, Japan, South Africa, Dubai, Australia: All of the major racing jurisdictions have banned the use of drugs still commonplace in America. England, for instance, banned steroids in racing over 30 years ago.

"Through the years ... horsemen's groups, who claim that they represent every trainer and every horse owner, have been in the forefront to stop the adoption of more stringent drug rules," he continued. "And they have been, and continue to be successful, to the detriment of the sport."

Whitfield cited the recent inflammatory remarks made by Hall of Fame trainer Jack Van Berg, which were published last month in the New York Post.

"Last month in an interview, Hall of Fame trainer Jack Van Berg, who has won more races than any living trainer, said he had seen enough," Whitfield said. "He said drugs ranging from medications like steroids and clenbuterol to prohibited substances like EPO (erythropoietin) are slowly destroying horse racing in America."

Whitfield also shared an anti-drugging presentation made by former U.S. Sen. Charles "Mac" Mathias Jr. at The Jockey Club Roundtable in 1981. The Maryland Republican was backing proposed legislation called "The Corrupt Practices in Horseracing Act," Whitfield said, an act he said would have banned the use of all drugs in horses, as well as other practices such as nerving, numbing and freezing.

"State racing commissioners descended on Sen. Mathias's office after that speech, and they assured him, (27) years ago, that they were going to address the problems, that they were going to crack down on the use of these drugs in racing," Whitfield said. "Here we are 27 years later, and not much has changed."

While citing statistics that claim between 2,500 to 3,000 horses die on the racetrack each year, Whitfield closed his remarks by asking a rhetorical question he attributed to Mathias.

"Is it time to call in the federal cavalry and send it chasing into your stables with guns blazing to clean up the sport of horse racing?," he asked.

Whitfield later asked for unanimous consent to enter into record a "multitude of e-mails" he received from owners and breeders "from around the country" that ask for federal action to ban steroids in racing. The motion was approved without objection.

Among other scheduled to testify in the afternoon panel that includes Waldrop were Jim Scherr, CEO of the U.S. Olympic Committee; and Myles Brand, president of the National Collegiate Athletics Association.

(Originally published at BloodHorse.com.)

[Scav]

Originally Posted by CSC

Congressman Criticizes Racehorse Drug Policy
by: Ryan Conley

Link will do just fine.....

2ndly, what does Congress know about horse racing? one or two might own a horse, that is about it

[robfla]

Originally Posted by Scav

what does Congress know about horse racing?

about as much as they know about Baseball