'Rags' with hairline fracture; '08 possible

Regardless of whether they won or lost, there are a lot of good horses that suffered career ending injuries at Belmont Stakes:

aside from those mentioned the following very good horses had careers ended by injury suffered inthe Belmont stakes: Count Fleet, Cavan, Majestic Prince, Smarty Jones, Praire Bayou (euthanized); Tim Tam and Caveat. Possibly Pine BLuff as well, not sure exactly when he was injured.

Lot of other injuries also: Needles did not run the same after Belmont (2 off the board finishes that year, but won following year); Cannonero was also done for the season but came back next. Count Turf was never same and Pensive never won again, although not exactly sure what injuries if any. Alsab suffered a serious splint injury in this race but somehow maged to run again in his soph. season.

This list is by no means complete and I only listed horses that have won a TC race. There are also a few e.g. Bold Forbes and Cannonade that went wrong at some pt. but not sure if it was the Belmont race itself.

It seems to me this is a lot of injuries for good horses, but you may not see it that way.

note: Hansel was actually hurt in the Travers stakes.

[edited to add a few horses]

[ajphilly]

Originally Posted by easy goer

aside from those mentioned the following very good horses had careers ended by injury suffered inthe Belmont stakes: Count Fleet, Cavan, Majestic Prince, Smarty Jones, Praire Bayou (euthanized); Tim Tam and Caveat. Possibly Pine BLuff as well, not sure exactly when he was injured.

]

I don't know that you can blame Smarty's injury on the Belmont. It wasn't until he resumed training in July that he bruised his foot and then was retired for injuries blamed on the general wear and tear of racing. The Belmont contributed to it as did every race he ran, but I don't recall that specific race ever being blamed for his retirement.

[King Glorious]

I know that there will always be those that want to keep blinders on. Nobody ever said that every horse that runs in the race is going to come out hurt or suffer later. But the percentage of those that come out of that race to either never run again, never win again, or not even finish out the year is too high for me. In my 22 years of watching the sport, I've seen far too many horses that run in the Belmont and are seriously affected in one or more of the three ways I mentioned above.

Ferdinand, Risen Star, Hansel, Pine Bluff, Prairie Bayou, Thunder Gulch, Silver Charm, Real Quiet, Charismatic, Monarchos, Point Given, Empire Maker, Smarty Jones, Giacomo, Afleet Alex, Jazil, Rags to Riches.

To be fair, in the cases of Silver Charm, Real Quiet, Charismatic and Smarty Jones, they had to be there and I would have run there with them too. But I can't help but feel that there is some connection to that race and these horses suffering the problems they have. And it seems like it's getting worse. If it's acceptable for u that there is a 50/50 chance that if u run in that race, your career is basically over (or at least your season), then u run. For me, that's just too high a percentage. Maybe some of u are ok with losing at least one major horse every year out of the Belmont Stakes. I'm not. We've lost Rags in 07, Jazil in 06, Alex and Giacomo in 05, Smarty in 04, Empire Maker in 03, Point Given and Monarchos in 01, Charismatic in 99, Real Quiet in 98 and Silver Charm in 97. This is good for the sport how? Sure, injuries can and do happen at any time. Sure, PG, Empire Maker and Rags were injured in subsequent races. And I'm not even saying that there is conclusive proof that the Belmont has anything to do with this. But it is a fact that all of these horses have that one thing in common.

[prudery]

Could it possibly be that the Belmont happened to be the last race at this level that those horses could successfully compete at without a setback of whatever degree ???? That their limits were realized at this race juncture, not because it was the Belmont ... I do not subscribe to the blame the Belmont theory ...

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by prudery

Could it possibly be that the Belmont happened to be the last race at this level that those horses could successfully compete at without a setback of whatever degree ???? That their limits were realized at this race juncture, not because it was the Belmont ... I do not subscribe to the blame the Belmont theory ...

So then u think it could possibly be the placing of the race on the calender and not the conditions of the race itself?

[prudery]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

So then u think it could possibly be the placing of the race on the calender and not the conditions of the race itself?

Nope ... I think that may have been it for theses horses in numerical terms of racing ... That many starts and out ... As far as spacing their races out, of course there is no way of knowing, but spacing races has had its share of premature endings as well, hasn't it ...

[Danzig]

sorry to hear she has suffered an injury. we were told back when she won the belmont that she would race at four. that of course remains to be seen.

as for the belmont being the end of a horses career, no doubt many races would have their share of horses who were not the same after, suffered an injury, etc. i doubt that the test of champions would show a higher incidence of forced retirement. if any race has an adverse affect, i would think it would be the ky derby--or, overall, the bc races. the last hurrah for a great many horses.

Originally Posted by ajphilly

I don't know that you can blame Smarty's injury on the Belmont. It wasn't until he resumed training in July that he bruised his foot and then was retired for injuries blamed on the general wear and tear of racing. The Belmont contributed to it as did every race he ran, but I don't recall that specific race ever being blamed for his retirement.

It was discussed some on the internet. I come out tending to blame the race. WHen he went around the final turn he bore out considerably and after the race was over his head was hanging down, not good signs. I think it's likely the damage was done here.

I tried to limit my list to only those horses actually injured in the race and who did not race again or were not the same. List was limited to those that won a TC race.

If were to add in those that were not said to be injured but went sour a short time after the Belmont, the list might grow considerably. There are a number of horses that might be candidates based on Avalyn Hunter's book but could not specifically point to the race itself. WOrth thining about.

***

prudery: Sure it's possible that the series of races could have done the damage as well. In fact I think you would have to factor all that in to do a fair comparison.

It's a fair pt. I think if people are going to use Jazil as a data pt. then you might as well start to factor in the derby, and the whole series of races. that's why I tried to just list those were actual injuries were sustained at Belmont.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I know that there will always be those that want to keep blinders on. Nobody ever said that every horse that runs in the race is going to come out hurt or suffer later. But the percentage of those that come out of that race to either never run again, never win again, or not even finish out the year is too high for me. In my 22 years of watching the sport, I've seen far too many horses that run in the Belmont and are seriously affected in one or more of the three ways I mentioned above.

Ferdinand, Risen Star, Hansel, Pine Bluff, Prairie Bayou, Thunder Gulch, Silver Charm, Real Quiet, Charismatic, Monarchos, Point Given, Empire Maker, Smarty Jones, Giacomo, Afleet Alex, Jazil, Rags to Riches.

To be fair, in the cases of Silver Charm, Real Quiet, Charismatic and Smarty Jones, they had to be there and I would have run there with them too. But I can't help but feel that there is some connection to that race and these horses suffering the problems they have. And it seems like it's getting worse. If it's acceptable for u that there is a 50/50 chance that if u run in that race, your career is basically over (or at least your season), then u run. For me, that's just too high a percentage. Maybe some of u are ok with losing at least one major horse every year out of the Belmont Stakes. I'm not. We've lost Rags in 07, Jazil in 06, Alex and Giacomo in 05, Smarty in 04, Empire Maker in 03, Point Given and Monarchos in 01, Charismatic in 99, Real Quiet in 98 and Silver Charm in 97. This is good for the sport how? Sure, injuries can and do happen at any time. Sure, PG, Empire Maker and Rags were injured in subsequent races. And I'm not even saying that there is conclusive proof that the Belmont has anything to do with this. But it is a fact that all of these horses have that one thing in common.

How the hell is Silver Charm on that list. Didnt he win the Dubai WC the following year?? Giacomo?? Didnt he run like 4,000 times after that race. It wasnt the belmont that made him a loser, he just wasnt the best horse out there and won a dream set-up derby. The Belmont has absolutely nothing to do with Gaicomo's downfall. Point Given can not be on this list either. I'll give you Jazil and Afleet Alex and of course Charismatic, who broke his freakin leg in the race.. Oh yeah, that must have been the Belmont Stakes fault. No possible way he took a bad step.

I will make a point similar to yours. All horses who were injured ran in maiden races. I think maiden races are the reason horses get injured. And I'm not even saying that there is conclusive proof that the Maiden races have anything to do with this. But it is a fact that all of these horses have one thing in common.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

my impression watching her race was that she looked like a broken down claimer compared to when i saw any of her previous races.

that she struggled to lose to a horse that struggled against octave, that said a lot to me as well. layoff or not, that race sucked.

Lear's Princess is a very talented filly who has been unlucky in many of her races and seems to be getting better with every race. No shame in losing to her.

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

He did not bear out considerably around the final turn and I just watched the replay to make sure. I also find it sort of comical that you factor in that his head was hanging down after the race and actually are going to present this as a part of your arguement that this is how you know he was hurt in the race. Please. I don't suppose it's possible his head was hanging because he just ran a very courageous 12 furlongs running hard every step of the way? Nah, can't be that.

Birdstone was not hanging his head like that, but I guess he knew he won the race. Nor did Smarty ever hang his down like that that I can recall.

He did bear out as he rounds the turn, it seemed like a lot to me at the time. Did he not continue to bear out as the went down the stretch? How far off the pole do you make him? This was noticeable to me...

[Danzig]

had smarty suffered an injury in the belmont, he would never have been put back into training.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by easy goer

Birdstone was not hanging his head like that, but I guess he knew he won the race. Nor did Smarty ever hang his down like that that I can recall.

He did bear out as he rounds the turn, it seemed like a lot to me at the time. Did he not continue to bear out as the went down the stretch? How far off the pole do you make him? This was noticeable to me...

he didn't bear out. as for comparing him to birdstone, birdstone wasn't pressured from the word go, unlike smarty. smarty was a tired horse at the end of the race, but he wasn't injured. as much as he was worth, had there been a hint of injury, he'd have been retired immediately, rather than going back to his homebase, and then back into training.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I just can't get over how flawed your so-called " analysis " of this situation is. First of all, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but Charismatic didn't win the Belmont....Lemon Drop Kid did. Care to give us the details of the rest of his career. But aside from that, singling out the winner of the race, while ignoring the accomplishments of those that finished behind him ( or her ) is beyond preposterous. But hey, let's throw a few out there....You mention Risen Star, well feel free to discuss Winning Colors's performances against Personal Ensign that Fall. Hansel? Strike the Gold, who finished a neck behind him, was a Grade 1 winner at 4. Thunder Gulch won the Swaps and Travers before breaking his leg in the Woodward. I suppose that break was waiting in the wings after the Belmont but failed to stop him in the two prior efforts? Point Given won the Haskell and Travers. What exactly did the Belmont have to do with his subsequent injury? Bluegrass Cat, who finished behind Jazil, won the Haskell and was second in the Travers. Sunriver, who finished third, has been extremely good on the turf at 4.

While we're on it, what were the negative effects of the Belmont on Easy Goer? He won four more Grade 1s that year. Sunday Silence, who finished second, beat him in the BC Classic. AP Indy won the Belmont....and the BC Classic. Skip Away finished second in the Belmont.....he beat Cigar in the Woodward the following September. I am a little unclear about the rest of his career. Perhaps you can remind me. Unshaded was third in the 2000 Belmont.....he won the Travers. Ten Most Wanted was second......he won the Travers.

Sounds to me like trainers should be falling all over themselves to compete in the Belmont if they want to have a successful future with their charges. At the very least there is a stronger argument for that point than suggesting that running in the Belmont is some sort of mistake.

Not to mention Birdstone won the Travers after the Belmont (with no prep, retired sound).

I forgot about Skip Away's Belmont, since he ran so poorly in the Derby... I always think of his elder accomplishments (of which there were many, obviously). It was the JCGC in which he beat Cigar, by the way

[letswastemoney]

Does anyone think there's a possibility that Rags is not injured and that they are just sore losers that don't want to blemish her record by risking losing the Distaff??

I'm not saying I think that's what happened because I believe she's really injured, but that entered the back of my head.

[prudery]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

Does anyone think there's a possibility that Rags is not injured and that they are just sore losers that don't want to blemish her record by risking losing the Distaff??

I'm not saying I think that's what happened because I believe she's really injured, but that entered the back of my head.

Probably not, but that theory isn't as far fetched a some might think ... Blemishing this filly's record and pampering her in her works wre always Pletcher's m o here .... So backing away from a potential loss with a real, imagined, or exagerrated injury is somewhat congruent to that thinking. I don't buy the sore losers' image, but I might suggest " protecting " HER image . Not so far fetched .

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

Does anyone think there's a possibility that Rags is not injured and that they are just sore losers that don't want to blemish her record by risking losing the Distaff??

I'm not saying I think that's what happened because I believe she's really injured, but that entered the back of my head.

I don't think they're sore losers, just pussies.

[prudery]

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

I don't think they're sore losers, just pussies.

YEP, corporate pussies ...

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Watch the replay again. Are you a horse whisperer? How can you tell injuries by a horse hanging his head after a grueling race? Does your eye know better than a vet, because he went back into training after the race.

You cant tell. We have nothing else to go on. IT's just some evidence, there is nothing that can be proved. No one's going to hand us x rays etc. so that's all the evidence we have. Its not conclusive, others may form other conclusions.

As I recall he seemed to bear out in the stretch but maybe I am not remembering it well. IT's hardly crucial to the main argument is it?

[nomad]

What a disappointment. Thank you for the news. I hadn't heard.