Beyer: Espinoza's ride could have cost Chrome Crown

[Frost King]

If you watch his ride in the 3rd, it was the ride he would have given California Chrome. He was two wide the whole trip around and the horse faded. That could have scared him from doing the same thing with CC.

[richard burch]

he flattened out. whether he was wide, inside, back , front...he still would have done it....too much for him. espinoza did a good job.


what i saw was what appeared to be a very deep track with alot of kick back. horses spinning their hooves.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Anyone blaming Espinoza for Chrome's loss is completely grasping at straws. He saved ground on the first turn, had zero significant traffic trouble and gave his horse a clear shot to reel in the leaders in the stretch. The horse wasn't good enough to get it done.



I thought he was the lock of the century?!

He was. It really should be obvious to you that he was best.

[Pants II]

Bad luck at the break.

That doesn't happen it's arguably a different outcome.

If he's healthy...good luck to those who doubt him in the fall.

[Vegaskid]

Originally Posted by richard burch

he flattened out. whether he was wide, inside, back , front...he still would have done it....too much for him. espinoza did a good job.


what i saw was what appeared to be a very deep track with alot of kick back. horses spinning their hooves.

I agree. They made sure to play the track deep.

This horse's problem is breaking from the gate. In this race he got bumped hard from the outside. Its not about making the front for him just getting clean out and position. I believe if he broke out clean its a completely different finish for him.

[ajphilly]

Originally Posted by -BT-

yeah, if anyone should be question rides in that race, people should definitely take a look at Ortiz. No urgency what so ever to get near the lead, makes what i thought was a huge move going into the stretch, gets to the top of the lane and he nose dives the horse to the rail while entering the stretch 6 wide. I'm not saying he was winning, but after a big move why not continue outside

-bt-

I figured something had gone wrong with the horse when he wasn't near the front during the race. I was shocked to see that he finished only about 4-5 lengths back of Tonalist. Watching the replay, Ortiz doesn't seem to ask the horse at all while everyone one else goes right by. I agree that he may not have won, but he gave the horse no chance. By far the most questionable ride in the race IMO.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

He was. It really should be obvious to you that he was best.

I don't know how you make that case without using the foot as an excuse.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I don't know how you make that case without using the foot as an excuse.

He stated his case before the race...

California Chrome can't lose unless he does...in which case I am right that he can't lose.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

He stated his case before the race...

California Chrome can't lose unless he does...in which case I am right that he can't lose.

Don't forget him chiding people who liked Tonalist for some reason.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Don't forget him chiding people who liked Tonalist for some reason.

Tonalist won because the favorite was badly compromised. Much like BTWs attempt to mock my reasoning goes.

That was a freaking terribly run race by everyone. I'm not sure how that is not obvious to anyone who has watched racing for any number of years.

I singled out Tonalist before the race because he was the one newcomer, or relatively unknown quality coming into this race, having never faced the horses who were already running in the other TC races.

Clement told a friend of mine that he liked his horses chances alot in the Belmont, but let's face it, that race he ran would not have touched CC in either the Derby or Preakness.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Clement told a friend of mine that he liked his horses chances alot in the Belmont, but let's face it, that race he ran would not have touched CC in either the Derby or Preakness.

Nobody ever said that Tonalist would have won the Derby or Preakness. The question was whether he would have a good chance to beat CC running 1 1/2 miles when it will be CC's third race in 5 weeks. That was the only thing that mattered. When I'm handicapping the Belmont, it is irrelevant to me how a horse would do running 1 1/4 miles against CC when both horses are fresh. The only thing that mattered to me when handicapping the Belmont was who will win going 1 1/2 miles when it is CC's third race in 5 weeks.

I can't tell you whether the grabbed quarter made a difference. It may have. There is no way to know for sure. That's not the point. The point was that nobody ever said Tonalist is better than CC. The only question was whether CC might be vulnerable under the specific circumstances (the distance plus the short rest) that he would be facing in the Belmont. I can't tell you for a 100% fact that those things made the difference. But I can tell you that the vast majority of the time that those factors will make a huge difference. If you expect a horse that wins the Derby and Preakness to run the same way in the Belmont, you will be in for a big disappointment the vast majority of times.

[JJP]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Clement told a friend of mine that he liked his horses chances alot in the Belmont, but let's face it, that race he ran would not have touched CC in either the Derby or Preakness.

He didn't have to beat Chrome in Louisville or Baltimore. Just in New York. At 1 1/2 miles. And he did it, despite more ground loss than anyone else in the race.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Nobody ever said that Tonalist would have won the Derby or Preakness. The question was whether he would have a good chance to beat CC running 1 1/2 miles when it will be CC's third race in 5 weeks. That was the only thing that mattered. When I'm handicapping the Belmont, it is irrelevant to me how a horse would do running 1 1/4 miles against CC when both horses are fresh. The only thing that mattered to me when handicapping the Belmont was who will win going 1 1/2 miles when it is CC's third race in 5 weeks.

I can't tell you whether the grabbed quarter made a difference. It may have. There is no way to know for sure. That's not the point. The point was that nobody ever said Tonalist is better than CC. The only question was whether CC might be vulnerable under the specific circumstances (the distance plus the short rest) that he would be facing in the Belmont. I can't tell you for a 100% fact that those things made the difference. But I can tell you that the vast majority of the time that those factors will make a huge difference. If you expect a horse that wins the Derby and Preakness to run the same way in the Belmont, you will be in for a big disappointment the vast majority of times.

Saying that the Belmont winner wouldnt have touched the races that Chrome offered is completely useless. The race was run Chrome didnt beat him in the race they squared off against each other. Was I overwhelmed with the race hardily both Tonalist was dead game as was Chrome and Chrome lost. extrapolating what would or could have been in preakness of Derby is pure conjecture. Let's face it both horses are good. If i had to bet who is better in 120 days my money is on Tonalist

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Tonalist won because the favorite was badly compromised. Much like BTWs attempt to mock my reasoning goes.

That was a freaking terribly run race by everyone. I'm not sure how that is not obvious to anyone who has watched racing for any number of years.

I singled out Tonalist before the race because he was the one newcomer, or relatively unknown quality coming into this race, having never faced the horses who were already running in the other TC races.

Clement told a friend of mine that he liked his horses chances alot in the Belmont, but let's face it, that race he ran would not have touched CC in either the Derby or Preakness.

We all praised Chrome for being a good horse who used his quality to work out great trips in Derby and Preakness and rightfully so. His trip in Belmont was fine he simply wasnt best.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by JJP

He didn't have to beat Chrome in Louisville or Baltimore. Just in New York. At 1 1/2 miles. And he did it, despite more ground loss than anyone else in the race.

Really?

You mean Tonalist didn't have to board his time machine to change history against Chrome in the Derby and Preakness?

Amazing how you and some others here like to gloss over my point in saying that.

Namely that Chrome's normal performance easily beats what Tonalist ran in the Belmont. Maybe, just maybe, running the race with an injured foot cost Chrome two or more lengths.

Stop being deliberately obtuse.

[asudevil]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Really?

You mean Tonalist didn't have to board his time machine to change history against Chrome in the Derby and Preakness?

Amazing how you and some others here like to gloss over my point in saying that.

Namely that Chrome's normal performance easily beats what Tonalist ran in the Belmont. Maybe, just maybe, running the race with an injured foot cost Chrome two or more lengths.

Stop being deliberately obtuse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dakxwoVV7yM

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Really?

You mean Tonalist didn't have to board his time machine to change history against Chrome in the Derby and Preakness?

Amazing how you and some others here like to gloss over my point in saying that.

Namely that Chrome's normal performance easily beats what Tonalist ran in the Belmont. Maybe, just maybe, running the race with an injured foot cost Chrome two or more lengths.

Stop being deliberately obtuse.

I have no idea how the hell you keep saying this as if it's fact.

I'd say Chrome's Preakness probably beats Tonalist's Belmont (even though the comparison is ridiculous to begin with). Tonalist's Belmont compares favorably with every other race Chrome has run.

California Chrome is a nice horse who was the likeliest winner of the Belmont going in. He wasn't some layover that needed a meteor to hit him to lose. He had dead aim on the leaders in mid-stretch and didn't get it done. Period.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Saying that the Belmont winner wouldnt have touched the races that Chrome offered is completely useless. The race was run Chrome didnt beat him in the race they squared off against each other. Was I overwhelmed with the race hardily both Tonalist was dead game as was Chrome and Chrome lost. extrapolating what would or could have been in preakness of Derby is pure conjecture. Let's face it both horses are good. If i had to bet who is better in 120 days my money is on Tonalist

I never said that. I said it is irrelevant how Tonalist would have done in the Derby and Preakness. The only thing that was relevant in handicapping the Belmont was how those two horses would do against each other going 1 1/2 miles when it is CC's 3rd race in 5 weeks. That was the only thing that was relevant, at least to me, in handicapping the Belmont.

Do I think Tonalist would have won the Derby? Based on his performance in the Belmont I would say probably not. But I don't want to judge Tonalist too harshly based on how he ran going 1 1/2 miles. I doubt any of these horses will ever run 1 1/2 miles again. It's probably not an ideal distance for any of them. I wouldn't really judge any horse too harshly based on a single race going 1 1/2 miles. He ran a decent race. He didn't look like a star but he could still turn out to be a star.