Street Sense- should he or shouldn't he?

[slotdirt]

I think it's pretty safe to say that if there was no Breeders Cup Classic, Street Sense's presence in the Belmont would be a no-brainer.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cardus

One disgusting sentiment expressed to a reporter after Street Sense lost the Preakness was the joy of some NYRA employees -- I took "employees" to mean concession workers and security types, not the management -- that Street Sense had lost, for the crowd would not be totally overbearing on Belmont Stakes Day.

This was reported in a blurb by New York Daily News racing beat writer Jerry Bossert last Monday.

My uncle owns one of the concessions for the Belmont Stakes, and he was not filled with joy when Street Sense lost the preakness. Maybe some of the kids who serve the food were, but Jerry Bossert was so completely wrong with that statement.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I disagree with everything that Finley said. I even strongly disagree with his assumption that it would be better for the sport if Street Sense runs. If they skip this race, SS will probably be around for the rest of the year. We will probably get to see him in the Travers, maybe the JCGC, and the BC Classic. If they run SS in the Belmont, we may never see him again. I think they are much better off skipping the Belmont and having a healthy horse for the rest of the year.
I think that Darley did the smart thing by skipping the Belmont with Bernardini. I think it was the best thing for the both the sport and the horse. I would say the same for SS.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I disagree with everything that Finley said. I even strongly disagree with his assumption that it would be better for the sport if Street Sense runs. If they skip this race, SS will probably be around for the rest of the year. We will probably get to see him in the Travers, maybe the JCGC, and the BC Classic. If they run SS in the Belmont, we may never see him again. I think they are much better off skipping the Belmont and having a healthy horse for the rest of the year.
I think that Darley did the smart thing by skipping the Belmont with Bernardini. I think it was the best thing for the both the sport and the horse. I would say the same for SS.

That's not a great example. I don't see Bernardini's situation as comparable with SS. They're just not the same type of horse nor do they have the same seasoning. Bernardini was fairly new to this level of competition and 2 TC races would've been a bit much potentially. SS has been handling the tough contests for awhile. The Belmont isn't s'much a 'stallion maker' as it was back in the day and Bernardini'd already won a Classic to go with his pedigree. The work was done. I don't subscribe to the idea that a well-seasoned, healthy/happy horse would face harm going for it in the name of sportsmanship. Now if he's not as bright and shiny as he has been and isn't training as Nafzger would like, totally fine to say they'll go for the big prizes later. If Curlin wins it, their backs will be up against it for the Eclipse is all I'm saying. Of course Nafzger knows how to do a Derby/Classic double.

[hockey2315]

The funny thing is, that if SS wins the photo in the Preakness he's going- it's a no-brainer. . . I know the obvious argument is "well, if the horse has a shot at the triple crown then he HAS to run in the Belmont" - but if it's so taxing, then to run SS in the Belmont wouldn't be putting his best interests first if Nafzger thought it might compromise his health. . . They should just run the damn horse now if he's training well. . . He's probably just as likely to get hurt while training or walking around as he as running in a race so why not run him now if he's healthy. . .

[Danzig]

there is no guarantee of anything. street sense could lay out, and still be out later this year. he could run, win, and be out later...or he could run, lose, be out...or he could run, and run later, win some and lose some.

who knows??? that's why it's under the umbrella known as gambling! if the horse can run, run him. if he can't or shouldn't, don't. but don't keep him in the barn now, if he's ready, as tho that is some guarantee that he'll remain ready down the road! just ask nick zito!


and i agree with the poster who said had he won by a head, rather than lost, we wouldn't even be having this discussion! shame that a few inches means the difference between 'what's best' and running....

[Danzig]

one other question--just how many restricted million dollar races are there for 3 yo's??
and didn't unbridled run in the belmont, en route to the bcc win?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I believe Unbridled was a soundly beaten 4th to Go and Go in the Belmont.

Unbridled won the Derby conclusively, was a solid 2nd in what I'm almost positive was a very swiftly run Preakness on figures.

I don't believe Unbrideled won a race in between the Derby and the Breeders Cup Classic---and I'm not so sure Nafzger wasn't regretting his decision to run him in the Belmont Stakes...at least until he won the Classic later that year anyway.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I believe Unbridled was a soundly beaten 4th to Go and Go in the Belmont.

Unbridled won the Derby conclusively, was a solid 2nd in what I'm almost positive was a very swiftly run Preakness on figures.

I don't believe Unbrideled won a race in between the Derby and the Breeders Cup Classic---and I'm not so sure Nafzger wasn't regretting his decision to run him in the Belmont Stakes...at least until he won the Classic later that year anyway.

no wins, he ran 2nd in the super derby and secretariat stakes....

[robfla]

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Thanks for that form of Unbridled.

I remember BTW complaining about how Black Tie Affair stole that 1990 Breeders Cup Classic (he ran a 120 Beyer in victory) ---Unbridled was actually 16 lengths back at the first call.....he closed for 3rd and ran a figure in defeat which was good enough to win the race in some other years.

Nafzger sure did have him ready when he had time to point for one major race with him.

He actually edged out Cee's Tizzy for 2nd in the 1989 Super Derby. I have a friend who posts here send me tape of Cee's Tizzy's Del Mar win at one mile that year. In a two-turn mile race, he carved out fractions of 21 4/5, 44 flat, 1:08 and something like a 1:33 2/5 final time. He was 1/5th of a second off of Percisionist's track record that day. He finished his career with just 6 starts, never winning a stake....but he'll be remembered for siring two-time Breeders Cup Classic winner Tiznow more than anything else.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I believe Unbridled was a soundly beaten 4th to Go and Go in the Belmont.

Unbridled won the Derby conclusively, was a solid 2nd in what I'm almost positive was a very swiftly run Preakness on figures.

I don't believe Unbrideled won a race in between the Derby and the Breeders Cup Classic---and I'm not so sure Nafzger wasn't regretting his decision to run him in the Belmont Stakes...at least until he won the Classic later that year anyway.

Unbridled's victory in the classic that day also came when Pat Day gave a Calvin B-type ride coming up the rail and then splitting horses in the stretch.
Maybe this bodes well for Street Sense's chances in the BCC. Just like Unbridled he won the Derby from well-off the pace and then ran second in the Preakness.
Unbridled was a good, consistent, horse who almost always ran fairly well and tended to run very well (and have things go his way) on racing's biggest days. Sounds familiar to me.

[robfla]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Thanks for that form of Unbridled.

I remember BTW complaining about how Black Tie Affair stole that 1991 Breeders Cup Classic (he ran a 120 Beyer in victory) ---Unbridled was actually 16 lengths back at the first call.....he closed for 3rd and ran a figure in defeat which was good enough to win the race in some other years.

Nafzger sure did have him ready when he had time to point for one major race with him.

He actually edged out Cee's Tizzy for 2nd in the 1989 Super Derby. I have a friend who posts here send me tape of Cee's Tizzy's Del Mar win at one mile that year. In a two-turn mile race, he carved out fractions of 21 4/5, 44 flat, 1:08 and something like a 1:33 2/5 final time. He was 1/5th of a second off of Percisionist's track record that day. He finished his career with just 6 starts, never winning a stake....but he'll be remembered for siring two-time Breeders Cup Classic winner Tiznow more than anything else.

FTFY ( 1991 )

[todko]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Birdstone did---I'm pretty sure he finished behind Azeri (who ran 5th) in the Classic that day.

Birdstone ran in the classic. Hopped the start. Ran well. I think finished 7th or so.

Ghostzapper.

[Withers]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Here is my point. Curlin had the opportunity to win a big race right then. His connections would have been foolish to pass on that opportunity just because of some nonsensical notion that skipping that race would somehow help win some other big race down the road. As you know, I am not just saying this in retrospect now that I know he won. I told you that at the time. Horses can get injured/sick at any time. Hell you could skip the TC races and the horse could break his leg in a workout the next day. If you have a healthy and fit horse and there is a G1 million dollar classic that he could win right then, take your shot.

Amen to that. As long as the horse is well, I don't see that it has anything to do with planning future campaigns. I think it has to do with SS's connections dodging any difficult spot until you can get a shot at the BC and then keeping your fingers crossed that he is lucky...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

there is no guarantee of anything. street sense could lay out, and still be out later this year. he could run, win, and be out later...or he could run, lose, be out...or he could run, and run later, win some and lose some.

who knows??? that's why it's under the umbrella known as gambling! if the horse can run, run him. if he can't or shouldn't, don't. but don't keep him in the barn now, if he's ready, as tho that is some guarantee that he'll remain ready down the road! just ask nick zito!


and i agree with the poster who said had he won by a head, rather than lost, we wouldn't even be having this discussion! shame that a few inches means the difference between 'what's best' and running....

There is a much better chance of the horse lasting if they skip the Belmont. That's what it comes down to. There are never any guarantees. If I eat really healthy, there is no guarantee that I won't get cancer. Does that mean that I shouldn't eat healthy? All you can do is do the smart thing and put the odds on your side. But even then, there are still no gurantees.

I don't think the fact that SS lost the Preakness is the reason they're not running. If anything, I think the fact that they lost would make them more likely to run because they would want to come back and reverse the tables on Curlin.

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

There is a much better chance of the horse lasting if they skip the Belmont. That's what it comes down to. There are never any guarantees. If I eat really healthy, there is no guarantee that I won't get cancer. Does that mean that I shouldn't eat healthy? All you can do is do the smart thing and put the odds on your side. But even then, there are still no gurantees.

I don't think the fact that SS lost the Preakness is the reason they're not running. If anything, I think the fact that they lost would make them more likely to run because they would want to come back and reverse the tables on Curlin.

Of course it's a reason they're not running.. Just not the only factor. If SS had won the Preakness, you telling me they'd skip the Belmont anyway? I seriously doubt that.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

That's not a great example. I don't see Bernardini's situation as comparable with SS. They're just not the same type of horse nor do they have the same seasoning. Bernardini was fairly new to this level of competition and 2 TC races would've been a bit much potentially. SS has been handling the tough contests for awhile. The Belmont isn't s'much a 'stallion maker' as it was back in the day and Bernardini'd already won a Classic to go with his pedigree. The work was done. I don't subscribe to the idea that a well-seasoned, healthy/happy horse would face harm going for it in the name of sportsmanship. Now if he's not as bright and shiny as he has been and isn't training as Nafzger would like, totally fine to say they'll go for the big prizes later. If Curlin wins it, their backs will be up against it for the Eclipse is all I'm saying. Of course Nafzger knows how to do a Derby/Classic double.

Of course it's a different situation. Bernardini had only had a few races at the time. Running him in the belmontt looked like it might be too much, too soon. SS, on the other hand, would be running in his 4th race in 8 weeks. So for him, running in the Belmont looks like it could be one race too many in a short period.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by zippyneedsawin

Of course it's a reason they're not running.. Just not the only factor. If SS had won the Preakness, you telling me they'd skip the Belmont anyway? I seriously doubt that.

I am so embarassed. I was so focused on his current situation that I forgot that if he would have won the Preakness that he would have still been alive to win the Triple Crown. Of course they would have run him in the Belmont in that case. They would have had to go for the Triple Crown.

But in that case, winning the Belmont would do more for his breeding value than winning any other race. Being the first Triple Crown winner in 30 years would make the horse worth an absolute fortune.