Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

Karen2 — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:13:34 GMT

I'm with you Zookeeper. I wish people would lay off both these amazing horses. I get so disgusted. According to Steve's latest blog..I definately fall into the "independent" category. I love them both. Steve's blog is the most mild which is one of the reasons I hang with him. I can't take the other blogs. I start to read them and it's the same old posters...with the same story.... I love all the horses to much to read that.

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

Slew — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:23:20 GMT

Ragsy, because Rachel is not in the AB, she did not ship to Oaklawn. Check Nola.com for updates. From March 17th, "Rachel Alexandra has resumed training. She galloped a mile Wednesday, said Scott Blasi, assistant to trainer Steve Asmussen. … " I really don't know about this info tidbit...to me it seems very soon after the 3/13 race to start working again. Can anyone confirm this?

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

Zookeeper — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 02:18:48 GMT

Karen2,

You are absolutely right! But you can't stop the childish rants against RA any more than I can stop the bashing Zenyatta gets, even when she wins.

I understand how you feel. This blog is mild compared to the other ones. I think that Mr. Haskin deletes the real obnoxious comments or that the lunatics who visit here are on their best behavior because they know he won't tolerate it. They don't stick around though. They scurry back to a blog who lets them spew their venom at will. In time, they will forget all about RA & Z and start tearing down some poor other horse who won't deserve it either. None of them do.

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

Fahad Malaikah — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 02:14:11 GMT

Aluminaut:

My post to jpsbman is similar to what I am about to say. I won't go on and on, but you are exactly right about different scenarios and factors. I don't get frustrated by opinions, even if I think they are totally unfounded. I get frustrated with subjective opinions, which might be motivated by bias, that are passed off as "objective," scientifically verifiable truths. Gary's attempts are noble, but this specific formula he used to make weight/time adjustments for RA to further his argument seems full of holes to me. If he thinks this formula has worked for him as a handicapper, wonderful for him!

Karen2:

The question about Zenyatta was a rhetorical one. I agree, Gio would have probably not beaten Zenyatta even if they were carrying equal weight, and even if Zenyatta was carrying 3 pounds more. She's a big, awesome girl, isn't she?

Best,

Fahad

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

Fahad Malaikah — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 01:53:33 GMT

jpsbman:

I have a couple of problems with your analysis and a couple of the underlying assumptions in your first paragraph. The conclusion of your first paragraph was a bit unclear to me, so I deeply apologize in advance if I am misrepresenting your intended positions.

First, I have a problem with your assumption that Gary was not positing a direct/causal relationship between time and weight. I think he might have backed off of this a little and he certainly ceded that the relationship is different for different horses, but initially he was making hypothetical claims about RA’s times and making time/weight adjustments given a specific time/weight formula (1 pound=1 length) to further his argument. Maybe you read that specific part differently, but it appears that he’s trying to establish a precise relationship there without even considering the role of handicaps or other factors. If he were considering handicaps, he would have to account for all of the other individuals with the formula.

It was unclear, but you seem to be suggesting that there is in fact a weight/time formula. I would argue that there is no objective formula that has been scientifically verified that can be used to make hypothetical weight/time adjustments. If there is such a formula, what is it, and what are the “defined coordinates?” Where do the coordinates begin and end, and how and when do you apply the formula? And where did you get the formula from? I would argue that there is a relationship between weight and performance, which can and may translate into a weight/time relationship. The overarching problem here is that we are talking about biological entities that do not perform precisely like, say, mechanical entities, and so it is very difficult to establish a direct, precise, and causal weight/time formula. Again, we can’t package these animals into rigid, quantitative boxes, and I think that’s even truer of horses like RA and Zenyatta. If we are handicapping, we can try and design such formulas to aid us in our efforts, but we know they are never going to be full-proof. Moreover, it becomes difficult to establish when (age, size of individual, etc.) and to which individuals the formulas apply. Stemming from my question above to Gary about the BCC and Zenyatta’s time, does it apply only to RA and not Zenyatta?

So, again, I agree that there is a relationship between weight and performance (note, I’m not talking about a precise weight/time formula), but that the relationship is in fact more (in some cases, only) significant at the extremes. Even if you are positing that there is a precise weight/time formula, then it would seem to me that the more extreme cases would have a more significant impact on time. So, despite what the so-called formula was meant to cover, whatever that is, I would argue that even bio-dynamically speaking, only the more extreme cases are significant in terms of performance. Please let me clarify with a crude example: say that we are talking about Zenyatta. Let’s say she was initially weighted with 125 pounds this past weekend, but that someone changed their mind right before the race. Do you think there will be a more significant impact on her performance (and/or time) if she is carrying 127 pounds instead, or 150 pounds instead? For that matter, do you think there will be any impact on her performance (or time) if she carries 127 instead of 125? Or what if it was decided that she was to carry 100 pounds instead? And of course, it would seem that distance does matter in this relationship, so you have to account for that. I would argue that (maybe only) the extremes would have a significant impact on performance, while Gary might try to come up with a precise time based on weight adjustments. In fact, I highly doubt that the 2 pound difference would be significant at all. While the extremes don’t invalidate the defined coordinates, as you say, it is the defined coordinates and the formula themselves that are the problem when are talking about these non-mechanical animals. In other words, it is the defined coordinates (assuming they are 2-3 pounds) that are insignificant, in my opinion. Conversely, assuming there is a precise causal relationship, do the defined coordinates (which I don’t think have actually been defined) invalidate the extremes (which are also not defined)? So, while I won’t tell you that there is some precise formula that can be used to predict or “adjust” her time based on her weight, I would argue that one of those extreme weight-differences will have a significant impact on her performance while the 2 pound difference would be insignificant and negligible. I haven’t done a study to corroborate my opinion, so it remains just that, but it’s one of those opinions that I am pretty confident about.

Believe it or not, I found your second paragraph less problematic. While I don’t agree with your opinion (for reasons stated elsewhere), I find it less problematic because you are not trying to pass off your subjective opinion as if it was an objective, scientifically verifiable truth.

Again, I apologize in advance if I misrepresented any of your intended positions.

Respectfully,

Fahad

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

Karen2 — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:50:36 GMT

Fahad: I do agree 100% with your statements about Rachel. I have probably gained a little more respect for her connections because of their ability to pull her from the race knowing she is not ready. Although prep races are necessary...I still feel she should have been fit for her prep race and she wasn't. That is unfair to RA. I am also struggling with all the RA bashing going on on these blogs. I am beside myself. I feel she turned in a gutsy performance. She has worked 6 times in 6 months. On paper she should have collapsed with that kind of work out schedule. But she dug back in and still battled. Rachel has the heart of a champion. I am a little worried everytime I check this website that there will be an announcement she has retired. I will keep waiting and watching. All I can say is I hope everyone can give her the respect she deserves. She gave us an incredible season last year and she doesn't deserve to get beat up over this race.

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

Karen2 — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:41:25 GMT

With all due respect Fahad...NO!!!!!!!!!!! Gio would Not have beaten Zen last year regardless of weight. I am a simpleton and logic tells me if she were carrying 3 extra pounds and if one pound is equal to a length Mike Smith would have rode just a slightly different race. He would have put her where she needed to win.....Zen is that good.

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

Aluminaut — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:30:31 GMT

Fahad,

As handicappers we all know that variables exist and affect the outcome of a race. Gary is mentioning guidelines. If the same race could be run over and over, there would be different scenarios. We all know that Zenyatta's talent has allowed her to create her own luck on many occasions. You don't need to make him say it. I appreciate both of your posts.

Rachel's race on Saturday was fine; she needed the race. Zenyatta is in such a zone, if I had a good horse with a rep like Rachel's, I wouldn't want to see her lose at Oaklawn.

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

jpsbman — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:08:31 GMT

JAJ I don't think Gary is saying the relationship between time and weight is linear, only the simplest distance/time relationships are linear. However if you take a short piece of a big curve you can approximate the curve with a straight line. However you can only do that over a well defined short length of the curve so going to extremes (out of the defined co-ordinates) do not at all invalidate a formula that was never meant to cover such cases. Weight time is a rule of thumb use at your own risk.

Since Gary is taking flack, I just wanted to add that I think he is correct. I'm sure other factors were at play but I thought Rachel ran a very good prep race. 1:43.5, 100 BSF, second by less than a length to a good older (wiser) horse. I do not see that the problem is.

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

Fahad Malaikah — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:48:45 GMT

JAJ:

I think that another interesting question to pose to Gary at Rough Creek, simply using his own formula, would be this:

If Zenyatta was carrying 3 pounds less than runner-up Gio Ponti in the BCC, and each extra pound would slow her down by 1 length, would she have still won the BCC carrying equal weight, or would she have finished 2 lengths behind him?

Best,

Fahad

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

Ragsy — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:55:15 GMT

www.neworleans.com/.../352589-rachel-alexandra-comes-back-fine-will-ship-to-oaklawn-monday.htlm

news from 3-15-2010

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

Fahad Malaikah — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:50:07 GMT

Gary at Rough Creek:

Let me state, just to be clear, that I think weight is generally significant in this sport. In Rachel’s case, like many horses of her caliber, I would argue that weight is much less significant, and is negligible at 2-4 pounds in the 119-123 pound range. I really doubt that an additional 2 pounds caused her to run two lengths slower, especially given her own growth. She did everything she was asked to do last year, which was a lot, and neither track nor weight kept her from doing it. In the case of RA and Zenyatta, we are not talking about ordinary, completely predictable horses. I think it would be unwise to try and pigeon-hole either of these great horses into some kind of rigid, conceptual, quantitative box.

I would agree that you haven’t discovered any cause and effect relationship, much less a relationship that corroborates your specific original formula (1 pound=1 length), which is exactly why I would caution you about making any predictions about her future races (when she is NOT short) based on weight. I don’t have the form in front of me with her weights, but I can tell you that her fastest 8.5f race last year was the Fantasy Stakes, which was also her last 8.5f race last year (prior to the Oaks), at a time when she was really beginning to blossom and also gain national attention. Aside from her 8.5f races, you might want to see if either of your specific formulas “holds up” in her 9f races if you want to try and find a causal relationship, which I think will be very hard to do.

Sure, I can Google, but I may not find the exact same website that you are referencing, which makes it hard for me to corroborate your source. I also am very skeptical about certain kinds of web-based research. Add that to the fact that this “different” Betfair website you are mentioning says something different from what you stated about the previous website. Furthermore, I have no idea if racing secretaries are familiar with the two different websites (or findings) that you are referencing.

Yes, RA’s connections stated that she came back healthy, thank goodness. I have no idea how she has been training recently or even when she returned to the track. I would never say that her previous race was “horrible.” In fact, I give her a lot of credit for showing grit. What I would say, however, is that she wasn’t given enough time and preparation for the prep or for the big race in April. Her connections recognize that, and her last race shows that that may be the case. Thus, they have the right to skip the race, and I commend them for doing it, especially given the purse at stake.

Respectfully,

Fahad

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

Ragsy — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:43:08 GMT

Now, with Rachel Alexandra shipping this past Monday to Oaklawn, perhaps, I will still get to see Rachel and that mighty Zenyatta. It doesnt matter that Rachel is missing this race, for me to be able to take pictures and video's of both Zenyatta and Rachel is good enough....Ya just gotta love the girls...

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

Shane — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:42:53 GMT

Also by your weight analysis Zenyatta would have lost under equal weights. I can accept that. lol

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

JAJ — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:00:17 GMT

Gary at Rough Creek,

In actual practice, weights don't play out the way a handicapper wishes they would.

To illustrate, let's use Zenyatta's race on Saturday. She ran 9f in 1:48.20 under 127 pounds. Suppose she carried 112 pounds, 15 pounds less.

By your charts, that would gain 15 lengths (one length per pound at a route distance). At 5 lengths per second, she would be three seconds faster. Does anyone really believe she would get 9f in 1:45.20 seconds? What if we dropped 25 pounds, could she get 9f in 1:43.20 seconds? I doubt it.

Horses have a top speed that is not affected as much by weight as many suppose, certainly not by 2 or 3 pounds.

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

Gary at Rough Creek — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:10:34 GMT

Fahad,

You can google as easily as I can, if you really want to know the truth. I just found another, different site than the one I found last year which has similar, though slightly different correlations between weight and distance. It was through betfair.

It stated that, for flat racing:

3 pounds equals a length in sprints;

2 pounds equals a length in 8 - 9 furlong races;

and 1 pound equals a length in 12 - 16 furlong races.

Which is hard to understand, since it leaves out 9 - 11 furlong races altogether. But you get the point...I ain't making this up...racing secretaries are!

Part of the problem in assessing this situation is the remarks made by RA's connections. If she really came back healthy and happy from her race, perhaps happier now after a race, then that's one scenario. If she goes back to the track and is rank and keen, than that's a different story. My only point Fahad was that her race, compared to her body of work last year AND adjusted for the added weight, was not all that horrible.

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

Gary at Rough Creek — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:54:35 GMT

Good morning Fahad,

Well, Rachel ran her fastest 8.5 furlong race last year under 119. She ran her slowest 8.5 furlong race of her life this year under 123. Am I saying that this is cause and effect in action? I can't say that...it's just coincidental at this point. what I am saying is...weight matters, especially if a horse is short. Weight will slow them down. that's what it is intended to do, and - I think - it contributed to Rachel's loss and time last Saturday. If you ask me how much, guess what I'll say? That's right, about a length or two, relative to when she carried 121.

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

Fahad Malaikah — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:57:02 GMT

Gary at Rough Creek:

Let me state one more thing just to clarify my “crude” question above, in anticipation of what you might argue. Yes, I recognize the role of handicaps, but your initial argument treated weight as if directly correlated with time. That is, you took it for granted that weight “mattered” for RA, and in so doing, you gave a hypothetical analysis as if each additional pound would make her slower by a specific time given a specific formula. Again, is there any evidence that, on its own, increased weight slowed her down last year?

Respectfully,

Fahad

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

Fahad Malaikah — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:29:41 GMT

Gary at Rough Creek:

No, I am not saying that weight doesn’t matter. To state this again, we are talking about 2 and 4 pounds, respectively, which I believe is a negligible amount of weight for a filly of this caliber that has grown in size/strength and won many races in hand. It would help, when making a reference to a website, if you posted the address. If you are trying to establish how much weight “matters” and you recognize that weight doesn’t matter for every horse, as you say, then I think it is difficult to make a case for Rachel or predict her future based on her one comeback race off a long lay-off, which she wasn’t prepared for, in my opinion. If you want to conduct a study or make predictions to see if weight does matter for RA, you might want to look at her times and weights from last year and the year before, and start there. Crudely stated, did a 2 pound increase slow her down any last year?

While I certainly have my opinions and feelings about certain tracks(for instance, that Laurel seems speed-biased), I have never done any thorough statistical analysis to back up my opinions about track bias, and so it’s not something I can state with confidence about any track, much less Laurel or Monmouth. Have you ever done or seen such an analysis that you agreed with? You would have to look at more than just anecdotal evidence or even the percentage of front-running winners at a track as well as cross-analyze tracks, as I’m sure you know. As for Summer Bird, his connections had repeatedly stated that he was capable of rating closer to the pace, which he did successfully after the Haskell at Saratoga (also on a wet track) and Belmont. They didn’t want to let Munnings or RA get out of sight, simple as that. So I don’t think your argument holds much water there. Go back and watch the races. By the way, I did not hold up Rachel’s Haskell as something that she had to replicate last Saturday. I never said that, and I’ve stated more than once that there were no benchmarks set for her based on time. What I do know for sure about the Haskell is that I personally witnessed a breathtaking performance. The filly took over the field turning for home in the blink of an eye, no exaggeration. By the way, let’s say that RA did run a grueling 1:41 and change or faster last Saturday, as you mentioned previously, then as an owner I would be worried that she took too much out of herself before the AB.

This is my main point about RA and last Saturday. Even prior to the race, when the April 9th Apple Blossom was first announced, I have argued that both that race and the prep were too early. I argued that an optimal time for both camps would have been on Oaks day. Asmussen even hinted prior to this race that she wasn’t ready, and before the matchup was announced, he stated that she wouldn’t start until at least April. With the announcement of the race, she was put on an accelerated schedule. I think it was very risky in terms of her race record and her physical health, especially given how hard she runs gate to wire. Asmussen has even stated since Saturday that she may not be as good as last year. Now, considering that the race was sub-par, that they realize now it was a mistake to rush her into the prep, and with the possibility that she may not be as good as last year, RA’s handlers have every right to not run in the Apple Blossom a mere 4 weeks down the road. With or without the final time or Zardana’s presence, she just didn’t look the same and she wasn’t prepped properly for this or the AB. Her prior works were sub-par too. If Zenyatta has indeed improved, RA’s connections have every right to wait until they are sure that RA is back and ready before the big matchup. That’s not admitting defeat, nor is it a technical victory for Zenyatta. The race hasn’t run yet. Yes, horses are meant to race, but health, safety, and her integrity come first and we are talking about no ordinary horse.

Best,

Fahad

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

Michelle — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:23:19 GMT

Golden Gate - GREAT IDEA!!!! Please someone, ask Mr. Jackson to bring Rachel to Oaklawn that weekend anyway. I would be happy just to see her paraded around and I think a lot of other fans would too.

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

Ragsy — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:56:09 GMT

Gary & Fahad

what teachers you both are many thanks for your insight..

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

Gary at Roughg Creek — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:09:19 GMT

Blood-horse Staff,

Thanks for the correction. I don't know which blog I sent it to, but my memory of the weights in The BBC were backwards.

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

Gary at Rough Creek — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:10:11 GMT

Fahad Malaikah,

I am not making up any quantitative relationship between weights and lengths and times in handicap racing. I got my information off of a British website which described the meaning and history of Thoroughbred "handicaps". On that site, it explained that the idea of a handicap is to assign weights such that all the runners should cross the wire together...one can see how this would make wagering more difficult but more interesting.

On that site, weights and lengths were designated thusly:

- 1 pound in a route race equals 1

length of distance;

- 2 pounds in a mile race equals 1

length of distance;

- 3 pounds in a sprint race equals

1 length of distance.

As far as times go, I have often heard that 1 length is roughly 0.2 seconds. You can correct me if this is wrong.

Am I saying that every horse will be affected equally by the same amount of weight? No. Am I saying that weight matters? Absolutely. Am I trying to quantitatively - consistently - figure out how much weight does actually matter to the outcome of these races? Absolutely.

If you are an owner that doesn't agree with that, I would like to run my horses against yours, but give me the weight break!!!

To another point you bring up...I hope you would agree with me that certain tracks are more or less conducive to certain running styles than are others. If not always, then at least under certain weather conditions or on certain days. Monmouth, with a wet/tight track, is a better surface for a speed horse than a closer. Trainers who knew first hand told me that...it's not just my opinion. This might fit into the heading of "common knowledge", similar to the historical speed bias at Keeneland pre-synthetics. So last year in The Haskell, Rachel caught a track that was optimal to her style, and not to Summer Bird's. And SB's folks tried to adjust, putting Summer Bird much closer to the pace than in any of his previous starts. But was that track at Monmouth that day more or less speed biased than other tracks around the country? I'd say it was more speed biased, so I put less emphasis on Rachel's time that day then at - say - The Fairgrounds, where she actually raced two years in a row. Can races from different years and track conditions be compared directly? No...of course not. But to try to hold up Rachel's race at The 2009 Haskell as something she should be able to replicate first out this year at the Fair Grounds (or more accurately...a performance she should get close to replicating) is absurd. It's not logical and it's not fair to her. I understand your point about comparing times year to year. I say comparing times and performances track to track can be just as problematic.

The only reason I invoked Beyers was to introduce one of the only "industry approved" quantitative measures that try to take into account the track variants of which I just wrote. Beyers may be a tad more appropriate than just talking times in this regard, but they do not go far enough in my opinion (trip length? and weights carried?, etc).

My basic point was not to say that Rachel ran as fast last Saturday as she ever did last year. She obviously didn't, and I didn't say that. My point simply was, adjusting for the added weight, her performance was better than some of her victories last year, and within a few lengths of most of them last year (yes even some of the later 9 furlong efforts). So to me, if she comes back healthy and happy, she could have just needed a race to get back in the swing of things. I don't think it was as bad as many make it out to be...but my hands and eyes are pretty far from the horse. The whole story may not be out yet.

So are you saying that Rachel had to run as fast as she did in her best efforts last year in order to move on to The Apple Blossom? I think if that was the criteria going into the race Saturday, there would have been much less expectation of her going to The Apple Blossom.

I think the bigger issue is that she was beaten. As others have said, what would the story line be had Zardana not been in the race, and Rachel wins by daylight with a triple digit Beyer? But in a weak field, as she often faced last year! Would she have moved on to The Apple Blossom then? If she's happy and healthy and trains well after this race, why not go? If she tries to take on tough company this year, especially at 10 furlongs, she's going to be beaten again probably. If she acts happier in the mornings after the race than before, then as an owner who doesn't have the deep pockets of a JJ, I would like to go for at least a piece of the $5 million. Aren't race horses supposed to race?

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

Blood-Horse Staff — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:45:46 GMT

Just an FYI on Zenyatta's weight carried in the BC. Zenyatta carried 123 pounds, 3 pounds less than older males, 1 pound more than younger males.

re: Apple Blossom Diary: March 10 -12

Aluminaut — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:59:40 GMT

Gary at Rough Creek and Fahad Malaikah,

I also enjoy both of your posts. Gary, interesting comment about Beyer's figs not taking weight into account. I'm not a Beyer's handicapper although I do look at the figs. According to straight Beyer's, Zenyatta had no chance to win the BCC.

Re Fahad M. post; Weight for age and less weight for F/Mares is meant to even out race advantage. It is our responsibility to look at the individual...Examples:

Rags in the Belmont and Zen in the BCC and then make handicapping adjustment based on the horse's physical/breeding, etc.

Past blog posts have critisized Zenyatta for not running in the mud. Has anyone wondered if RA is primarily a "mudder?"

Racing is fascinating to those of us that have some background and enjoy research; be it pedigree, international racing, surfaces,

etc. etc.

No, I'm not auditioning for The King & I.

Let's not let this marketing opportunity for horse racing evaporate. Racing needs to be more user friendly. The horses are the heroes nomatter what McCarron used to say.