Once again, that’s sort of the point. To be worthy of winning, the horse needs to prove not only that he can win, but that he can do it against fresh horses.
It’s supposed to be hard, after all
[QUOTE=Horsepower;3292878]
You have to wonder if this race was fixed, I swear. There was little money to be won on BB at the Belmont because of the betting odds.[/QUOTE]
No
NYRA reviewed all wagering for the Belmont Stakes and found no signs or suggestions of irregular wagering patterns or high wagers to suggest even a whiff of impropriety. People who know my posting style (if you will) know that I’d typically I’d go back and link the article where NYRA stated this - as they strictly a matter of course a couple days after - but today I don’t have the time.
Bottom line: short of a fictional account the suggestion of the Belmont Stakes being a fixed race has no meritt.
[QUOTE=Beezer;3287283]
Actually, based on the photos another poster added to another thread, the “misplaced man” doesn’t appear to be the starter, but an ABC camera crew. (ETA: Now I see the photo Glimmer posted of the starter; hadn’t seen that angle before! So, both the starter and the camera crew were on the track … swell.)
Do I think that spook got BB beat? No, of course not; it may not even have been one among a number of things. I just found his hard spook at the start interesting/amazing/surprising and, heck, if even I noticed the guy(s) down at the rail, I can imagine how it must have looked to the horse.
In the end, he had a bad day. Happens to pretty much every horse that’s set foot on a track.[/QUOTE]
Not only was it believed to be a camera man, but the front on photos of BB coming out of the gate have him totally focused on Kent. His head is up and his eays are rolled back looking behind him. He wasn’t even looking at whoever was standing there in front of him… …
I’m not suggesting betting improprieties in the Belmont. What I’m suggesting is that the odds will be better for Big Brown in his next few races as he is no longer viewed as a sure thing.
[QUOTE=Horsepower;3293083]
I’m not suggesting betting improprieties in the Belmont. What I’m suggesting is that the odds will be better for Big Brown in his next few races as he is no longer viewed as a sure thing.[/QUOTE]
While that has been the plot of many a book and movie - a trainer purposely puts in a clunker of an effort so to score big in a bigger race - I doubt that was intentionally or otherwise at play here.
The odds of his next race will likely be such that the ML and punters very likely will toss out his Belmont effort as if it never happened. The keys to that action being if his work outs are strong mixed with the distance of his next race, the level of opposition he’ll face, the weather/track conditions, and maybe even post position.
Few experts at this point in time have changed their view that he is still the best of a bad crop. So if the Belmont was the true bounce everyone expected then logic dictates that he’ll perform far better next time out.
I’m trying to figure out how the trifecta was so light even with a split pot because of a dead heat. Big Brown off the board with Da’Tara on top? I’ve seen a trifecta pay as high as $82,000. Even with a split pot, I’d be pretty miserable knowing I hit the tri and I only got $1900 for a $1 ticket (even with a dead heat for 3rd).
[QUOTE=Glimmerglass;3287007]
Good lord the “man on the grassy knoll” conspiracy theorists are out with the Belmont Stakes on their sights …
Anyhow here is the video evidence (as unearthed by equidaily.com):
youtube.com “Does Big Brown spook from the starter?”[/QUOTE]
Not to beat this conspiracy to the ground but it’s worth pointing out all the evidence. Someone astutuely pointed out that if BB spooked with NYRA starter, Roy Robert Williamson, being on the track then why didn’t Kent say so during the press conference after the race?
Well equidaily.com looks to have again unearthed evidence that shows:
1 - A still frame from the 4th race on 5/31/08 at Belmont showing the starter on the track. Coming out of post position #1 is Kent Desormeaux.
2 - Recent past Belmont Stakes races - all having the starter on the track in the same place.
Glimmerglass posted that. I was just quoting.
:uhoh:
Regarding drugs in the Belmont Stakes runners …
Baltimore Sun June 17, 2008 “Clean racing; Belmont horses test negative for illegal drugs”
Blood tests on all nine horses who competed in the Belmont Stakes on June 7, including winner Da’ Tara and last-place favorite Big Brown, came back negative for any illegal substances.
Dr. George Maylin of the Cornell University Equine Laboratory, who handled the testing, said samples from the horses were put through the required Graded Stakes testing, which searches for more than 500 drugs.
“There was nothing illegal in any of the horses and some of them did not have any anabolic steroids present,” Maylin said. "I do not know which horses those were because we receive numbered samples and no one would know which sample went with which horse unless there was something illegal found.
“The horses were all held in a detention barn for six hours and under guard for 24 hours. I would have been shocked if we’d found anything.”
