The News-Gazette.com Weblog

Sports of All Sorts

Root for Big Brown? Well ... uh ...

Posted by: Tony Bleill

Wednesday, June 4, 2008 5:19 PM

As a horse racing fan, I'd love to see Big Brown win the Belmont Stakes on Saturday to become the first horse to sweep the Triple Crown in 30 years. The last time it happened was 1978, and I had not yet turned 10. Since then, I've watched some truly great horses -- Spectacular Bid (1979) and Sunday Silence (1989), for example -- come up short.

Their failings, if they can be called that, only serve to romanticize the Triple Crown to a greater degree. Even casual fans can quickly recall the sight of Secretariat rumbling through the Belmont Park turn, "moving like a tremendous machine," as announcer Chic Anderson so gloriously called it. A Triple Crown bid is drama -- and brilliance -- at its highest form.

But Saturday will represent a mostly indifferent day for many hardcore racing fans. I am one, and I won't be a bit disappointed if Big Brown doesn't win.

In itself, that is not a unique viewpoint, given that racing is a sport married with gambling. A bunch of folks betting on the other nine horses in the race won't mind if Big Brown loses. But I likely will pass the race from a wagering standpoint (although I'm locked in on one proposition bet that I'll discuss later). My reason for rooting for other horses is shared by a great many people who have a disdain for Big Brown's connections.

While I have nothing against jockey Kent Desormeaux, the horse's trainer (boastful Rick Dutrow) and primary owner (former Wall Street hotshot Michael Iavarone) have left folks feeling quite funny heading into the race. Dutrow's a colorful sort, often bragging on his own horses while denigrating others. I have no problem with Dutrow talking up his own animals, though I wish he'd keep a lower profile when it comes to dismissing his primary competition, the Japanese-based Casino Drive, whom Dutrow says has no chance to win. In that vein, Dutrow is simply reinforcing the stereotype of the ugly, arrogant American. Said Casino Drive spokesman Nobutaka Tada: "We never speak about opponents. That's the Japanese way." To which one scribe remarked: "If only Dutrow was Japanese."

But here's my main problem with Dutrow. He has a lengthy history of breaking racing's rules concerning the use of medication. He has been suspended at least once every year since 2000 for drug violations. (Racing has notoriously soft suspensions for those nailed for medication positives.) Any hardcore handicapper will quickly tell you that Dutrow is "a cheat," a trainer who can magically transform his horses into Secretariat-like steeds overnight. I can't tell you how many times I've seen Dutrow claim a horse and immediately improve him by 8 or 10 lengths -- or more -- in a matter of days, a trick as impossible as it is telling. Only cheaters can do this, and Dutrow does it regularly.

I am not suggesting that Big Brown is one of Dutrow's magical chemistry projects. But the appearance of impropriety that follows Dutrow only adds to the shadow of doubt. I wish there were none.

Then there's Iavarone, whom it was recently revealed had a rap sheet for his workings on Wall Street, including fines and a suspension for unauthorized trading of securities. No warm and fuzzy story here.

And while I have nothing against Big Brown himself, I count myself among those handicappers who believe Big Brown has not yet proven that he deserves a spot among the game's immortals -- which, unfortunately, he'll be lumped in with should he successfully negotiate one and a half miles at Belmont on Saturday.

Why is this? Because Big Brown hasn't run as fast as the hype would lead you to believe. He is flattered by his company -- one of the weakest crops of 3-year-olds we've seen in the last 15 years. By objective measures of time, Big Brown isn't running particularly fast; he's just beating up on weak competition.

The most effective measure of time isn't the stopwatch. The final time of a race can be misleading because it does not take into account the relative quickness of the surface. Think of it this way: If you're running on the beach, and the tide washes across your path, you can run much faster where the sand is wet compared to where it's dry, right? It's the same surface -- sand -- but one path would lead to a much quicker time.

Beyer Speed Figures take these things into account. The higher the number, the faster the performance. And Big Brown's Kentucky Derby victory -- in which he earned a figure of 109 -- was the only one of his starts that puts him within range of any of the top 3-year-olds in recent years. For comparison, look at Bernardini, who won the Preakness in 2006 with a 113. Bernardini then went on to post figures of 114-116-117-115 the rest of the year. Big Brown has a long way to go just to reach that level.

He is, of course, a very talented horse, and one that I'd say is 50 or 60 percent to win the Belmont Stakes. But unless he demonstrates an ability to run much faster than he has so far, he hasn't yet shown that I need to mention him in the same breath as even, say, Smarty Jones.

--Back to the aforementioned prop bet. We gave out two winners for the Kentucky Derby, and now we'll try to make it 3 for 3. My favorite prop this time is "Will Big Brown's winning time in the Belmont Stakes be faster than Affirmed's 2:26 4/5 in 1978?" I'm taking "no," which began as a -200 favorite. (The "yes" started at +150). Only four times since 1978 has a horse run faster than 2:26 4/5 in the Belmont. Plus, the Belmont Park dirt surface hasn't been playing particularly fast in recent days, especially since Dutrow asked track management to make it a little less firm. There's also a lack of early speed in the Belmont, which means a moderate to slow pace is likely, making it harder for any colt to post a fast final time. I like my chances on this one.

Comments

People who refer to writers as "scribes" are lost in the horse-and-buggy era.

Also, this is one of the weaker "eyes half closed" rants. Your emulation of LT falls short with this effort.

Posted by Wenalway on June 4, 2008 at 11:23 PM

Bobby (can I call you Bobby?),

Sorry for being tardy in responding to your rant. My buggy had a flat and the horse was at the vet.

Anywho ... I'm wondering about your opinions of Dutrow and Iavarone and Big Brown. Care to share?

Thanks for being a faithful reader.

Posted by TBleill on June 5, 2008 at 2:14 PM

Only if I can call you LT Jr.

Posted by Wenalway on June 7, 2008 at 2:47 PM

And if we're asking for facts, I'd like to hear about that "proof" that Barry Bonds used PEDs. That'd make a great story!

Posted by Wenalway on June 7, 2008 at 2:47 PM

Bobby,

C'mon, dude. I know you only read The News-Gazette, but you need to broaden your news intake a bit. Let me fill you in. Consider it my good deed of the day.

Barry Bonds has been indicted by a federal grand jury for perjury. The reason: he told the grand jury that he never "knowingly" used PEDs. He has acknowledged that he took something called "the cream" and "the clear." (Hint: Those are PEDs, not suntan lotions.)

Ask the feds if they have proof. I don't know how much more you want. I highly doubt a grand jury would have indicted him if there wasn't any proof whatsoever, as you claim.

By the way, do you not have any opinions on Dutrow, Iavarone or Big Brown? Really? None? Consider me stunned.

--LT Jr.

Posted by TBleill on June 7, 2008 at 3:12 PM

Bob, almost forgot. I know where you can get some good flaxseed oil. Let me know.

-LTJ

Posted by TBleill on June 7, 2008 at 3:30 PM

I actually have some flaxseed oil capsules from GNC. Thanks for reminding me; it was time to take one.

I'm sure being the skilled reporter you are, you know indictment does not equal guilt. You can say an indictment must mean there's proof, but I think most style

guides and law books would go against you on that one.

Also, remember Bears QB Jim Miller? He was suspended for taking diet pills that, unfortunately for him, contained steroids. The lesson there: It is possible for

someone to unknowingly take a PED.

Did Bonds "unknowingly" take a PED? Probably not. But when you claim to have proof, and you really don't, then that raises some questions.

Anyway, I think the campus offers some Journ 101 courses. You might still be able to squeeze into one and learn that "proof" definition.

Also, if you want more postulation, tell your Webmaster to fix the posting mechanism here. There's no point in writing a long post.

Posted by Wenalway on June 9, 2008 at 5:36 PM

Bobby,

Hey, I've got a great idea for the subject of our next debate. The topic: From which direction does the sun rise?

I'll take "East." You?

Posted by TBleill on June 10, 2008 at 9:55 AM

No response to the other points, I see.

Posted by Wenalway on June 10, 2008 at 2:14 PM

No response because you refuse to pay attention to the facts. At the risk of redundancy, I'll go over them once again, and you tell me which part of this is confusing for you:

--If you're looking for "proof," does a confession count? Bonds has acknowledged under oath, in front of a grand jury, that he used "the cream" and "the clear." Yes, Bonds says he didn't know they were steroids. Fine. Irrelevant for the purposes of our discussion, but fine.

--"The cream" and "the clear" are steroids, as acknowledged by EVERYONE (except the inimitable Robert Knilands), including THE VERY PEOPLE WHO PRODUCED AND SOLD "THE CREAM" AND "THE CLEAR."

So, we have an athlete who admits under oath that he used substances that turned out to be steroids. And Bobby says that doesn't constitute evidence.

To which all I can say is this: Thank God you have no role in our judicial system.

Posted by TBleill on June 11, 2008 at 1:16 AM

No response to my points about Big Brown, Dutrow and Iavarone, I see.

Posted by TBleill on June 11, 2008 at 1:18 AM

This is hilarious!

Posted by mgoebel on June 11, 2008 at 10:28 AM

In just a few seconds, I found the following link:

http://major-league-baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/barry_bonds_perjury_trial

"If Found Guilty, It Will Not Be For Using Steroids"

That headline should spell things out for you. The rest is an easy-to-understand summary.

Let me know if you guys need any more help understanding this one. Until then, you two should learn from these links:

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/basic.php

http://www.usatoday.com/educate/projects/PDF/Journalism101.pdf

LT Jr., you might want to pay particular attention to these tips:

2. Dont add comments or opinions to you (sic) article. Opinions are only appropriate on the editorial page.

5. Support your statements with direct and indirect quotes from your sources. Anytime you report a statement that is not a

fact for example, a prediction or opinion you must attribute it to its source.

Posted by Wenalway on June 12, 2008 at 9:38 AM

Also, you'll have a better chance of getting additional responses when this site is fixed, and then I won't have to archive my posts for a day. Until then, I'll save my answers for exposing your numerous, gaping flaws.

You'll have to do better if you want to have a back alley named for you someday.

Posted by Wenalway on June 12, 2008 at 9:40 AM

Once again, let's go over this. I know it's terribly confusing for you, so I'll try to go slower.

Barry Bonds is on trial for perjury. This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH your complaint about me supplying "proof" that he used PEDs. (I do find it quite amusing that you continue to change the subject whenever I've proven you wrong about something).

"If Found Guilty, It Will Not Be For Using Steroids"

Gee, really? No kidding? Is that because he's on trial for perjury? Brilliant.

That has nothing to do with the topic of our argument, which YOU first raised as, "Where is your proof that he used steroids?"

As the article states, the government must prove that Bonds knew his statements at the time were in error. I completely agree. AND, AGAIN, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER HE USED STEROIDS. Again, which part of this are you failing to comprehend? I agree completely with that article. Too bad it is entirely irrelevant to the purpose of determining his steroid use.

As for your other points, you can't even understand the difference between a blog, a column and any other form of opinion piece. I defy you to find ONE instance of me interjecting an opinion about Barry Bonds into a news story. You can't do it. You know why? BECAUSE I'VE NEVER WRITTEN A NEWS STORY ABOUT BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've only written columns (FYI: a "column" is an opinion piece) or blog postings. ALL of which are forums for opinion.

Keep trying, Bobby. You'll get it right at some point. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

--LT JR.

Posted by TBleill on June 12, 2008 at 4:52 PM

Then I guess you should start scratching the ground to find your nut.

I comprehend that link completely. You are the one who implies that the government has evidence he used steroids, so he HAS to be guilty, even though he's not on trial for that at all.

This comes from your earlier post: "So, we have an athlete who admits under oath that he used substances that turned out to be steroids."

If he's on trial for perjury, then I guess none of that matters. So why did you write it? Because you want to play both sides of the fence and claim you know things you don't. Which brings us back to where this circle started.

I'm not at all confused. But you seem to be. Perhaps that Journ 101 link might help you. Summer classes have started, I believe, but maybe you can squeeze in.

Which reminds me: Columns still have to be based on facts. Your implication that Bonds was "proved to have used steroids," while tangentially true, doesn't really stand on its face as a five-word phrase thrown in, N-G style, to a back-and-forth.

Let me know when you find something right in what you've said and when you find something wrong in what I've said. The court will wait for an answer ...

Posted by Wenalway on June 12, 2008 at 5:18 PM

Let me know if you need an analogy to simplify this for you.

We'd have to go down to "See Dick run" level and work our way up, but perhaps this can happen.

Posted by Wenalway on June 12, 2008 at 5:19 PM

Well, Mr. Knilands, I think it's safe to say we can agree on this much: I have no freakin' idea what you're talking about, and you have no idea what I'm talking about.

And I will say this, without even a hint of sarcasm or insincerity: I appreciate your loyal readership of The News-Gazette. Without customers like you, we'd go out of business. It's people like you who make this business a successful one.

Thank you.

--LT Jr.

Posted by TBleill on June 12, 2008 at 7:56 PM

It's tough to simplify it any further for you. That link I provided is about as non-complex as it gets.

If you think "proof" in this case consists of someone saying: "I used these substances but didn't know they were steroids," then something is wrong.

I'm not sure what part of it you still don't grasp, other than all of it. Like I said, it's too bad the trial won't happen until March.

Posted by Wenalway on June 13, 2008 at 11:18 AM