I agree, but I think it's possible (even probable) that those two concepts are related. He broke first, at least in part, because of the blinkers.Tyler Simmons wrote:It is also the first time in 18 races that he broke first from the gate. IMO, that is why he won, not because he had blinkers. He was out front with nothing to interfere with him running his own race and letting his natural ability show.Paul Heinrich wrote:FWIW, I tend to agree with Tyler, in principle, in most cases. I don't think this race changes the general "rule" that you should use the equipment the horse "needs", and not look beyond those preferences in the vast majority of cases.
However, I think this extreme case does show that certain pieces of equipment *can* have an effect on race scenarios, apart from the horses set preferences. If anything instructive can be drawn from this whole episode, it may be noting a bright line distinction between 2 separate race factors, which many of us had taken for granted were entwined - race scenario (which factors in things like confidence, experience, etc) and a horses pre-set equipment preferences (which do not).
This FAQ post may hint at this distinction.
Look at it this way - a horse doesn't need to have the right equipment to win. Lots of horses win despite having the "wrong" equipment on. The real question is not whether the horse prefers blinkers (we know he doesn't) - it's whether or not equipment choices can have racing implications beyond just whether or not they conform to the horses pre-set preferences. Before this race, I would have said there's no clear evidence for that hypothesis. Now, I think we have some evidence for that hypothesis - how clear it is, I'm not sure.