Velasquez never touched him but he went fast and he has a bit of a history of going backwards/getting knocked out by the big efforts.
We don\'t need to start the back and forth again on the board about whether a quarter crack is caused by big efforts, I think we all argued that to death with each of the last two derbies but he has gone backward from big numbers before.
I hope today wasn\'t too big so that we can legitimately expect a big effort from him in the Travers because I think he\'s the big 3 year old that we\'ve been missing in this year\'s crop and maybe since he missed the triple crown, he\'s got some chance of hanging around for awhile which would be great.
Alot of cool story lines in racing right now (too often overshadowed by the very real problems) but this was a great comeback for QR today and we get to see one of the happier stories of the modern age of racing this weekend with Commentator set to take down his 3rd Whitney, amazing!
Beyer has the # as a 103. Track must\'ve been super fast yesterday as I thought it was mentioned that he broke the track record by >1 sec.
thanks for that, yeah, I would have assumed a bigger number just based on the times as well. Must have been a pavement there yesterday.
He went pretty wide around the turn so I am assuming he still will get a pretty big TG number, I hope not big enough to cause him to move back in the Travers.
Thanks again
NYRA had the surface thing figured out pretty well last year, and produced some of the safest dirt surfaces in recent memory. Breakdown rate was 1.3 per 1,000. It jumped to 2.3 in the first quarter this year, and although they\'ve been lucky as of late, it\'s likely a matter of time before the numbers turn against them. The tracks have been unbelievably quick. I can see why they would want to capitalize on the speed niche left void with the advent of the synth track, but aren\'t they going too far? We are still too close to Barbaro and 8Belles. If RA were to go down over one of these super-fast surfaces, and the breakdown rate finishes the year at 2.3, the pressure to get rid of dirt racing in NY will build.
Can somebody shed some light on the NYRA thinking? Why do they have these dirt surfaces so fast?
The initial variant for the last three dirt races was like plus 125(6+ lengths fast by geek guys). That makes the race less fast than the raw time indicates.The last race, a 20 maiden claimer in 109.72 confirms the surface was \"fake fast\" as does the 6th race in 1.21.71 for NY bred fillies at 7f.
QR did stumble slightly getting away, got a nice pace duel in front of him and was 3 or 4 wide around the turn. Based on Beyer 103,I\'ll guess like a TG neg -2 after adjustment for ground/weight and what the other horses usually run. Beaten lengths for CCM is not really representative, TG fig wise, as he lost less ground than QR.
Also noteworthy is that QR has grown since March and went into this race with a little belly on him.If he comes out sound, he\'ll probably go to the Travers since he\'s never been out of training for any extended period of time.
Mike
Hi Mike D,
To answer some of your questions.
1.Current NYRA is diabolically opposed to any synth surface,so you can forget that unless it is legislated by the clueless politicians in Albany(not impossible)
2. As a general matter when a surface is loaded with moisture from previous rains(like yesterday) it can become super fast after being sealed then harrowed.Normally the NYRA track super tries to keep the surface with bounce but not super fast like yesterday. They will go to back-racking to slow the surface but that produces the opposite,a dull tiring surface.
3.IMO and observing track maintenance closely, there is too much sealing of the surface when rain is predicted and the subsequent rain/harrowing is speeding up the surface. With lots of rain lately in NY,I believe that is why you noted the glib surfaces.
I think the breakdown thing is very random regardless of surface.The Del Mar garbage poly has been unlucky with breakdowns lately but I don\'t think it has much to do with the surface itself.
Mike
Did anyone else notice his stifle looked stiff and was popping with every step as they lead him to the winners circle?
In addition to the surface being fast, I don\'t think the official time is right.
I\'ve been reading elsewhere that the timing of the race is still somewhat controversial. The track supposedly verified the final time, but some people disagree because the fractions seem preposterous.
They changed the 6f split to 1.07+ but left the final time the same.The timing of the race is obviously questionable.
Mike
Hi Mike,
The breakdown rates at the old Cal dirt tracks were high. The synth surfaces have been much safer so far, across the board in Cal.
Thanks for the stuff on the moisture. Compared to this year\'s spring Bel meet and the early Sar races, it does look as though NYRA let the tracks dry out more on the heavy side in \'07 and \'08. I wonder if this has been a conscience decision, or just a matter of circumstance?
I saw that, but even after the change to 107+, the fractions are nonsensical in relation to each other and the typical 6.5F race development.
\"The synth surfaces have been much safer so far, across the board\"
...synth surfaces are not much safer than NYRA tracks so far and old dirt injuries have been replaced by new ones on synth for some runners. If they did a real comprehensive study/trial run before they knee jerked to install synths, there would now probably be a cloned dirt type surface that would make most happy, trainers, owners and players.There is still no justification to radically change racing for less than 1 breakdown per thousand.
I don\'t know the break down statistics against the old Cali dirt highways and one might want to consider the new tightening of drug rules re breakdowns, in part, as a reason for any decrease.
Mike
Cart,
Given the speed of the track and the caliber of the horses it does not seem too crazy:
22.45
44.95
1 07.22( third quarter in 22.27 is the suspicious one imo)
1 13.45
Mike
Musings:
The old CA stats were disastrous re: number of breakdowns. That\'s the reason they went to synthetic. The numbers have indeed been way down on all the synthetics.
There has never been synthetic tracks (even in Europe) that take the number of horses working over them in the morning, then racing on them in the afternoon, as in CA at DelMar and SA. Yeah, they have had to figure that out (track maintenance under uber-use) big time. They have.
Regarding types of injuries: I\'m sure any owner will take a pulled muscle (in a horse working initially over synthetics versus hard dirt) over broken sesamoids or a fractured cannon.
As an aside, I thought Jackson wasn\'t sure Rachel would run on that track, after the euthanasia earlier in the card - didn\'t they wait until right up to scratch time to decide?
Where are the folks who think running fillies against colts causes them to break down, as with Eight Belles? Y\'all disappear when Rachel arrived?
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"The synth surfaces have been much safer so far,
> across the board\"
>
>
> ...synth surfaces are not much safer than NYRA
> tracks so far
Across the board in Cal Mikey. Nearly a 50% decrease in the catastrophic injury rate, through \'08. When we get the \'09 info, we\'ll have to reassess the situation. And forget all the anecdotal evidence not supported by fact. Most of it is driven by one\'s personal surface preference.
And I agree 100%. There likely is a dirt surface out there that is perfectly safe. We should all be pressing NYRA to come up with that surface.
> and old dirt injuries have been
> replaced by new ones on synth for some runners. If
> they did a real comprehensive study/trial run
> before they knee jerked to install synths, there
> would now probably be a cloned dirt type surface
> that would make most happy, trainers, owners and
> players.There is still no justification to
> radically change racing for less than 1 breakdown
> per thousand.
>
> I don\'t know the break down statistics against the
> old Cali dirt highways and one might want to
> consider the new tightening of drug rules re
> breakdowns, in part, as a reason for any
> decrease.
>
>
> Mike
I\'m not sure who the comment about running fillies against the boys is directed to but what I do believe (and I know not everyone agrees) is that the decision to skip the Belmont make what we are seeing now much more likely.
After the Preakness, I posted many times that I hoped they would skip the Belmont because the cumulative effect of the big efforts could likely knock her out, especially after she showed signs of distress in the Preakness (yeah Calvin, she just didn\'t like the track, that was it!)
Anyway, it\'s so great to see the connections give her some time to recover from the big efforts which made what we are seeing now more likely. Surely no way to know if she would have done this if she had run in the Belmont but I think we can all agree that from a percentage likelihood, the time off increased the chances of this type of sustained campaign.
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cart,
>
> Given the speed of the track and the caliber of
> the horses it does not seem too crazy:
>
> 22.45
>
> 44.95
>
> 1 07.22( third quarter in 22.27 is the suspicious
> one imo)
>
> 1 13.45
>
>
> Mike
I agree.
The 3rd quarter looks ridiculously fast and the last 1/16th was also fast. The pace was slow based on the fractions. So you would expect the horses to come home fast. I\'ve just never seen them come that fast. So maybe the early fractions are also wrong. It didn\'t exactly look like they were crawling to me, but that\'s exactly what is suggested by 22.45 and 44.95 on that surface.
The early fractions (1/4, 1/2) are way too slow. Check other 6.5f races run at Saratoga the last few years. You had two quality horses fighting for the lead and quitting badly. You really think they set a slow pace?
beyerguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The early fractions (1/4, 1/2) are way too slow.
> Check other 6.5f races run at Saratoga the last
> few years. You had two quality horses fighting
> for the lead and quitting badly. You really think
> they set a slow pace?
I agree for the same reason.
That figure is probably best calculated in isolation based on the record of the horses unless someone can get very accurate times off the replay.
I would think in this disital day and age you could get a very accurate time off a replay.
Assuming you can see where the timing pole is, it should be a matter of counting frames.