There\'s a 10 million dollar 10F race this weekend. Where\'s the buzz? How do I find entries? Is there a sheet package yet? Thanks in advance and if anyone can provide a link to the pre-entries it would be greatly appreciated
We will be putting up the data once we get the entry file from Equibase. I did the 3 days they ran earlier this month as hard figures with live ground and man, is there some ground loss with that new configuration, especially on the main track. Night and day compared to the old track, with its long stretch and few turns. Jockeys make a BIG difference now.
Click (http://www.racingpost.com/horses2/cards/meeting_of_cards.sd?r_date=2010-03-27&crs_id=1231&tab=sc_)
What will this Synthetic surface do to the diversity of the fields?
Previous years had dirt runners from all over the world.
Not to put a damper on somebody trying to do some business that day but I\"m not feelin it. Will be much more looking forward to the La Derby card later in the day.
Furthest Land offers value here.
Nothing against Goi Ponto or Richard\'s Kid. Both look to run in the \'0\' to negative \'1\' range. FL isn\'t too far off however, has a bit more tactical speed, and has a decent shot at getting the extra furlong. Last better than it looks due to the wide trip. Best of all, 20-1 ml vs 7-2 and 5-1 for the other two.
Also, Twice Over deserves a long look off the fine BC figure. Queally probably can\'t afford to get caught 3w/4w though.
One of the problems is that I don\'t think you\'ll get anything close to the ML on any American horses in any of the races in the pari-mutuel pools, especially in the exotics. You might get some bookmakers laying off money in the straight pools, but they don\'t book exotics.
Mike D,
I was thinking that same about Twice Over. Seeing his BC number actually made me very mad b/c I bet him hard in the BC Classic. I hate losing alot of money when your horse runs the best number in the race.
hey Jim, good luck with TID in the NO Hcp. you have your work cut out for you there. Battle Plan looks strong, and Giant Oak looks ready to break through. he looks well suited for a mile at Mth, doesn\'t he? nice post and weight assignment though. worth a shot.
Thanks man, much appreciated.
Newbie here... which of the foreign horses get sheets numbers?
GB? Japan? SAf?
Tom
Depends on where they run. We do NOT have Australian, South American,or South African figures. We have most European, except Turkey, and UAE figures, and some Hong Kong and Japanese figures (big stakes races which most here usually run in) and of course American and Canadian figures.
FWIW, I think there\'s enough here to get a good handle on the races. But of course, I\'m biased but I\'m betting too.
Got called in to work all weekend so will be unable to really participate in the WC. Sheets came out pretty late in the week but I understand waiting for entries from EB. Only looked at the big race and I must say the #6 Vision D\'Etat looks like a solid play at anywhere near 6-1. Looks to love 10F and certainly has the class and a brilliant, smooth jock. First time poly won\'t scare me off. Using in exactas on top and underneath of the 2,4,9,11
Be advised that Vision D\'Etat may not run.
http://dubairacenight.com/vision-detat-in-doubt-for-dubai-world-cup/
I\'m looking forward to an exciting race with some of the worlds best horses flying over the great new Tapeta surface.
I\'m leaning towards Gio Ponti,Twice Over and Vision d\'Etat in the WC Exacta or Tri. May have to find another if Vision scratches. Maybe the Japanese filly but also need to take a good look at the others.
Bob
He could easily pair-up imo , looks like TW\'s race to lose . The way I read the World Cup ,Red Desire has a licence to improve as does Furthest Land .
Probably a dumb question but if ML prices for North Americans take a hit , does that mean odds improve on Europeans , Pan Americans and Japanese runners ?Hard to see horses in other races like Jet Express and Snaffy getting bet down , though maybe a Quijano gets action - he gets press at times .. .
Really like this card. Feels like the first time in a long time.
Anybody understand what it means when they have track condition for the Tapeta at Meydan? I thought track condition was a thing of the past with artificial surfaces, but I see the Tapeta can be ft or st and that the TG and the DRF dont match (TG has the Tapeta going st way more often than the form does). Does anybody know if it is a relevant handicapping factor whether the tapeta is ft or st?
Although there is a lot to like in the card, two horses look like standouts to me.
Courageous Cat and Red Desire both look super and likely to be a fair price. Both had, in my view, perfect preps as their 4 year old debuts. Replicating the preps should be good enough, but each has license to move forward in their second start as a 4 year old which would make them very hard to beat. Red Desire has a race over the surface and distance and seemed to take to it very well. Love that she gets 4 lbs from them all.
Good luck everybody.
couple of standouts for me on TG
golden sword, furthest land, rocket man
good luck
RICH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> couple of standouts for me on TG
>
> golden sword, furthest land, rocket man
>
> good luck
I would add Musir to that list even with all the weight..
\"The Dubai Racing Club reported this morning that Eric Libaud-trainee Vision D'Etat, winner of the Hong Kong Cup (G1), has passed a veterinary inspection and will run in the Dubai World Cup (G1). The same situation played out at Sha Tin when his fitness was called into question the day before the race, which he eventually won of the progressive Collection. \"
dubairacenight.com
It\'s 107 degrees there, may have an impact on Euro, US shippers....
Does anybody know if it is a relevant handicapping factor whether the tapeta is ft or st?
---------------------
There is no difference in the designation ST/FT (Syn track vs Fast track) for synthetic tracks. It\'s simply the host track preferred nomenclature, but they are identical designation. In fact, most syn in the USA initially had no official track designation.
colt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anybody know if it is a relevant handicapping
> factor whether the tapeta is ft or st?
Don\'t know about those, unless \"ft\" means \"fake track\".
These are the designations I use:
dr: dry
wx: waxy
wd: wet dog (smells like)
sh: shredded condoms
721: \"7 strands, wrapped around 2, surrounded by 1\"
colt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anybody know if it is a relevant handicapping
> factor whether the tapeta is ft or st?
> ---------------------
> There is no difference in the designation ST/FT
> (Syn track vs Fast track) for synthetic tracks.
> It\'s simply the host track preferred nomenclature,
> but they are identical designation. In fact, most
> syn in the USA initially had no official track
> designation.
Am curious then, why both the DRF and thorograph refer to Meydan for different races sometimes as \"ft\" and sometimes as \"st.\" One would think if they are the identical surface, they would be referred to identically.
I can\'t speak for the DRF but at TG we get foreign data from Equibase which gathers them from individual countries and makes it conform to their specs for transmittal to US customers such as ourselves. But it\'s not their job to check and ensure the accuracy of all foreign data--it is their job to do that with thoroughbred racing data in North America. So sometimes the track info for surface they get may be miscoded as dirt when it should be synthetic. Since we know Meydan is synthetic we output it with a synthetic marker to make sure it\'s denoted as such when miscoded but we don\'t change the track condition, another field. We didn\'t think to change that. What\'s most important is that the track surface is designated properly.
I am surprised that Furthest Land isn\'t getting more respect. I think he and RK could both make the super or tri.
Leamas.
any idea which sites will post payoffs and charts for the Meydan races. very interested in seeing the payoff on the exacta and tri in the world cup. thx.
Here ya go..This is from Twinspires
$1.00 Exacta 5-7 $527.40
$1.00 Trifecta 5-7-1 $4195.70
$1.00 Superfecta 5-7-1-4 $32248.10
$1.00 Double 14/5 $311.40
$1.00 Pick-3 7/14/5 3 of 3 $115723.30
$1.00 Pick-6 4/9/7/7/14/5 4 of 6 $13570.90
EX 5-7 527.40
TRI 5-7-1 4195.70
SUPER 5-7-1-4 32,248.10
Pick3 7-14-5 115,723.30
Don\'t you love it when you use 8 horses and none hit the f\'cking board?
Richard\'s Kid and Furthest Land each seemed to get extraordinary wide trips (maybe 5W?).
I think some of that was because of all of the bunching caused by the crawling pace, but definitely not GGs best ride.
Oh well.
bobphilo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I\'m looking forward to an exciting race with some
> of the worlds best horses flying over the great
> new Tapeta surface.
Pretty exciting to see the bettors flummoxed again by the fake stuff, but on a *different* continent, no?
Why do you have a problem with the stretch run in the world\'s richest race looking like a 440 yard $2,000 claimer at Los Alamitos?
He is spot on.
http://cristblog.drf.com/crist/
I said I wasnt feelin it in an earlier post and I was right. I made one play on a turf race a $300 horse rolled in and I promply turned off the TV and left.
Silver Charm,
Unlike you, I didn\'t have a bad day premonition so I went ahead and had my worst WC day ever. I also had my worst losses on the turf races.
Like Crist admits in his article, the turf races had more surprises than the main course ones. I guess the Tapeta bashers would attribute that to the turf courses proximity to the all-weather surface. The whole day wasn\'t formful for a number of reasons.
The new course for the WC was inferior to the old one but it had nothing to do with the surface. For some reason they wanted to get away from the European style course and went to the traditional U.S. style oval. The old course had only one sweeping turn at the end of a long straightaway. This new course has 2 tighter, turns with the 1st one right after the gate. Top contenders like Twice Over got caught 4-5 wide around both turns while the winner hugged the rail. JB got this one right when he warned about TO\'s probable ground loss before the race despite his big BC figure. Traffic problems on the smaller courses in general had a lot to do with the results all day.
Can we just be realistic and look beyond the A/W bashing to fully understand the day\'s results?
Bob
bobphilo Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------->
> Can we just be realistic and look beyond the A/W
> bashing to fully understand the day\'s results?
>
> Bob
Good luck with that. Some of these guys live for it, they can\'t go 2 days without bashing the surface. It gets really tired but hey, they find it amusing. Good for them.
This surface switch will be good for American Racing. No seriousl dirt horse is going to make the trip and therefore they will stay stateside and run more often
My problem with the Event is now it will become Santa Anita/Calif curcuit horses vs Dubai horses. Japan etc will probably no longer bother. There were no East Coast based horses this year and there will be no more going forward.
Unless he is a Turf Horse like Gio Ponte......
The sour grapes in the Christ blog not withstanding....
I was wondering if any TG users actually had the 150-1 shot, or any of the other nice payoffs. If you look at the figures, the biggest problem in those races yesterday was that there were litterally 10-12 playable horses in each race, and by playable I mean within 1-2 points of each other.
I personally was not able to string anything together beyond the first pick 3, I did use that 150-1 shot in a saver exacta, but did not have the 2nd place horse. I think Gloria de Campo was very playable on TG, but so were many others and I just chose the wrong ones. Dar Re Mi was easily playable and can\'t be labeled a suprise in any way.
I think the arguments Christ makes are ridiculous. Gloria De Campo was beaten 20 lengths or whatever by Curlin because it was on dirt. He acts as though horses should perform the same on each surface. And saying that because some of the other horses had never won graded stakes or whatever else he was trying to say is basically stating that horses do not improve or decline ever. Very simple-minded arguments IMO.
bobphilo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can we just be realistic and look beyond the A/W
> bashing to fully understand the day\'s results?
Wait just a second. First tell me why synthetic tracks are exempt from discussion of their effects on a race, or a whole card.
Long before synthetics were around, we hashed out the results of races, speculating whether the slop killed a horses chances here, or whether the rock-hard turf aided the rail horse and put the closers at a disadvantage there.
Why would such speculation be inappropriate for races run on syn?
I think I know why: some syn proponents like to believe that the fake surfaces are \"neutral\" or \"more fair to all\"...but this is clearly not the case.
Other syn proponents wrapped their arms around the fake stuff as the \"savior\" of the industry, before the effects of running on the stuff was really understood, and before anyone realized how badly the stuff interferes with race shapes and natural pace; now these folks are stuck in an untenable position of either having to continue to profess to love the fake surfaces, or admitting that maybe they were wrong and jumped on the syn bandwagon too soon.
Even if you don\'t accept the last two statements (or you just don\'t like them), the fact is, if synthetics are going to be considered \"legitimate\" racing surfaces, they have to be able to stand up to criticism just like that which is heaped on various turf and dirt courses; asking for a free pass from criticism of synthetics is as much as admitting that the stuff is a weak sister.
TreadHead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The sour grapes in the Christ blog not
> withstanding....
>
> I was wondering if any TG users actually had the
> 150-1 shot, or any of the other nice payoffs. If
> you look at the figures, the biggest problem in
> those races yesterday was that there were
> litterally 10-12 playable horses in each race, and
> by playable I mean within 1-2 points of each
> other.
>
> I personally was not able to string anything
> together beyond the first pick 3, I did use that
> 150-1 shot in a saver exacta, but did not have the
> 2nd place horse. I think Gloria de Campo was very
> playable on TG, but so were many others and I just
> chose the wrong ones. Dar Re Mi was easily
> playable and can\'t be labeled a suprise in any
> way.
>
> I think the arguments Christ makes are ridiculous.
> Gloria De Campo was beaten 20 lengths or whatever
> by Curlin because it was on dirt. He acts as
> though horses should perform the same on each
> surface. And saying that because some of the
> other horses had never won graded stakes or
> whatever else he was trying to say is basically
> stating that horses do not improve or decline
> ever. Very simple-minded arguments IMO.
Very well said. I can\'t believe that people are posting that the closeness of the finish in the World Cup indicates the poor quality of the competition, comparing it to a 4 1/2 furlong claimer, and blaming this on the Tapeta surface.
Has it ever occurred that a close finish can also indicate 1) the closeness of the horses\' ability or 2) the fact that when the riders don\'t ask the horses to run until the last couple of furlongs, the close finish will be similar to a short sprint race.
Crist\'s argument is totally absurd. He knocks the Tapeata surface because of the surprise results and then he admits that the biggest surprises were on the turf. It therefore follows that he is arguing against turf racing even more than Tapeta surface racing. I guess logic doesn\'t matter when one is bashing all weather surfaces.
Bob
Rick B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bobphilo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Can we just be realistic and look beyond the
> A/W
> > bashing to fully understand the day\'s results?
>
> Wait just a second. First tell me why synthetic
> tracks are exempt from discussion of their effects
> on a race, or a whole card.
>
> Long before synthetics were around, we hashed out
> the results of races, speculating whether the slop
> killed a horses chances here, or whether the
> rock-hard turf aided the rail horse and put the
> closers at a disadvantage there.
>
> Why would such speculation be inappropriate for
> races run on syn?
>
> I think I know why: some syn proponents like to
> believe that the fake surfaces are \"neutral\" or
> \"more fair to all\"...but this is clearly not the
> case.
>
> Other syn proponents wrapped their arms around the
> fake stuff as the \"savior\" of the industry, before
> the effects of running on the stuff was really
> understood, and before anyone realized how badly
> the stuff interferes with race shapes and natural
> pace; now these folks are stuck in an untenable
> position of either having to continue to profess
> to love the fake surfaces, or admitting that maybe
> they were wrong and jumped on the syn bandwagon
> too soon.
>
> Even if you don\'t accept the last two statements
> (or you just don\'t like them), the fact is, if
> synthetics are going to be considered \"legitimate\"
> racing surfaces, they have to be able to stand up
> to criticism just like that which is heaped on
> various turf and dirt courses; asking for a free
> pass from criticism of synthetics is as much as
> admitting that the stuff is a weak sister.
I am all too familiar with all the arguments that proclaim dirt as being more natural for horses than all-weather surfaces, that totally miss the point that grass is the surface that horses evolved on and not these dirt course mutations that bear no resemblance to the native soil they replace. AW surfaces more closely resemble grass in the important biometric properties like shock absorption, energy return and traction/slippage. That is why AW form translates better to grass than dirt form does. There\'s also the matter of the lower fatality rate that it shares with grass, but the evidence of hundreds of lives saved in thousands of races run since the conversions will never be enough for its critics.
In any case, you totally missed that the point of my post was that there were a lot of factors involved in the Dubai results aside from the surface. Crist himself admits that the biggest surprises were on the turf.
There are a considerable number of significant differences in the track configuration from the previous WC races and the new Meydan course which had a bearing on the outcomes but no one is making a peep about them. All one hears is people venting their anti all-weather contempt. Is it too much to ask for a discussion of some of the other variables?
Bob
Completely serious question Bob:
Concerning the surface horses evolved on, is it correct that horses that came of the Arabian peninsula were evolutionarily fit to run on grass?? Seems like there\'s another surface at work there.
Maybe, all the modern tracks should replicate Belmont.
I enjoy betting the world cup every year..
This was no exception...The races did not play out very differently from any other year..A lot of races with horses close in ability except for the UAE derby (which was one by the fave).
I could not connect my pick 3\'s together but I was able to find Gloria de Campagna using a formula for success at any racetrack/surface; lone speed with competitive numbers and familiarity with the racetrack..to bring me back to even for the day..
Some posters are bringing up the greats from the past but a great one can\'t win the race unless they are in it and you can very well say there were no greats in there just like a non-great won last year in a bad field.
I wonder if Z\'s connections thought about running her in there before the Apple Blossom race was brought up that would have put 1 great one in there..
Lost Cause Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder if Z\'s connections thought about running
> her in there before the Apple Blossom race was
> brought up that would have put 1 great one in
> there..
Then we could have read once again how she beat nobody?? That she is a synthetic freak?? Sounds great.
P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> -----
>>
> Then we could have read once again how she beat
> nobody?? That she is a synthetic freak?? Sounds
> great.
I guess that\'s true but for 6 mil you can call me what you want..
ajkreider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Completely serious question Bob:
>
> Concerning the surface horses evolved on, is it
> correct that horses that came of the Arabian
> peninsula were evolutionarily fit to run on
> grass?? Seems like there\'s another surface at
> work there.
>
> Maybe, all the modern tracks should replicate
> Belmont.
ajkreider,
I appreciate the thoughtful question historical and I will try to give you a thoughtful historical answer.
While the first horses evolved on grass, it is also true that the Arabs developed a breed that was able to run on their sandy surfaces. The modern thoroughbred was developed in England when Arabian foundation sires were bred to their native mares. This modern race horse was bred to run on grass, and in a sense, return to its roots - if you\'ll pardon the pun.Yes, the US has bred horses that can run on dirt, but that does not mean that the dirt surfaces aren\'t harder on a horse\'s joints.
I am being totally truthful in saying that if there was a study showing Belmont\'s
fatality rate was lower than any comparable track (synthetic or otherwise) or a study showing that its surface has the same biometric properties, such as shock absorption and energy return, as grass or synthetics, then I would agree that Big Sandy should be the modern model. Of course that doesn\'t mean that there shouldn\'t be continued research and development for a safer surface.
It is completely accepted, and all the research proves that grass racing has fewer injuries than dirt racing. The only reason dirt tracks came into existence was to make possible a much heavier racing schedule than could be supported by grass, but at a price to the horses. This was less of a problem before modern race horses became so delicate and so vulnerable to less forgiving surfaces. We can either wait for the industry to do an about face and start breeding for soundness, (don\'t hold your breath) or try to provide as safe and similar to natural grass surface as we can.
Economics dictates that we cannot run only on grass, but we can design another surface that is durable and more closely resembles grass, in its biometric properties and safety, than something like dirt that only has its naturalness in common with grass. Mountains are very natural but that doesn\'t mean we should race horses over rocks.
Something for people to think about the next time they take off their natural leather shoes and put on their polyurethane running shoes the next time they go jogging on their local rubberized track if they can\'t find a grassy field.
Bob
I haven\'t got time to respond to all of this now, and I\'m sure others will anyway. But one point, again-- we have been breeding horses specifically to run on DIRT in this counry for the last 100 years, which is about 10 generations of horses. It\'s, not much less than the amount of time there were thoroughbreds in England preceding that, and it\'s obviously more recent-- and more relevant.
Jerry,
True but also irrelevant. It does not change the fact that dirt is a harsher surface for horses than either grass or synthetics. Just compare the biometric properties.
Bob
Lost Cause Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> P-Dub Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > -----
> >>
> > Then we could have read once again how she beat
> > nobody?? That she is a synthetic freak?? Sounds
> > great.
>
> I guess that\'s true but for 6 mil you can call me
> what you want..
LOL, good point.
What will eventually be meaningful will be an apples to apples study. All the large studies I know of so far have been of all dirt tracks combined, which includes small tracks with lots of cripples, while the synthetics are all at high end tracks.
Very true,JB.Latest from Cali CHRB comparing fatal breakdowns at Los Alamitos dirt surface to Cali synth surfaces...BRILLIANT!
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What will eventually be meaningful will be an
> apples to apples study. All the large studies I
> know of so far have been of all dirt tracks
> combined, which includes small tracks with lots of
> cripples, while the synthetics are all at high end
> tracks.
Absolutely. Any meaningful study must compare equals. The Jockey Club has just finished gathering data for a comprehensive study of all U.S. tracks. They haven\'t broken it down by surface yet but I\'m eagerly awaiting the results of the comparative study.
I suspect it will show the same results of the studies comparing the same tracks before and after conversion, which showed the rate of fatal breakdowns decreased.
The sooner large meaningful studies are done, the sooner the truth will be firmly established.
Bob
A survey of the fans.
Do you like it or not? Do you bet more, less or at all.
I\'m not taking sides here but this surface has created a fairly devisive set of opinions with the fans who shove the money through the windows.
Changes should made that create NEW fans not piss off or run off the existing ones.
Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A survey of the fans.
>
> Do you like it or not? Do you bet more, less or at
> all.
>
> I\'m not taking sides here but this surface has
> created a fairly devisive set of opinions with the
> fans who shove the money through the windows.
>
> Changes should made that create NEW fans not piss
> off or run off the existing ones.
Good idea. And lets not forget those who never become fans or leave the sport because they are appalled by all the fatalities. So far studies show that these tragedies, and the perception that racing does not care to do enough about them, are the number one reason why racing is losing fans and not picking up new fans.
Racing is in serious trouble in finding the new fans to replace the ones it loses and today\'s fans are the ones who become tomorrows betters and the old dirt traditions mean nothing to them.
Just look at the surveys of those just starting to go to the races, the ones we need to become tomorrows bettors. They say those horrible breakdowns drive them away. They are not terrified of losing their dirt speed bias angles but love to see close exciting finishes and safe racing that employs the latest technologies like other major sports, to protect the horses they love.
Bob
Bob -
I\'m not optimistic about the future of American horse racing on any surface, but one thing seems abundantly clear to me in the injury statistics I have seen to date: if you want to reduce fatalities, you\'ll accomplish more by eliminating races for cheap claimers (the \"cripples\" TGJB referred to elsewhere in the thread) than by any change in surface.
>bobphilo wrote
>
> Good idea. And lets not forget those who never
> become fans or leave the sport because they are
> appalled by all the fatalities. So far studies
> show that these tragedies, and the perception that
> racing does not care to do enough about them, are
> the number one reason why racing is losing fans
> and not picking up new fans.
>
> Racing is in serious trouble in finding the new
> fans to replace the ones it loses and today\'s fans
> are the ones who become tomorrows betters and the
> old dirt traditions mean nothing to them.
>
> Just look at the surveys of those just starting to
> go to the races, the ones we need to become
> tomorrows bettors. They say those horrible
> breakdowns drive them away. They are not terrified
> of losing their dirt speed bias angles but love to
> see close exciting finishes and safe racing that
> employs the latest technologies like other major
> sports, to protect the horses they love.
>
> Bob
Bob great point and one that did not entirely skip my mind when I posted but maybe one that I did not consider we should weigh \"this against that.\"
Wagering numbers are down pretty good. THE ECONOMY is THE big reason. But is it the only reason. I quite frankly do not bet as much as certain venues as I used to and it is the surface. I know of one player who is a friend, a take off the rubber band type when he feels it, WHO WILL ABSOLUTELY NOT touch the stuff.
He lives 15 minutes from Keeneland. Has not bet Calif in a year or more. So there is the rub. Is the new guy coming in offseting the old guy with the big handle who is backing off?
Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So there is the rub. Is
> the new guy coming in offseting the old guy with
> the big handle who is backing off?
Silver, Very well put. It\'s not uncommon for veteran fans or players to back off when there is a change. It\'s a point I readily understand. I also believe that not all horseplayers are such extreme die-hards that they will give up playing forever if most of their favorite tracks change.
We horseplayers can be a stubborn lot (myself included) but I also believe that we are also resilient and know how to change if that\'s what it takes to become profitable. Who knows, maybe the influx of new fans and the old ones returning can give racing the shot in the arm it so badly needs.
Another question we need to ask is, that even if there is a current decline in handle that we can determine to be due to synthetics, is it the darkness that must come before the new dawn, or the final shot that puts racing down for good.
True, it\'s a gamble (how appropriate) and a bit of a dream, but I hate to just stand by as this great sport of ours continues to die, like too many horses on the track do. Wouldn\'t it be great if we could save both with the same changes? Only time will tell. All we can do is go where the facts, reason and compassion take us.
Bob
BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob -
>
> I\'m not optimistic about the future of American
> horse racing on any surface, but one thing seems
> abundantly clear to me in the injury statistics I
> have seen to date: if you want to reduce
> fatalities, you\'ll accomplish more by eliminating
> races for cheap claimers (the \"cripples\" TGJB
> referred to elsewhere in the thread) than by any
> change in surface.
Bit,
You have a point. Eliminating cheap claiming races would reduce fatalities, as well as reducing the overproduction of horses that fill them. Less permissive drug policies, banning the juicers and breeding more for soundness would all help.
I agree some cripples on pain killers would break down if they raced on pillows, only less of them.
The point is that none of these measures are mutually exclusive. It\'s not either-or. The problem of increasing breakdowns is serious enough that as many of these measures be employed as possible.
By all means, I\'m 100% for eliminating cheap claiming races. But why not try to provide safer surfaces for those races we can\'t get of, as well as higher quality ones? Even top horses breakdown too often.
Bob
Hoping to finally discuss some of the other factors involved in the results of the Dubai WC besides the surface, I want to look at the new configuration at Meydan, the pace and trips involved and give this surface debate a rest, before the race becomes ancient history.
I was personally disappointed with the configuration of the new Meydan 10 furlong course compared to the previous one at Nad Al Sheba. The old course had a long straightaway, allowing plenty of time to get a good position on the single turn. The new course has 2 turns with the 1st turn very close to the starting gate, meaning that the horses with outside posts are in immediate trouble, like 9 furlongs at Gulfstream Park, except even worse because of the big field.
Pace, or the lack of it was also a huge factor. The winner Glorea De Campeo had competitive figures and a perfect rail trip as the lone speed on an easy lead, as cleverly spotted by ThredHead (Congrats). Apparently, they didn't install equipment for timing the pace fractions, or sectional timing as they call it, which was included in previous year's results from Al Sheba. In any case, the slow pace was pretty obvious and clearly helped the winner while dooming most of the closers.
The finish was the closest for all placings I've ever seen for any race, which is no surprise. In a race where nobody is asked to run until the final couple of furlongs you're going to have a finish resembling the Quarterhorse Futurity.
Race video link:
http://tinyurl.com/DubaiWC
Bob