Dubai WC

[MonmouthGuy]

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?

[MonmouthGuy]

He is spot on.

http://cristblog.drf.com/crist/

[Silver Charm]

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.

[bobphilo]

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

[P-Dub]

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.

[Silver Charm]

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......

[TreadHead]

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.

[Rick B.]

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.

[bobphilo]

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

[bobphilo]

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

[ajkreider]

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.

[Lost Cause]

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..

[P-Dub]

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.

[Lost Cause]

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..

[bobphilo]

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