Track maintenance of the nature of the beast?

[46zilzal]

So far, and it a limited sampling, I can find no logic in the short or long term speed/closer biases of artificial surfaces.

Dirt surfaces have key markers that project biases (I never really accepted them until I began to follow East coast tracks almost exclusively) on a fairly consistent basis, particularly on "big" race days when, it appears, the management wants fast times to impress the fan base.

Without an "internal" standard to which pace comparisons can be made, chaos results.

Part of that problem may be in the completely different nature of these surfaces and the lack of experience of the crew maintaining them, or they may require seasoning in order to establish a repeated consistent surface.

At Woodbine, they have repeatedly tried to retro-engineer it to be "turf to dirt interchangeable" and have failed miserably with multiple resurfacings in May with "jelly cord." (Our track uses something like it and it looks like small Saran wrap strips with a silicone like covering). I cannot wait for the cooler Fall temperatures to make this surface "cake" again so all my front runners will run off and hide while spraying their slower competitors with kick-back.

It is going to be a long time before consistency is established on these surfaces, IF it ever will. I get the impression that as soon as the surface begins to show real wear, the maintenance procedure is to bring in new material which will drastically change the surface yet again.

[GameTheory]

Can't it be "consistent" but without a bias? If you're not even finding short-term biases, then wouldn't that just mean the surface is fair? Isn't that supposed to be one of the benefits?

[46zilzal]

Can't it be "consistent" but without a bias? If you're not even finding short-term biases, then wouldn't that just mean the surface is fair? Isn't that supposed to be one of the benefits?
Using dirt standards there are short runs where it is totally irrational i.e. one race a dedicated front runner that should fold up goes wire to wire and then the next race, the obvious lone speed folds up......Something that radically alterable is chaotic not fair.

[DanG]

So far, and it a limited sampling, I can find no logic in the short or long term speed/closer biases of artificial surfaces.

Dirt surfaces have key markers that project biases (I never really accepted them until I began to follow East coast tracks almost exclusively) on a fairly consistent basis, particularly on "big" race days when, it appears, the management wants fast times to impress the fan base.

Without an "internal" standard to which pace comparisons can be made, chaos results.

It is going to be a long time before consistency is established on these surfaces, IF it ever will. I get the impression that as soon as the surface begins to show real wear, the maintenance procedure is to bring in new material which will drastically change the surface yet again.
With all due respect;

Have you followed Saratoga (for example) the last 30 years or so?

Drastic changes to the track profile have occurred…all on DIRT. Thesechanging conditions are NOT unique to a synthetic surface.

[GameTheory]

Using dirt standards there are short runs where it is totally irrational i.e. one race a dedicated front runner that should fold up goes wire to wire and then the next race, the obvious lone speed folds up......Something that radically alterable is chaotic not fair.But you're looking at it only through the lens of your particular handicapping method, which very well may be useless of these surfaces. But if your handicapping method is based on biases of the surface, and there are no biases; then that's just your problem, nothing inherently wrong with the surface itself. (When I say "fair" I mean to the horses, not to you.)

If chaos truly reigned, we'd see longshots winning with the same frequency as favorites and the odds meaning nothing...

[Tom]

I don't think you can use the horses' dirt performances as an indicator of what kind it is when it hits poly. A lone speed on dirt might be far more likely to hand on than on poly. Quinn wrote an interesting article at the start of the
Delmar meeting about how it looks like poly is throwing racing back to the old days of fitness and foundation over speed. Horses with bottom can win on poly while the cheap speed is tiring. Good article in Saturday's DRF about poly - the one about Lava Man and the PCC Sunday.

I think the poly thing is great for racing.

I have days when I am at a loss, but thre have been many good days when I get out of the "speed rules" mode.

IMHO, the poly is more fair than dirt.

[46zilzal]

No money goes toward something without a logical basis.

Maybe a new paradigm is in the making. Until then, watching and re-learning is probably the key. But then again, I see no logic when the surfaces (even within the Poly ranks) are that different course to course.

[Good4Now]

I haven't read the article Tom refers to, but IMO the ridability of the horse is on or near equal with narrow dimensional characteristics ( Speed v. Closer ) which has not been seen for many years.

Trying to think through what I've heard: "we 're seeing a drop off in certain types of injuries but increases in others..." as far as racing and training on the wax and "adjusting our training regimen". O.K. so if joint and bone issues are the ones decreasing then muscle, tendon, ligament tissue are most likely the ones increasing. That would tie in with Tom's fitness and foundation. Interesting. Some breeders USED to focus on temprement of the get as much or more than distance- surface likelihoods!

[GameTheory]

No money goes toward something without a logical basis.

Maybe a new paradigm is in the making. Until then, watching and re-learning is probably the key. But then again, I see no logic when the surfaces (even within the Poly ranks) are that different course to course.Start looking at the overall ability of the horses instead of how well they match-up with the surface they're running on. On a truly fair surface, ability wins out. It sounds like your handicapping is based on the assumption that the surface is unfair, so if that assumption doesn't hold, you've got to adapt.

[statik27]

I posted about this a couple of weeks ago on a similar thread about the Del Mar surface.

After the first day of the DMR meet I realized that many of the tried and true angles I rely on just weren't going to play out. So I had to tweek some of the old and develop a couple of new ones. And what I've found is that the two most important angles are fitness and pedigree.

In a way it is a throwback to by gone days. Horses that have a long series of works with some stamina drills throw in such as a 6f or 7f in its last 2 or 3 works are winning races. Also horses with a race over the surface seem to be leaps and bound better prepared and in better shape over others who haven't.

The pedigree angle's I've been using are based a specific profile of stallion. A horse who has a strong European influence ie a strong turf pedigree. But they themselves had the majority of their own sucess on the main track.

In Excess and Siberian Summer from the same sire line fit this profile well. Also Skimming a son of Nureyev and dual winner of the pacific classic and Lit De Justice by El Gran Senor and winner of the BC sprint fit this profile to a tee. And if you look at the series of maiden winners and improved performances by these sires offspring...well the proof in the pudding so to speak.

These are only California sires, but they seem to fit the profile the best. It may also work in reverse, a horse bred for the dirt, but had sucess over the turf. I have yet to test this angle, but it's in the works.

Statik

[kenwoodallpromos]

I can understand why you are waiting!!