How Much Bias on Pro-Ride?

[Steve R]

In the BC, the eight AWS races had an average field size of 10.4 horses. In those races there were 21 starters that had never won on turf or a synthetic surface. Their average finish position was 8.5 out of 10.4. Also in those races there were 18 horses that had previously won on turf but not on a synthetic surface. Their average finish position was 6.1 out of 10.4. In a random world, where track surface does not discriminate, the average finish position would be 5.2 out of 10.4. You figure it out.

Until the industry acknowledges that synthetics comprise a third surface, distinct from both dirt and turf, there will always be a debate about whether the results on dirt and synthetics are comparable. In truth, they are no more comparable than those between dirt and turf.

The obvious differences between synthetics and dirt suggest to me an increasing polarization in Thoroughbred racing. I see a future in which surface specialists become increasingly isolated from each other, with dirt horses staying more and more on dirt and AWS horses staying more and more on AWSs. When Pletcher said in his TV interview that you can't tell how a horse will race on an AWS from the way it trains on it, he captured the essence of the issue.

The solution? Move to a recognized three-surface industry with separate year-end championships or eliminate either dirt racing or AWS racing. Continuing to promote AWSs as a form of dirt is dishonest at its core and will only hasten the decline of the game. I don't blame the dirt specialists for avoiding AWSs or the AWS specialists for avoiding dirt. But let's not lump these horses together anymore than we do dirt specialists and turf specialists.

[cj]

I think you hit the nail on the head. As a bettor, I don't mind synthetics. But as a fan, they just make the game much more splintered than it already is and that is not what we need.

[depalma113]

What were the results from last year? I would assume they were almost identical.

[DJofSD]

I think you hit the nail on the head. As a bettor, I don't mind synthetics. But as a fan, they just make the game much more splintered than it already is and that is not what we need.
I'll echo cj's thoughts.

[bettheoverlay]

I like betting synthetics and thought the BC races offered terrific opportunities for big scores. But this weekends races should have been called the Breeders Cup Synthetic Championships. To exclude, or greatly hamper the chances of the Triple Crown winners, the Summer and Fall G1 horses is kind of loony. Next year have the Synthetic Champion races at Keeneland and the Dirt Champion races at Churchill? This is not a good situation at the top end of the sport.

[the_fat_man]

There are quite a few sports where they have INDIVIDUAL awards and OVERALL awards. The specialists win the former and the generalists the latter. Take gymnastics, for example. Who is your BEST gymnast: the high bar winner, who doesn't place in any of the other events or the one who is at the top of the list in any number of events? Yeah, the answer is simple.
And, of course, additionally, you don't consider the OVERALL champion CLUMSY because he's not as good at a particular specialist. YET, in racing, we consider horses SLOW because they're just not FAST on a particular surface: DIRT. This is a joke and has to change. The BC on POLY will go a long way towards that. And, after a few more sessions where the American jocks get bent over by the Euro's, maybe they're start riding a bit more with their head rather than their asses. The game will definitely improve as a result of having the best horses in the world competing in this event; and the best way to assure this is by running it on POLY.

Splintered fan base? Really? Don't know when I've heard cheers in racing like I did for Z yesterday.

[Cadillakin]

When Pletcher said in his TV interview that you can't tell how a horse will race on an AWS from the way it trains on it, he captured the essence of the issue.
Those of us who handicap often use morning exercise as an indicator if the horse is doing well and handles the surface.. no matter the surface.. Good training over a particular track infers an affinity for the surface. No doubt. All handicappers should know that.. Pletcher should know that. But what's always the unknown, no matter the track surface is how the horse measures up to his competition in terms of pace, class, and suitability to the distance.

As far as I'm concerned, Pletcher wasn't conveying a racing truism in that interview, but more of an uncertainty of how well Quality Road fits with the best horses in the world. It was nerves.. an excuse before the gates opened.

So Steve, I'm not buying your thesis, whatever it is...

[cj]

I have to disagree fat man. In this case, we have two specialists. How do you pick the overall winner?

In a game where it is hard enough drawing a quality field to the top events, we have made it even harder by introducing a third surface. Look at that pathetic lineup in the Turf yesterday. Look at all the other G1s not in the Triple Crown or BC and you see crap fields not worth betting running for a lot of money. I'm sure there are lots of dirt horses rotting away in California running on the wrong surface, horses like I Want Revenge and Bullsbay and Pyro that can't run on the stuff but excel on dirt. We'll never really know.

There is nothing wrong with racing on synthetics as long as it is recognized as a third, distinct surface. Lets stop pretending the races are the same and the horses are better or worse than dirt horses. They are neither, they are different. The people who think horses can just go back and forth and display the same ability are delusional.

The problem the fans I know have with synthetics is that the change was too radical too fast. To have them deciding championships at this early stage is pathetic. Imagine if they installed dirt in Paris and moved the Arc there three years later. That is akin to what we have done.

[cj]

Those of us who handicap often use morning exercise as an indicator if the horse is doing well and handles the surface.. no matter the surface.. Good training over a particular track infers an affinity for the surface. No doubt. All handicappers should know that.. But what's always the unknown, no matter the track surface is how the horse measures up to his competition in terms of pace, class, and suitability to the distance.

As far as I'm concerned, Pletcher wasn't conveying a racing truism in that interview, but more of an uncertainty of how well Quality Road fits with the best horses in the world. It was nerves.. an excuse before the gates opened.

So Steve, I'm not buying your thesis, whatever it is...

It isn't like Pletcher is the only trainer saying this. It has been said in SoCal since the tracks have been installed by most top trainers there. But, I'm sure you know more than them, and Pletcher as well, about training horses so I digress.

[DJofSD]

Question: are there any U. S. training facilities that have installed an AWS? If there are some, is this in addition to the existing dirt track or a dirt track converted to an AWS?

[Cadillakin]

It isn't like Pletcher is the only trainer saying this. It has been said in SoCal since the tracks have been installed by most top trainers there. But, I'm sure you know more than them, and Pletcher as well, about training horses so I digress.
Actually it's the first time I've ever heard a trainer state that training well over a particular surface doesn't indicate an affinity.. Which other trainers have said that?

That statement runs contrary to common sense. But if you want to embrace it, be my guest..

[cj]

Actually it's the first time I've ever heard a trainer state that training well over a particular surface doesn't indicate an affinity..

That statement runs contrary to common sense. But if you want to embrace it, be my guest..

If you haven't heard it, you haven't been listening. Delmar was particularly singled out by all the trainers, not myself.

[Steve R]

Those of us who handicap often use morning exercise as an indicator if the horse is doing well and handles the surface.. no matter the surface.. Good training over a particular track infers an affinity for the surface. No doubt. All handicappers should know that.. But what's always the unknown, no matter the track surface is how the horse measures up to his competition in terms of pace, class, and suitability to the distance.

As far as I'm concerned, Pletcher wasn't conveying a racing truism in that interview, but more of an uncertainty of how well Quality Road fits with the best horses in the world. It was nerves.. an excuse before the gates opened.

So Steve, I'm not buying your thesis, whatever it is...
It really doesn't matter whether you buy my thesis or not. There is enough negativity among fans, bettors, trainers, jockeys, etc, that the likelihood of AWSs expanding further is becoming more and more remote. The result will have to be a separation much like that between dirt and turf. Of course there will be crossovers as there are now and horses that perform on multiple surfaces should be lauded. But I see a future where polarization will lead to a situation in which dirt and AWS horses are no more directly compared than are dirt and turf horses. Who was better? Secretariat or Sea Bird? It's a pointless comparison. The inability of horses with no prior turf or AWS form to run back to their dirt form at Santa Anita is clear and unequivocal. To think otherwise is delusional. Of course, we can go all AWS and eliminate any links to the last 150 years of American Thoroughbred racing. It is an option.

[Cadillakin]

If you haven't heard it, you haven't been listening. Delmar was particularly singled out by all the trainers, not myself.
What you are referring to is something different and apart from what Pletcher said. The trainers at Del Mar were referring to the changes in the surface from morning to afternoon by the changes in environment. It is said that the seaside environment (tides and moisture content) and the changing temperatures of the surface can radically change in the 5 hours between morning training and the afternoon races.. so that in effect, the horses are racing on a different surface in the afternoon than they train over..

But that's not what Pletcher was referring to..

He was referring to Pro Ride at Santa Anita.. not Del Mar's Polytrack. In the current stable environment with moderate weather, I have heard no such statements from any trainer about the Pro Ride at Santa Anita

[Cadillakin]

It really doesn't matter whether you buy my thesis or not. There is enough negativity among fans, bettors, trainers, jockeys, etc, that the likelihood of AWSs expanding further is becoming more and more remote.In truth, racing is contracting, so the expansion of dirt racing is becoming more and more remote also.
The result will have to be a separation much like that between dirt and turf. Of course there will be crossovers as there are now and horses that perform on multiple surfaces should be lauded. But I see a future where polarization will lead to a situation in which dirt and AWS horses are no more directly compared than are dirt and turf horses. Who was better? Secretariat or Sea Bird? It's a pointless comparison.
Secretariat handled the grass very well... so if he and Sea Bird were born in this present era, they might race together and settle that score in this new environment of international competition.

I see a different future with a few supertracks across the world - most racing on synthetics and grass.. and the marginal tracks - dirt surfaced or otherwise, will be going belly-up. We will one day have international betting on a grander scale than is now available..

The inability of horses with no prior turf or AWS form to run back to their dirt form at Santa Anita is clear and unequivocal. To think otherwise is delusional.
That is at the very least a gross exaggeration. For the most part, during the transition from dirt to synthetic, the claimers on dirt, are/were still the claimers on synthetics.. and the stakes horses on dirt are/were still the stakes horses on synthetics.. To suggest otherwise is fanciful.. and perhaps a little bit dishonest.

[Bobzilla]

It really doesn't matter whether you buy my thesis or not. There is enough negativity among fans, bettors, trainers, jockeys, etc, that the likelihood of AWSs expanding further is becoming more and more remote. The result will have to be a separation much like that between dirt and turf. Of course there will be crossovers as there are now and horses that perform on multiple surfaces should be lauded. But I see a future where polarization will lead to a situation in which dirt and AWS horses are no more directly compared than are dirt and turf horses. Who was better? Secretariat or Sea Bird? It's a pointless comparison. The inability of horses with no prior turf or AWS form to run back to their dirt form at Santa Anita is clear and unequivocal. To think otherwise is delusional. Of course, we can go all AWS and eliminate any links to the last 150 years of American Thoroughbred racing. It is an option.

Nothing against AWSs per se, but I would much prefer that American Racing maintain those links to its dirt past. Dirt surfaces have always been the true medium on which we've gauged performances and talent over the years.

Along with the belief that AWSs would provide a safer alternative to dirt surfaces, I think much of the underlying impetus behind the decision to convert was the industry's desire to arrive at a universal surface, a surface on which both dirt and turf runners could meet on a "level playing field", as well as being a surface recognized worldwide. I've always been skeptical that these surfaces are, in fact, a level playing field. And yet I continue to hear this claim all the time. They are indeed a third surface, one with more similarities to natural turf than to dirt but not exactly like the former either.

Personally I enjoyed the hell out of this year's BC. So I have nothing against playing 3rd surface races. That said, I can't imagine too many connections of those campaigned on dirt will be overly keen to go to the BC when it's held in California, Chicago or Toronto, given the performances of dirt horses over the last two years. The numbers simply don't lie.

[the_fat_man]

Personally I enjoyed the hell out of this year's BC. So I have nothing against playing 3rd surface races. That said, I can't imagine too many connections of those campaigned on dirt will be overly keen to go to the BC when it's held in California, Chicago or Toronto, given the performances of dirt horses over the last two years. The numbers simply don't lie.

This is a relatively complex issue. Do these dirt horses fail because they just can't run on POLY or do they fail for other reasons? Could it be that they're just not very good, relatively, and that dirt plays a particular way that makes them appear as such? I think this is the case for Summer Bird, for example.
Could it be that dirt rides are not conducive to POLY and that the jocks are just riding these horses wrong? Absolutely, the American jocks, as a whole, were terribly outclassed by the Euros this weekend.

I play POLY in CALI but I don't play any of the fairs. I thus don't look too closely at the results BUT it seems to me that more than a few of these horses run equally well on dirt and poly. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not saying that all horses can handle all surfaces, just that a good number more than DIRT players would want us to believe can't actually can.

It's not just about the horse and the surface. It's about training and riding. Jocks in this country ride to make the lead on the turn. This is a result of all the biased speed dirt tracks. This style doesn't work too well on turf or poly. Jocks need to adapt. Handicappers long accustomed to betting the speed and letting the track do the rest need to also adapt.

I'm all for these surfaces and global racing.

[Grits]

QUOTE:

"Could it be that dirt rides are not conducive to POLY and that the jocks are just riding these horses wrong? Absolutely, the American jocks, as a whole, were terribly outclassed by the Euros this weekend."



I'm looking at the results of two days, I believe, if you go back and read them, you'll find the above statement to be woefully incorrect.

The Euro jocks went 2 for 9 on Friday's card. They went 4 for 10 on Saturday's, and that's if one includes and calls the Middle Eastern jock riding for Godolphin a European as well.

[Cadillakin]

The numbers simply don't lie.

In fact, numbers do lie if you look at them without proper context. In that regard, Beyer and many others were completely fooled by Zenyatta's high class...Because Zenyatta doesn't run all out.. She does the rope-a-dope till the last round, and then she knocks her opponents out.

Racing is about winning, not running for time honors.. The numbers guys can't quite grasp that issue.

[Bochall]

[QUOTE=the_fat_man]This is a relatively complex issue. Do these dirt horses fail because they just can't run on POLY or do they fail for other reasons? Could it be that they're just not very good, QUOTE] I think the Godolphin squad were all over the top. Almost every one run a lifetime best, mostly in NY, before shipping cross country (after coming from Dubai). They were all set for a step back, regardless of surface. Poly didnt hinder them IMO, although Pyro had shown he doesnt like it. Chucked 'em all out and it only cost me once with Vale Of York. Gayego and Midship ran well but Midship had an easy lead and still failed. Regal Ransom and Girolamo (both admittedly in the WRONG spot) ran badly. Sara Louise and 7th Street had nice trips and crapped out. But to finally answer your question, I think they run badly cuz they cant run on poly. Readys Echo was the only dirt horse in the last 2 BC to crack the ex on poly. Are all the NY and KY runners that bad? Some clearly love it like Informed Decision and Furthest Land (or was it Leps riding??). It plays alot like turf and the fact that many can run on both turf and poly equally as well tells me that its the surface, not the horse. Skip Away woulda hated it but Point Given may have loved it.

[Bochall]

Fatman, good point about the jocks. Willie clearly jumped the gun on Nobles Promise, a horse that looked like a serious win candidate on paper. His middle splits in his last blew this field away except for the horse who ran 2nd to him at Kee. You're right, those moves are winning moves on the turn on dirt where the point is to lead at the 1/4 pole and the track will take you home. You post a lot about 'last moves' and that applies on the poly. Wait, uncover, surge. Ajtebi proved that patience wins it. Leparoux was getting it. This Queally guy rode well too. Won with a nice inside ride on Midday and although he took Twice Over a lil wide he put him in the hunt late in the Classic. Just wasnt good enough.

[Niko]

The stats don't lie. A good Poly horse has a huge advantage over dirt horses. And vice versa

I doubt Zenyetta wins if it's on dirt with that late move. Rachel probably doesn't win on Poly in the classic either. They're both the best horses on their respective surfaces.

What I hate as a handicapper is having to guess how a horse is going to handle a surface the first time. It keeps my money in my pockets the majority of the time.

Put a bunch of dirt horses on Poly that have never run on it and try to predict who's going to win...I'm sure there's someone that's figured it out though. And vice versa....although there you can eliminate late running poly horses on dirt

[cj]

In fact, numbers do lie if you look at them without proper context. In that regard, Beyer and many others were completely fooled by Zenyatta's high class...Because Zenyatta doesn't run all out.. She does the rope-a-dope till the last round, and then she knocks her opponents out.

Racing is about winning, not running for time honors.. The numbers guys can't quite grasp that issue.

Of course numbers guys can grasp this. It isn't much different than turf racing. I think I said as much after one or two days of racing at the inaugural polytrack Turfway meet on this board.

Zenyatta wins because her style works on rubber. On dirt, she is obviously still very good, and would probably be about 7-5-1 from her 14 starts.

[Tom]

I love how all these know just how "numbers guys" handicap. So many stupid post in the last 24 hours.......on many threads.

[toussaud]

so if you arne't a numbers guy or don't use numbers at all whatsoever, what ar eyou a pretty pony handicapper?


I mean I am not a speed figure guy whatsoever but damn at some point i need to have a reference to know what I'm looking at. was this a face pace or a slow pace? okay if a horse just ran 6F in 1:18 i know i'm looking at probably crap, if a horse just ran 6F in 1:09, i might be looking at something that can run a little.

I mean.. what other way is there? numbers have to factor in at some point.

[Tom]

so if you arne't a numbers guy or don't use numbers at all whatsoever, what ar eyou a pretty pony handicapper?


Just what I was talking about. Thank you for providing an ignorant example.:lol:

[pandy]

Everyone always seems to forget the 4th surface, SLOP/MUD. Just as many horses don't handle synthetic as well as dirt, or vice versa, many horses don't handle wet tracks. That's why I hate when the big races like the Derby, BCup, etc., come up sloppy or muddy. At least with synthetic there is no off track.

[andymays]

Over two years of Cup racing at Santa Anita, not one horse who made its previous start on a dirt track won a race on the synthetic main track. ;)

[Tom]

Agree Pandy....sly means a whole lot of types of tracks. Just like Fst mean a whole lot of types of poly.