Why do turf and synthetic tracks favor closers more than dirt?

[keithw84]

???

[bobphilo]

This question long puzzled me until I studied the traction characteristics of the 3 surfaces. Grass, the truly natural surface that horses evolved to run on, gives good traction and energy return to the horses’ hooves. This allows the late closers to get a good hold for their late powerful kicks.

All-weather tracks, despite the criticism of being “unnatural” actually duplicate the traction and energy returns characteristics of grass tracks and, therefore have similar properties.

Dirt tracks, on the other hand, though widely considered more “natural”, actually bear little resemblance to the native soil they replace. Their high sand content cause a lot of slippage and poor energy return. They favor horses who have built early leads by the pace call, which typically are when the race is already 2/3 to 3/4 run, leaving little time for the closers to catch the front runners on the poor traction surfaces.
Horses with short quick choppy action tend to do better on dirt tracks while long-striding horses prefer grass and all-weather tracks whose better traction compliments their long powerful strides.



Bob

[PaceAdvantage]

Horses with short quick choppy action tend to do better on dirt tracks while long-striding horses prefer grass and all-weather tracks whose better traction compliments their long powerful strides.Secretariat was a perfect example of a super-long, powerful striding horse who absolutely hated running on dirt...just kidding...:lol:

[gm10]

This question long puzzled me until I studied the traction characteristics of the 3 surfaces. Grass, the truly natural surface that horses evolved to run on, gives good traction and energy return to the horses’ hooves. This allows the late closers to get a good hold for their late powerful kicks.

All-weather tracks, despite the criticism of being “unnatural” actually duplicate the traction and energy returns characteristics of grass tracks and, therefore have similar properties.

Dirt tracks, on the other hand, though widely considered more “natural”, actually bear little resemblance to the native soil they replace. Their high sand content cause a lot of slippage and poor energy return. They favor horses who have built early leads by the pace call, which typically are when the race is already 2/3 to 3/4 run, leaving little time for the closers to catch the front runners on the poor traction surfaces.
Horses with short quick choppy action tend to do better on dirt tracks while long-striding horses prefer grass and all-weather tracks whose better traction compliments their long powerful strides.



Bob

I agree with you.

I think it also has to do with different horses having different sizes of muscle groups. On the dirt, because the feet usually slip a bit on impact, there is a premium on having well-developed stabilizing muscles. This would be different on the poly or firm turf, where slippage is much less of a concern, and where the premium is on the muscles that are responsible for the propulsion of the horse.

There is also banking of the turns. It's (supposed to be) easier to have higher banking angles on poly/turf than dirt, where the material starts sliding towards the centre when your angle is too steep. And the higher the banking angle, the bigger the advantage to the horses who run on the outside.

[Tom]

I think dirt tends to allow front runners to not slow down so that those behind have a huge task to catch them, but poly doesn't and it requires more stamina, so speed is not aided later in the race. Just MHO.

[Steve R]

This question long puzzled me until I studied the traction characteristics of the 3 surfaces. Grass, the truly natural surface that horses evolved to run on, gives good traction and energy return to the horses’ hooves. This allows the late closers to get a good hold for their late powerful kicks.

All-weather tracks, despite the criticism of being “unnatural” actually duplicate the traction and energy returns characteristics of grass tracks and, therefore have similar properties.

Dirt tracks, on the other hand, though widely considered more “natural”, actually bear little resemblance to the native soil they replace. Their high sand content cause a lot of slippage and poor energy return. They favor horses who have built early leads by the pace call, which typically are when the race is already 2/3 to 3/4 run, leaving little time for the closers to catch the front runners on the poor traction surfaces.
Horses with short quick choppy action tend to do better on dirt tracks while long-striding horses prefer grass and all-weather tracks whose better traction compliments their long powerful strides.



Bob
I don't know where you got your information from, but ancestors of the modern horse were forest animals with three-toes to accommodate the soft. moist forest floor and which, 40 million years ago, moved onto grasslands as the world's climate changed. Those grasslands contained much harder and drier ground, similar to what we find in the steppes of Central Asia, and they offered little protection. Thus, the modern horse developed more speed to outrun predators. This was achieved through the evolution of longer limbs and the conversion to one weight-bearing toe rather than three.

Natural grasslands have no relation to those cultivated by man (e.g., horse pastures and turf courses for racing). They are mostly found in semi-arid regions, are generally dry and hard and often the foliage is sparse.

IOW, the modern horse evolved to run fast on dry, hard ground, not lush turf or recycled rubber and chopped up carpet fiber. The idea that pasture grass or a turf course racing surface is more natural than, say, the main track at Gulfstream Park is pure mythology. Except for the occasional sprigs of dry grass or shrubs, Gulfstream comes closer to reality.

[Steve R]

I think dirt tends to allow front runners to not slow down so that those behind have a huge task to catch them, but poly doesn't and it requires more stamina, so speed is not aided later in the race. Just MHO.
Exactly! The horse evolved (see separate post) by outrunning predators on semi-arid, dry and hard grasslands, not lush pastures. Instantaneous speed was the key to survival, not a late run. A late run meant the horse was dinner.

[markgoldie]

This question long puzzled me until I studied the traction characteristics of the 3 surfaces. Grass, the truly natural surface that horses evolved to run on, gives good traction and energy return to the horses’ hooves. This allows the late closers to get a good hold for their late powerful kicks.

All-weather tracks, despite the criticism of being “unnatural” actually duplicate the traction and energy returns characteristics of grass tracks and, therefore have similar properties.

Dirt tracks, on the other hand, though widely considered more “natural”, actually bear little resemblance to the native soil they replace. Their high sand content cause a lot of slippage and poor energy return. They favor horses who have built early leads by the pace call, which typically are when the race is already 2/3 to 3/4 run, leaving little time for the closers to catch the front runners on the poor traction surfaces.
Horses with short quick choppy action tend to do better on dirt tracks while long-striding horses prefer grass and all-weather tracks whose better traction compliments their long powerful strides.



Bob
Bob:

Not really sure that answering this question has any real relevance to handicapping or any usefulness at all for that matter. But since you have attempted to tackle it, I think your anlysis of energy return is incorrect.

Harder surfaces return more energy to the horse and deeper tracks return less. The synths mimic grass as deeper racing surfaces which return less energy to the animal. This is why hard dirt tracks, such as frozen ones produce the fastest times of all and are particularly good for front runners who are able to extend their speed farther due to a lower coefficient of friction. (One mitigating factor here is certain forms of lameness, particularly foot lameness which can cause poor performance due to pain produced by concussion with a harder surface). The word "traction" as you use it is associated with a larger coefficient of friction and hence less energy return. "Slippage" is not much of a factor on dirt surfaces except on certain types of sloppy or muddy tracks, but this can be corrected by shoeing.

Furthermore, there is no reason why greater traction should favor closing types except that it is tiring to all horses. Remember, these powerful late kicks of closers that you refer to are generally at a much lower rate of speed than that accomplished by the speed horses early in the race. Therefore, if traction were beneficial to greater speed, it would favor the horses that possess the greatest amount of speed.

Generally speaking, a deeper surface should afford a greater cushion so as to lower concussion and hence prevent certain types of lamenesses. This is the theory of the benefit of synths for racing horses. In practice, however, racing over deeper surfaces has lameness risks of its own. That's because such tracks cause greater fatigue and fatigue is an important factor in lameness for two reasons: First because fatigued tendons and ligaments lose their elasticity and this loss leads to more frequent tearing. Second, fatigued animals lose their proper stride action which can cause their legs to be put down in awkward positions or angles. For these reasons, as we have found out, surfaces with a greater cushion are no panacea for eliminating lameness. On the other hand, the types of lameness caused by fatigue as opposed to those caused by concussion will tend to result more in ligament and tendon lameness and less in shattered bone. However, a catastrophic tear in a tendon or ligament can lead to a secondary fracturing of a bone or joint.

IMO, stride length may prove to be a weak predictor of success on one surface or the other. In theory, a longer stride results in less frequent contact with the energy-sapping surface and therefore could favor horses racing on synths. But other variables such as stamina, lamenesses, hoof angle at point of contact, etc. will frequently mitigate this general proposition.

[Robert Fischer]

I think dirt tends to allow front runners to not slow down so that those behind have a huge task to catch them, but poly doesn't and it requires more stamina, so speed is not aided later in the race. Just MHO.

Sounds good in theory. :ThmbUp:

GM10's turn banking theory also at least fits with observable differences and logic.

For me I notice differences in general between the different surfaces, and occasional specific differences to a particular course. Knowing the physics behind the differences isn't as important to me as having an accurate insight into the differences themselves.

[bisket]

keith the surface doesn't favor closers in sprints. at distances of 7 furs and lower the surface plays fair.

[Show Me the Wire]

Bob:

Not really sure that answering this question has any real relevance to handicapping or any usefulness at all for that matter. But since you have attempted to tackle it, I think your anlysis of energy return is incorrect.

.................................................. ..................................................
Generally speaking, a deeper surface should afford a greater cushion so as to lower concussion and hence prevent certain types of lamenesses. This is the theory of the benefit of synths for racing horses. In practice, however, racing over deeper surfaces has lameness risks of its own. That's because such tracks cause greater fatigue and fatigue is an important factor in lameness for two reasons: First because fatigued tendons and ligaments lose their elasticity and this loss leads to more frequent tearing. Second, fatigued animals lose their proper stride action which can cause their legs to be put down in awkward positions or angles. For these reasons, as we have found out, surfaces with a greater cushion are no panacea for eliminating lameness. On the other hand, the types of lameness caused by fatigue as opposed to those caused by concussion will tend to result more in ligament and tendon lameness and less in shattered bone. However, a catastrophic tear in a tendon or ligament can lead to a secondary fracturing of a bone or joint.



Fatigue will always be a problem in competitive racing. The question is which surface has the potential through manipulation to obtain the theoretical ideal rebound (return of power) to lessen fatigue and to actually do it. Tracks need to have uniform surfaces and uniform maintenance of the surface.

[gm10]

Exactly! The horse evolved (see separate post) by outrunning predators on semi-arid, dry and hard grasslands, not lush pastures. Instantaneous speed was the key to survival, not a late run. A late run meant the horse was dinner.

I don't see how you can make this statement with any degree of certainty.

[markgoldie]

Fatigue will always be a problem in competitive racing. The question is which surface has the potential through manipulation to obtain the theoretical ideal rebound (return of power) to lessen fatigue and to actually do it. Tracks need to have uniform surfaces and uniform maintenance of the surface.
Many years ago, I raced harness horses at a track called The Meadows over a solid "rubber" track that was produced by MMM Co. Such tracks are long extinct because they tore up over a course of time and frequent rapairs had to be made. Even with the repairs, there could be holes which were dangerous. However, aside from the risk of holes, this was the most most "lameness friendly" track surface I have ever seen. You could literally race horses forever over this surface with little disabling lameness. In those days, the meet ended in November and we switched to the Wheeling Downs track in West Va. This was a standard dirt track and when the horses got there, the benefits of the rubber soon became evident as horses that raced perfectly sound on the rubber were now "hitching," "hopping," and bearing in and out with alarming regularity.

While this rubber track was a bit more fatiguing than dirt, the difference was not huge. I have no idea whether newer technology could bring back this type of surface, but if so,, I think it would prove to be the safest of all surfaces. I should also say that the curent synths should be much less of a problem, lameness-wise, for the horses who train and race over it consistently. That's because they develop the necessary stamina over time to handle it. The problem is when horses arrive from dirt tracks and are not used to the increased fatigue that they will experience.

[Show Me the Wire]

Exactly! The horse evolved (see separate post) by outrunning predators on semi-arid, dry and hard grasslands, not lush pastures. Instantaneous speed was the key to survival, not a late run. A late run meant the horse was dinner.
:lol: :lol:

The slowest horse or the one separated from the herd was dinner.

BTW the horse, as we know it, is not indigenous to the Americas. The horse is an import from Europe, the grassy steppes of Asia, etc, while the thoroughbred is mixed with Arabian horses raised in oasis areas to transport people over the sand.

[Show Me the Wire]

.......While this rubber track was a bit more fatiguing than dirt, the difference was not huge. I have no idea whether newer technology could bring back this type of surface, but if so,, I think it would prove to be the safest of all surfaces. I should also say that the curent synths should be much less of a problem, lameness-wise, for the horses who train and race over it consistently. That's because they develop the necessary stamina over time to handle it. The problem is when horses arrive from dirt tracks and are not used to the increased fatigue that they will experience.

The rubber's deadening (absortion) effect on concussion combined with its natural bounce would be a plausible reason for keeping horses sound.

I agree also, the problem is when horses arrive from dirt tracks and are not used to the increased fatigue that they will experience. If the 'dirt" horse is kept in training and competition on the AWS the horse, more than likely, will return to its previous "dirt" form.

Thanks for the discussion and insights.

[Humph]

This question long puzzled me until I studied the traction characteristics of the 3 surfaces. Grass, the truly natural surface that horses evolved to run on, gives good traction and energy return to the horses’ hooves. This allows the late closers to get a good hold for their late powerful kicks.

All-weather tracks, despite the criticism of being “unnatural” actually duplicate the traction and energy returns characteristics of grass tracks and, therefore have similar properties.

Dirt tracks, on the other hand, though widely considered more “natural”, actually bear little resemblance to the native soil they replace. Their high sand content cause a lot of slippage and poor energy return. They favor horses who have built early leads by the pace call, which typically are when the race is already 2/3 to 3/4 run, leaving little time for the closers to catch the front runners on the poor traction surfaces.
Horses with short quick choppy action tend to do better on dirt tracks while long-striding horses prefer grass and all-weather tracks whose better traction compliments their long powerful strides.



Bob

There is an AW surface - Fibresand - in use at Southwell racetrack in England which doesn't favour closers at all.

If you ever get the chance to bet a horse there and your selection isn't on the lead , or within a couple of lengths of it, turning into the lane, you can safely tear your ticket up.

The track must be a dream for players who bet "in-running" on the betting exchanges over there.

[gm10]

There is an AW surface - Fibresand - in use at Southwell racetrack in England which doesn't favour closers at all.

If you ever get the chance to bet a horse there and your selection isn't on the lead , or within a couple of lengths of it, turning into the lane, you can safely tear your ticket up.

The track must be a dream for players who bet "in-running" on the betting exchanges over there.

Southwell is the only all-weather track that I dislike. It's indeed speed-favouring.

Not sure about the in-running betting ... you've got a bunch of bettors who specialize in this, and in my experience they are not a group you should try to compete with unless you're absolutely ready for it!!

Betfair used to offer in-running betting on American racing, too. That was fun, but it got cancelled because the satellite pictures are delayed by 5 seconds (or similar), and the people in the US/Canada had an unfair advantage (contrary to popular opinion, it is quite easy to use Betfair in the US - the only tricky part is opening an account).

[Light]

I wish horseracing was as simple as betting the closer on an artificial surface or Turf. Keep dreaming. Look at GG yesterday.

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/instant_pdf.cgi?type=inc&country=USA&track=GG&date=2009-11-21&race=0

R1 Turf winner w-w
R2 Dirt winner sat 3rd within 1/2 length of pace setters
R3 Dirt Closer
R4 Dirt Winner sat 4th within 3lengths of leader
R5 Dirt Essentially w-w
R6 Dirt Winner sar 2nd within 2 lengths of leader
R7 Dirt Winner w-w
R8 Dirt Winner sat midpack within 3 lengths of leader
R9 Dirt Essentially w-w


Four races won wire to wire. One winner within a half a length at all times. Three within 3 lengths of leader and only 1 real closer,6 1/2 lengths back.

One closer does not make a closers bias. Like closers never prevailed on dirt. If anything GG's tapeta is favoring speed. Or you have to be close up. Naturally not every horse can go wire to wire so the stalkers inherit the lead in alot of cases,as opposed to truly closing.

I've seen this speed bias at SoCal, Kentucky and other artificial surface tracks as well. The track's energy absorption rate is still able to be manipulated by the grounds crew. Dont kid yourself. Just because its artificial dont assume its closer's heaven. Same for dirt,don't assume its a speedsters paradise. Just because people parrot eachother doesn't mean what they are squawking about is true.Look at the charts once in a while.

[Steve R]

I wish horseracing was as simple as betting the closer on an artificial surface or Turf. Keep dreaming. Look at GG yesterday.

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/instant_pdf.cgi?type=inc&country=USA&track=GG&date=2009-11-21&race=0

R1 Turf winner w-w
R2 Dirt winner sat 3rd within 1/2 length of pace setters
R3 Dirt Closer
R4 Dirt Winner sat 4th within 3lengths of leader
R5 Dirt Essentially w-w
R6 Dirt Winner sar 2nd within 2 lengths of leader
R7 Dirt Winner w-w
R8 Dirt Winner sat midpack within 3 lengths of leader
R9 Dirt Essentially w-w


Four races won wire to wire. One winner within a half a length at all times. Three within 3 lengths of leader and only 1 real closer,6 1/2 lengths back.

One closer does not make a closers bias. Like closers never prevailed on dirt. If anything GG's tapeta is favoring speed. Or you have to be close up. Naturally not every horse can go wire to wire so the stalkers inherit the lead in alot of cases,as opposed to truly closing.

I've seen this speed bias at SoCal, Kentucky and other artificial surface tracks as well. The track's energy absorption rate is still able to be manipulated by the grounds crew. Dont kid yourself. Just because its artificial dont assume its closer's heaven. Same for dirt,don't assume its a speedsters paradise. Just because people parrot eachother doesn't mean what they are squawking about is true.Look at the charts once in a while.
Anecdotal examples are not a substitute for comprehensive data. The preferred running style of winners is determined over many races on many days. Golden Gate and Presque Isle, both of which use a Tapeta surface, are unlike the AWSs found in SoCal, at least at sprint distances. These are the Winning Move Factors from Cynthia Publishing that capture the running style of winning horses at different tracks at 6f and 9f (or 8 1/2f if 9f data is insufficient) on the main track (grouped by dirt then AWS).

Aqu: 138,100
Bel: 92,71
CD: 131,57
FG: 86,34
GP: 178,46
LRL: 98,89
MED: 176,111
MTH: 188,94
OP: 107,58
SAR: 130,63

AP: 77,43
DMR: 59,57
GG: 104, 46
HOL: 69,20
Kee: 71,10
PID: 108, 33
SA: 40,42
WO: 76,33

[Light]

Anecdotal examples are not a substitute for comprehensive data.

How about real life examples happening NOW. Yeah I was making a killing when GGF first opened betting closers,but news flash,that's the past.

Today the first 2 races at Hol so far had a w-w winner and a very close to the pace winner. Yesterday saw 3 w-w at Hol. You want to believe speed is dead on these surfaces,do so at your own risk.

[Tom]

Like any track, if you keep a profile, you will know how it is playing.
A model might tell you something else - are the best sustained horses winning from up close?

[Valuist]

Right now, Hawthorne is as closer friendly and outside as any all weather surface.....but it least its real dirt.

[bisket]

I wish horseracing was as simple as betting the closer on an artificial surface or Turf. Keep dreaming. Look at GG yesterday.

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/instant_pdf.cgi?type=inc&country=USA&track=GG&date=2009-11-21&race=0

R1 Turf winner w-w
R2 Dirt winner sat 3rd within 1/2 length of pace setters
R3 Dirt Closer
R4 Dirt Winner sat 4th within 3lengths of leader
R5 Dirt Essentially w-w
R6 Dirt Winner sar 2nd within 2 lengths of leader
R7 Dirt Winner w-w
R8 Dirt Winner sat midpack within 3 lengths of leader
R9 Dirt Essentially w-w


Four races won wire to wire. One winner within a half a length at all times. Three within 3 lengths of leader and only 1 real closer,6 1/2 lengths back.

One closer does not make a closers bias. Like closers never prevailed on dirt. If anything GG's tapeta is favoring speed. Or you have to be close up. Naturally not every horse can go wire to wire so the stalkers inherit the lead in alot of cases,as opposed to truly closing.

I've seen this speed bias at SoCal, Kentucky and other artificial surface tracks as well. The track's energy absorption rate is still able to be manipulated by the grounds crew. Dont kid yourself. Just because its artificial dont assume its closer's heaven. Same for dirt,don't assume its a speedsters paradise. Just because people parrot eachother doesn't mean what they are squawking about is true.Look at the charts once in a while.
poly plays fair at distances of 7 furs and under; 1 mile is kind of up in the air. its the routes 1 1/16 and longer where the late running bias comes in. i think this difference is what has thrown handicappers for a loop as far as poly is concerned. it allows the tracks to throw out numbers to the affect that there isn't a bias because the majority of races are sprints. don't be fooled. bet the routes entirely different than sprints, and you'll find yourself on winners much more frequently. :ThmbUp:

[Valuist]

poly plays fair at distances of 7 furs and under; 1 mile is kind of up in the air. its the routes 1 1/16 and longer where the late running bias comes in. i think this difference is what has thrown handicappers for a loop as far as poly is concerned. it allows the tracks to throw out numbers to the affect that there isn't a bias because the majority of races are sprints. don't be fooled. bet the routes entirely different than sprints, and you'll find yourself on winners much more frequently. :ThmbUp:

Speed is definitely NOT good at 7f on synthetic. Actually its not that great on real dirt either at 7f.

[Stillriledup]

Kickback. The less kickback, the more of a shot closers have.

[bisket]

Speed is definitely NOT good at 7f on synthetic. Actually its not that great on real dirt either at 7f.
i think your taking what i'm saying in the wrong manner. what i'm trying to say is if they don't go real fast in the opening 1/2 mile pacesetters or the chasers of the pacesetter can and will hold on in the stretch in races 7firs and under. in routes on poly this isn't neccessarily true. the pacesetters and chasers can go slow early, but thats not gonna help them as much in the final 1/4 mile like in the sprints. poly plays fair in the sprints, but it does have a definate bias to deep closers and closers in routes.

[Cratos]

Bob:

Not really sure that answering this question has any real relevance to handicapping or any usefulness at all for that matter. But since you have attempted to tackle it, I think your anlysis of energy return is incorrect.

Harder surfaces return more energy to the horse and deeper tracks return less. The synths mimic grass as deeper racing surfaces which return less energy to the animal. This is why hard dirt tracks, such as frozen ones produce the fastest times of all and are particularly good for front runners who are able to extend their speed farther due to a lower coefficient of friction. (One mitigating factor here is certain forms of lameness, particularly foot lameness which can cause poor performance due to pain produced by concussion with a harder surface). The word "traction" as you use it is associated with a larger coefficient of friction and hence less energy return. "Slippage" is not much of a factor on dirt surfaces except on certain types of sloppy or muddy tracks, but this can be corrected by shoeing.

Furthermore, there is no reason why greater traction should favor closing types except that it is tiring to all horses. Remember, these powerful late kicks of closers that you refer to are generally at a much lower rate of speed than that accomplished by the speed horses early in the race. Therefore, if traction were beneficial to greater speed, it would favor the horses that possess the greatest amount of speed.

Generally speaking, a deeper surface should afford a greater cushion so as to lower concussion and hence prevent certain types of lamenesses. This is the theory of the benefit of synths for racing horses. In practice, however, racing over deeper surfaces has lameness risks of its own. That's because such tracks cause greater fatigue and fatigue is an important factor in lameness for two reasons: First because fatigued tendons and ligaments lose their elasticity and this loss leads to more frequent tearing. Second, fatigued animals lose their proper stride action which can cause their legs to be put down in awkward positions or angles. For these reasons, as we have found out, surfaces with a greater cushion are no panacea for eliminating lameness. On the other hand, the types of lameness caused by fatigue as opposed to those caused by concussion will tend to result more in ligament and tendon lameness and less in shattered bone. However, a catastrophic tear in a tendon or ligament can lead to a secondary fracturing of a bone or joint.

IMO, stride length may prove to be a weak predictor of success on one surface or the other. In theory, a longer stride results in less frequent contact with the energy-sapping surface and therefore could favor horses racing on synths. But other variables such as stamina, lamenesses, hoof angle at point of contact, etc. will frequently mitigate this general proposition.

Bobphilo is essentially correct in his post and much of his post can be validated by the work done by George Pratt, an MIT professor emeritus of electrical engineering and computer science who has studied this subject for many years.

Also, hard tracks don’t return more energy(that would be impossible because of the law of kinetic energy); what they do is that they don’t absorb as much energy because of the quicker reaction as the horse’s hooves make contact with the surface. However this reaction typically caused accelerated “work” by the horse which might lead to soreness.

[twindouble]

I have no use for long term stats or short term. Call me crazy but I'm more interested in the races in hand, you know the ones I think are playable with value. How I see the race be it speed, stalker, closer or deep closer rests on my opinion of the race. That may include a combination of the above or just two or three, depending on the type of wager that I think will produce a good payoff. Not stats that have no opinion or influence on those particular races. The fact that I have picked 3 consecutive races where speed won the race I'm not hot to trot thinking there's a speed bias because the next race on my menu I could very well be thinking closer's have the advantage. When horses show speed above my expectations, (fractions), providing they won with reasonable ease, not struggling to get home being vigorously whipped ( driving.) Then I'll consider a bias exists.

[Show Me the Wire]

I think a strong case for speed bias is made, especially when a horse struggles home on the front-end the closers don't have any impact on the race after the 1/16th pole..

[gm10]

poly plays fair at distances of 7 furs and under; 1 mile is kind of up in the air. its the routes 1 1/16 and longer where the late running bias comes in. i think this difference is what has thrown handicappers for a loop as far as poly is concerned. it allows the tracks to throw out numbers to the affect that there isn't a bias because the majority of races are sprints. don't be fooled. bet the routes entirely different than sprints, and you'll find yourself on winners much more frequently. :ThmbUp:

It all depends on your definition of fair (which is probably different than mine).
I don't really agree with your generalization for all synthetic race tracks either. There are more than subtle difference between them.

[markgoldie]

Bobphilo is essentially correct in his post and much of his post can be validated by the work done by George Pratt, an MIT professor emeritus of electrical engineering and computer science who has studied this subject for many years.

Also, hard tracks don’t return more energy(that would be impossible because of the law of kinetic energy); what they do is that they don’t absorb as much energy because of the quicker reaction as the horse’s hooves make contact with the surface. However this reaction typically caused accelerated “work” by the horse which might lead to soreness.
Correct. I used Bob's term in which the word "return" was meant as "taking less."