Breeders Cup Betting
Daily Racing Form
Equibase
Equidaily
Horse Race Insider
Horses, Handicapping and Hijinks
NTRA
Thoroughbred Times
Form Blog
Not to the Swift
Paulick Report
RacehorseGirl
Railbird
West Points
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
08 October 2008
TLF Full BC Coverage to Return...
... in 2010.
Churchill Downs (which has a dirt and turf course) will be hosting the Breeders' Cup that year, which means that I'll be able to focus on all divisions of the event. Unfortunately, it also means that I'll have to wait for over a year, since Santa Anita (artificial and turf courses) has it for another year.
For a while now, I've been wanting to say something about the decision to hold what many consider to be the year's premiere racing event on a foreign surface. And I do mean foreign. If I've read articles correctly, Santa Anita's (too) recently revamped surface is actually only about 95% Pro-Ride. I'm assuming that the rest is a mystery material consisting of leftover Cushion Track and ... well, I'm not sure that I want to know.
I've spent the last half hour or so typing and deleting what I've written over and over again, trying to put my thoughts into words. It may be wiser for me to just say this:
It isn't going to be a level playing field.
Big Brown is training over dirt and turf. Curlin is training over Pro-Ride. Others are training over Polytrack, Tapeta and Cushion Track. Some have raced over the surface before. Others haven't, for one reason or another. You get the idea.
I could be wrong about this, and I would hope I am ... but I don't think that the results are necessarily going to be determined by talent. Instead, I have a funny feeling they'll be determined by whether or not a horse takes to the surface*.
The horse who is truly the best sprinter may break from the gate, realize that this isn't dirt, and go "oh, hell no". The winner of this year's "not-turf Mile" may just prefer Pro-Ride to dirt or Polytrack. Curlin may steal the show simply because he's been able to get used to the surface (okay, I somehow doubt this, but bear with me). I think the Distaff is the only division that will have a "real" result.
Until every horse running in the Breeders' Cup is able to train and race over an all-weather surface, the event should be held on a surface that everyone has access to. Only nine racetracks offer races over the surface - four are in California and two are in Kentucky (Pennsylvania, Ontario and Illinois have the rest).
Unless the stars align properly, I just can't see this turning out honest results. Horses who have been able to race over the surface (training and racing are not the same) and have shown they excel on it hold the advantage. Any number of reasons might prevent a competitor from getting in a race over a synthetic surface (Invasor spiked a fever in 2006 - what if that had been his "test race" over fake dirt?)
Whether we like it or not, America has now become a land of three (actually, seven: dirt, turf, Polytrack, Cushion Track, Tapeta, and Pro-Ride) surfaces, each of which is unique. I can't help but think that to try to force three different surfaces onto two is the best way of going about it. Obviously, the issue will be there when Churchill Downs takes over hosting duties, but the fact is that right now, dirt is everywhere and has been around forever.
Eventually, all-weather surfaces could take over and replace dirt. Right now, however, they're still very much experimental and widespread. Is it right to hold "World Championship races" over them at such an early stage in their evolution?
And I haven't even mentioned the fact that a number of horses who belong in these races( and the world wants to see) are choosing to skip this year and next as a result of the surface. Horses who we will likely never get to see on this great a stage, as many will have hit the breeding shed by 2010.
... in 2010.
Churchill Downs (which has a dirt and turf course) will be hosting the Breeders' Cup that year, which means that I'll be able to focus on all divisions of the event. Unfortunately, it also means that I'll have to wait for over a year, since Santa Anita (artificial and turf courses) has it for another year.
For a while now, I've been wanting to say something about the decision to hold what many consider to be the year's premiere racing event on a foreign surface. And I do mean foreign. If I've read articles correctly, Santa Anita's (too) recently revamped surface is actually only about 95% Pro-Ride. I'm assuming that the rest is a mystery material consisting of leftover Cushion Track and ... well, I'm not sure that I want to know.
I've spent the last half hour or so typing and deleting what I've written over and over again, trying to put my thoughts into words. It may be wiser for me to just say this:
It isn't going to be a level playing field.
Big Brown is training over dirt and turf. Curlin is training over Pro-Ride. Others are training over Polytrack, Tapeta and Cushion Track. Some have raced over the surface before. Others haven't, for one reason or another. You get the idea.
I could be wrong about this, and I would hope I am ... but I don't think that the results are necessarily going to be determined by talent. Instead, I have a funny feeling they'll be determined by whether or not a horse takes to the surface*.
The horse who is truly the best sprinter may break from the gate, realize that this isn't dirt, and go "oh, hell no". The winner of this year's "not-turf Mile" may just prefer Pro-Ride to dirt or Polytrack. Curlin may steal the show simply because he's been able to get used to the surface (okay, I somehow doubt this, but bear with me). I think the Distaff is the only division that will have a "real" result.
Until every horse running in the Breeders' Cup is able to train and race over an all-weather surface, the event should be held on a surface that everyone has access to. Only nine racetracks offer races over the surface - four are in California and two are in Kentucky (Pennsylvania, Ontario and Illinois have the rest).
Unless the stars align properly, I just can't see this turning out honest results. Horses who have been able to race over the surface (training and racing are not the same) and have shown they excel on it hold the advantage. Any number of reasons might prevent a competitor from getting in a race over a synthetic surface (Invasor spiked a fever in 2006 - what if that had been his "test race" over fake dirt?)
Whether we like it or not, America has now become a land of three (actually, seven: dirt, turf, Polytrack, Cushion Track, Tapeta, and Pro-Ride) surfaces, each of which is unique. I can't help but think that to try to force three different surfaces onto two is the best way of going about it. Obviously, the issue will be there when Churchill Downs takes over hosting duties, but the fact is that right now, dirt is everywhere and has been around forever.
Eventually, all-weather surfaces could take over and replace dirt. Right now, however, they're still very much experimental and widespread. Is it right to hold "World Championship races" over them at such an early stage in their evolution?
And I haven't even mentioned the fact that a number of horses who belong in these races( and the world wants to see) are choosing to skip this year and next as a result of the surface. Horses who we will likely never get to see on this great a stage, as many will have hit the breeding shed by 2010.
< < Home
Post a Comment