I’ll start with issues and opinions I find most compelling at the moment. However, the game plan is to be eclectic and wide ranging. Racing is the main thrust but my interests stretch beyond that, as I’m sure yours do, too. If this is to be lasting and enjoyable for both of us, I need to hear from you on your likes and dislikes, comments and suggestions. If you want to take a shot, that’s OK, too.
Here goes.
I have the same regard for synthetic race tracks as I do for synthetic breasts. They might look real but you know they’re not. Some might not mind either but I suspect most prefer the real thing. Keeneland used to be on my bucket list. Now it’s on my spit list.
Synthetics are fine for training purposes. Some horses get legged up on wood chips. But there are no graded races on wood chips.
Steve Crist reported in the Daily Racing Form that at least one major track with a synthetic surface is considering a return to the real thing. Process of elimination suggests Arlington or Del Mar. The only other major tracks with synthetics are Keeneland, which has a vested interest in the stuff, and Hollywood Park, whose racing future is almost day to day.
Hopefully this is a swing of the pendulum like the one when stadiums jumped on the artificial grass bandwagon only to see many jump off after a few years of sky-high hops and injury-shortened careers. Racing also is learning fake dirt could be substituting one set of problems for another.
If ever there was an example of fixing something that wasn’t broken, the new Kentucky Derby points system is it. The rationale for the change, according to Churchill Downs CEO Robert Evans, is “to create new fans for horse racing.” Exactly how a series of three dozen races, with varying complex rewards, is fan friendly defies logic. Try explaining to a casual fan why the Sam F. Davis at Tampa Bay Downs, the Grey Stakes in Canada and the Southwest Stakes at Oaklawn are on the same points level as the Breeders’ Cup Juvenile. Or that a mile turf race in England gets points but the Illinois Derby does not.
Anyone want to bet that the next time the Breeders’ Cup is at Churchill, the Juvenile will get a points bump.
Evans said the new system will ensure the finest group of 3-year-olds will earn places in the starting gate. Does anyone recall a serious contender being excluded under the old system?
Some tweaks were necessary. That the first two finishers in the slots-swollen Delta Downs Jackpot, contested on a bull ring, were assured a berth in the Kentucky Derby was an aberration. This could have been resolved by simply excluding any race run on a track with a circumference of less than one mile.
Current thinking is it will take about 40 points to crack the Derby field. This could be conservative. Seven major final preps (the Florida, Santa Anita, Arkansas and Louisiana Derbys, the Wood Memorial, Blue Grass and, in another misguided international goodwill gesture, the United Arab Emirates Derby) will award 100 points to the winner and 40 points to second. Theoretically this could produce 14 of the 20 starters, although injuries and good sense will likely reduce that number. In fact, the fourth-place finisher in any of these races will earn as many points as Shanghai Bobby did for winning the BC Juvenile.
Another eight stakes, most prelims for their track’s major prep, will bestow 50 points to the winner. So if I had a Derby horse, I wouldn’t consider 40 points to be safe.
There are upsides to the change, starting with the Delta Jackpot being cut down to size. Also, a sprinter like Trinniberg will not make the cut. On the other hand, there might never be another filly in the Run for the Roses, as races for distaffers will not earn Derby points. In the wake of the Eight Belles tragedy, this might have been a secret goal of Churchill.
To get back to racing being more fan friendly, there are means to this end that don’t require round tables or focus groups to analyze to death. Foremost, simulcasting is the backbone of the sport. Is it asking too much to avoid simultaneous races at major tracks?
It’s impossible to avoid this entirely with so many tracks operating. However, NYRA, Gulfstream and Santa Anita should never have races going on at the same time during the winter. Likewise, Churchill, Santa Anita/Hollywood and NYRA should avoid conflicts in the spring and fall.
Simple solution. The major circuits agree to a system where one runs on the hour and half-hour, another goes at 10 and 40 minutes after the hour and the third goes at 20 and 50 minutes after the hour. This would allow some wiggle room for inquiries. Other venues could decide where to fit into the grid for maximum advantage to their bottom lines.
Supposedly, a new system is on the verge of being introduced that will deal with this. It can’t arrive soon enough
25 Jan 2013 at 12:20 pm | #
Tom,
As the song said, 2 outta 3 ain’t bad. In this case we disagree on 2 of your 3 points.
1) I fail to grasp the virulent dislike some horseplayers have for synthetic tracks.
Are they different than dirt? Of course. Does that mean they are bad? Is vanilla ice cream bad if you prefer chocolate?
When grass was the original surface I’ll bet there were those who decried running a horse on those man-made, artificial dirt roads and tracks. And I’ll bet the outcry was even worse when turf racing began to expand in the US. After all, we ran on dirt and those wacky Euros were the grass guys.
The notion some have that synthetic tracks can’t be handicapped is disproven every day by bettors who actually prefer synth and do well at it.
If you, or other folks don’t like it, fine. Move on. But don’t impose your will on those who disagree with you. And there are many of the latter.
2) The previous system of selecting Derby winners was nuts. The notion that a sprint race for juveniles should count as much, or more, than a mid-spring three-year-old route was ludicrous.
Is Churchill’s replacement perfect? Obviously not. But it is a start toward sanity that needs some tweaking.
Asking what legitimate contender was excluded by the graded dollars system is misleading. Until recent years, when the 20-horse limit was imposed and owners began to catch Derby fever for horses that had no business being in the race, very few horses got excluded for any reason.
Over the last decade or so about 15 percent of Derby starters have emerged from the race so badly injured or gutted by their effort they were unable to recapture anything close to their pre-Derby form. Many of them were those aforementioned horses - sprinters, turf horses, etc - that had no business being in the race but qualified under the old system.
We should embrace the change and work at making it better.
25 Jan 2013 at 01:45 pm | #
Nick, to paraphrase, one out of two ain’t bad; you can prefer chocolate to vanilla but it’s totally permissable to hate the AW surfaces as a gambler. I know far more bettors, myself included, that for the most will not bet synths with the same confidence if at all.
The amount of kickback at Turfway Park, for instance, is a absolute disgrace on some days; check it out for a few days.
Agree with your take on the system change for Derby qualifiers. This game is so resistant to change that the knee jerk is to hate every new idea that comes down the stretch. I think ALL agree that the points system needs tweaking in some cases, entire rethinking in others. But I feel strongly they are finally on the correct path.
Is it me or is the new system already working in that after the Coach won with Oxbow, suddenly he is a buzz horse. Just not sure that would have happened if purse money were still the measure. The game, even the Derby, needs all the pub it can get.
25 Jan 2013 at 02:26 pm | #
TJ,
Great meal! Definitely food for thought.
Synthetics: Weren’t all of Dulahan’s wins not only on synthetics, but Polytrak in particular? In the absence of clear proof that synthetic is safer, shouldn’t we try and figure out what percentage of all horses perform at their best on it like Dulahan? So far, no-one with a data base has been willing to tell us what the average number of days until the next start is following a race on a specific surface for comparison between all three (differentiating between Polytrak and Tapeta, if possible).
Derby Eligibility: Definitely an improvement, but their treatment of the IL Derby is such a huge PR mistake. Why not look at horses that would have gotten in in previous years under the new system like Drosselmeyer?
Simulcasting conflicts: Proof that most industry management is as inept as it is arrogant. How can all the other more complicated problems be solved when they can’t/won’t solve this one. I thought I read that NYRA was starting to address this.
25 Jan 2013 at 03:22 pm | #
Lets learn to accept artificial. No reason to be scared of change.
25 Jan 2013 at 03:27 pm | #
Fixing simulcasting conflicts..... What makes one signal more appealing then another?
The majority of savvy bettors have done their homework the day before and are just ‘fine tuning’ and picking their spots during the races. On a Saturday, with over 10 tracks running during the same period, would you rather wager on and watch a full allowance field at Laurel or a 5 horse claiming race at Aqueduct? I know what Mr. Corrow’s answer would be. Back in the old days the major lament was that there was too much time between races, newcomers got bored. Now you can find a race every few minutes. Shouldn’t people be schooled to pick their spots and not bet just because it’s the next race?
Smaller tracks don’t want to run against New York and Gulfstream so they try to set their post times a few minutes ahead of them. Are people at a smaller track suppose to watch a race and then run to the window and bet just because Gulfstream is running a race ? And then there is Tampa Bay whose post times for turf races are just an estimate. There can be appealing races at every venue and it should be up to the individual what to watch and where to wager.
25 Jan 2013 at 08:08 pm | #
I agree with Nick Kling.
One thing I would add concerning synthetics is as follows:
On days where there is a downpour the night before or during the day even, most races are taken off the turf. This results in numerous scratches and small fields in races switched to the dirt.
On the other hand, places that have synthetic tracks don’t have that happen as most turf horses don’t mind running on the all-weather and aren’t scratched by their trainers. Fields remain large.
25 Jan 2013 at 10:29 pm | #
Nick,
You know the saying you can have your own opinion but you can’t have your own facts. There might be players who aren’t bothered by fake dirt but I would go all in that there aren’t more who prefer the fake stuff.
There was nothing wrong with “new” Coke. Some people liked it. Most didn’t. I’m willing to let the marketplace decide on synthetic vs real.
I don’t get how limiting the Derby field to 20 added to the number wanting to run. Twenty want to run because they can, then they can tell friends they had a Derby horse.
I said the Derby qualifying could use some tweaking. I just don’t agree with how it was done. How about this. What is now the seven 100-point races (minus the UAE Derby, if I had a say) become win and you’re in, along with the BC Juvenile. The other spots go the biggest money-winners at graded races of a mile or more.
26 Jan 2013 at 05:51 am | #
I would wager on a bunch of platers running on gravel, blacktop, or ice if I were confident that my method of selecting a plug worked. My dislike for artificial turf is based on my inability to pick winners on that surface; the same goes for my group of sharpies.
You like races run on an artificial surface, then bet ‘em. I’ll stick with dirt and turf, as I have enough difficulty picking winners on these surfaces.
26 Jan 2013 at 07:18 am | #
Tom,
I hope you read future comments more closely than you did mine this time.
I didn’t say there were more horseplayers that like artificial surfaces, I said there were “many.”
As Mr. Pricci can assure you, I love a spirited debate. Usually it works better when both sides stick to facts and don’t distort what the other person said or wrote.
As yet, no one has addressed the fear which seems to grip those who are so offended by synthetic surfaces.
No one says you have to like it, so why are you so afraid that other people do like it?
FYI: Keeneland’s dirt surface was the most biased major track in America. After the initial few years when its Polytrack had a distinct closer’s bias and chaotic results it has leveled off and is now as even as any track I follow. You could say much the same about Del Mar, which had real problems with Polytrack early but now seems able to manage it.
Maybe THAT’S the source of the fear. Could it be that some of those who hate synthetics haven’t figured it out? Could it be TOO challenging?
26 Jan 2013 at 07:39 am | #
Nick, Baby, with respect to your paragraph:
“Over the last decade or so about 15 percent of Derby starters have emerged from the race so badly injured or gutted by their effort they were unable to recapture anything close to their pre-Derby form. Many of them were those aforementioned horses - sprinters, turf horses, etc - that had no business being in the race but qualified under the old system.”
Don’t know what the answer is to the Derby Dilemma, but it seems to me that this new system may tend to improve getting better horses in the gate, but will probably force horses to run more frequently, thus causing even more injuries, no?
TTT
26 Jan 2013 at 07:49 am | #
With respect to Dullahan, there is not enough data to be able to clam that Dullahan preferred an artificial surface. More probably pure coincidence. Horses love to run. I know, I’ve had lengthy conversations with many of them. So far, they are unwilling to divulge whether it is easier on their legs or total persona. They have told me that they don’t like little men on their backs with sticks, or needles plunged into their necks. Does an artificial surface change the dynamic of the race? Most certainly. Just becuse a horse wins 3 times on an artificial surface and loses 3 times on dirt, does not mean they can’t run on dirt. The tote board explodes every day (thank God) based on people making these kinds of false assumptions. I’m all for changing the game for the better, but my primary focus would always be what is best for the horse, that has given me so much pleasure over the years.
TTT
26 Jan 2013 at 10:03 am | #
I used to love playing Keeneland when they had a dirt track. Mostly because I play pick 3’s and pick 4’s. I’d get some juicy odds on turf races. But, now I can’t pick my nose in races run the artificial crap. So, now I don’t focus my attention on studying Keeneland races. I’ll maybe look at the turf races and try to find a nice priced horse, but most of my wagering money goes elsewhere.
26 Jan 2013 at 03:29 pm | #
TTT,
To my less than expert eye, Dullahan’s Kentucky Derby stride looked as good as his synthetic stride, but 3 for 3 by an otherwise consistency-challenged colt can’t be a coincidence.
27 Jan 2013 at 09:13 am | #
If someone is asking for facts. Here are some. Keeneland’s handle hasn’t suffered the least bit from the installation of Polytrack.
If you don’t like it? Fine, to each their own, but don’t misrepresent that bettors are leaving Keeneland in droves. Because they aren’t.
http://www.keeneland.com/racing/keeneland-concludes-exceptional-meet-record-attendance-strong-gains-wagering
27 Jan 2013 at 09:15 am | #
Another article (facts) from the same year…
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/68949/keeneland-sets-attendance-handle-records
27 Jan 2013 at 10:31 am | #
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I see N.Y. Racing headed for big trouble.
27 Jan 2013 at 01:07 pm | #
I don’t think I said Keeneland handle is suffering, other than the few bucks I used to play but now don’t. Keeneland is a special case, a boutique meet of only 3 weeks. Same with Del Mar, although it’s a little longer.People plan special days out waiting for them all year. My problem with both, especially if they remain the exceptions is the form from those meets is next to useless when a real dirt meet starts.
27 Jan 2013 at 02:32 pm | #
Tom welcome....how are you enjoying your retirement?
27 Jan 2013 at 04:39 pm | #
As you can see, I am retired only from things I don’t have to do if I don’t feel like it. Otherwise, no more alarm clock and the ability to go to the track any day of the week is great.
31 Jan 2013 at 01:08 am | #
Tom:
Your argument against all-weather surfaces fails. While you do not state your reason for disliking all-weather surfaces, I do think that your bias against these surfaces is due to your lack of success in handicapping races of this type. Also, referring to all-weather surfaces ans kitty litter and comparing them to fake breast, as you know, is simply a waste of words and has no significance in the analysis of the issue you raise.
You do state that you “suspect most prefer the real thing”. I assume by “most” you mean bettors, and by the “real thing” you mean dirt racing surfaces. Regardless, I am unsure whether your “suspicions” as to the views of “most” people amount to fact. Every dirt track is composed of different material, and has its biases. So, if there exists a handicapping bias to the different all-weather tracks, then such bias is nothing out of the ordinary. Also, I consider the “real thing” to be grass, as horse are born on and have evolved to run on grass. (I also think “most” people in the world, if not in the U.S. would agree with me.) And, as the lower injury rate on grass is a fact, I submit that the “real thing” is grass not dirt.
The above soundness issue is an important component of the all-weather vs. dirt argument, which you ignore. While the evidence is still incomplete on this issue, there is substantial evidence that the breakdown rates are significantly lower on all-weather surfaces compared to dirt surfaces. You do mention that “synthetic surfaces are fine for training”. If they are fine for training, then why are they not fine for racing? Beyond the breakdown rate, I note that when the Breeders’ Cup was run on all-weather at Santa Anita the European participation - and hence field sizes and handle - in the non-grass races was significantly higher than in previous years. Please note the small fields at Santa Anita at the 2012 Breeders’ Cup.
While you (and me) are certainly entitled to our opinions, I simply find that you and most journalists present incomplete, one-sided, and hence, poor arguments to support your conclusions on the issues you speak of.
01 Feb 2013 at 11:17 am | #
You make quite a few assumptions. It isn’t lack of success that turns me off about fake dirt. I don’t get involved enough for that to be a factor. I’ll play if there is a synthetic race in the midst of a pick 3 or 4 with a couple of turf races.
I don’t play horses to make money. I try to, of course. But for me it’s the challenge of sorting through PPs and coming up with the winner. PPs are meaningless when considering anything other than other kitty litter races.You act as if I am the only one with this opinion. Bob Baffert is very outspoken on artificial surfaces and how it changes the game.But what does he know?
01 Feb 2013 at 08:18 pm | #
I don’t think I made any assumptions. In fact I do think your opinion is on lack of success betting synthetics because if you were having success betting those tracks, you would still do it. But, if your reason for not liking synthetics is not lack of success, then what is it? Why would you write an article and not say why synthetics are bad? In your response to my post you state “PPs are meaningless when considering anything other than other kitty litter races.” I am not certain of exactly what you are trying to convey in that sentence. But, I think you mean that, in your opinion, the PPs for all weather races are of no value to you as they are somehow unreliable as opposed to dirt PPs, which you consider reliable. If that is what you mean then, it logically follows that you have had less success handicapping all-weather races than dirt races, and that is why you don’t like to bet all-weather races. And, that is essentially what I stated in my post, so again I did not assume anything. Perhaps if you had made clear your reasons for disliking all-weather in your first publication, we would have avoided the confusion. There is nothing wrong with stating that you do not like all-weather surfaces because you find them too difficult to handicap.
Also, contrary to your assertion, I did not “act as if you were the only one with this opinion”. I never stated anything approaching that. Of course there are many persons who do not like handicapping all-weather races, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Rather, I simply stated that while you were against all-weather surfaces because you did not like to handicap them, you neglected to mention some of the benefits of all-weather. I also mentioned that every track has biases. I think it would only be fair to consider some of the benefits of all-weather, such as safety to horses and jockeys in your analysis as your handicapping preferences really are not that significant to the issue and are certainly not the only factor bearing on the issue.
Lastly, citing one example of a person who does not like all-weather surfaces - Baffert - doesn’t build your case much, if at all. He is a speed trainer, and therefore, his success rate on grass and dirt is far less than on than on dirt. His training is suited best to dirt tracks. So, of course he likes dirt, and he is entitled to his opinion, as are you and I. I never said you were not. I simply stated that your article was a poor discussion of the issue of dirt v. all-weather. Your opinion that kitty litter PPS are meaningless has virtually no bearing on the issue. In all fairness, maybe you did not care to address the dirt v. all-weather issue, rather you just wanted to state that you prefer not to bet all-weather races because you think the PPs are meaningless. Fine, nothing wrong with that. But, my response is still the same: there are other benefits to all-weather surfaces that far outweigh your perception - real or imagined - that the all-weather PPs are meaningless.
Moreover, there are ample dirt tracks out there for you and others that prefer betting on dirt races. So I can’t see why you care if some track owners, racing commissioners, trainers, owners, and bettors prefer all-weather surfaces. And, to suggest that any race run on all-weather should lose graded status is simply ridiculous.