They will probably do the same thing the regular cal shippers do.....Get drilled

I don't see any rhyme or reason in the winners whatsoever. Unfortunately, pace handicapping on this stuff now belongs on the musty shelf with the "Slide-o-Matic" and the other crap they sell in the back of the DRF.

You don't think jockeys will learn to ride it in time? At the end of the Keeneland meet it seemed like they figured out that 24/48/1:12 were the magic fractions to win from the front and we actually had some wire jobs. The problem was they went through that awful stretch in the middle of the meet where they thought slowing it down to 1:15 or worse would be the best way to win on the front and that didn't work at all on the surface, it just turned it into a turf race.

Just so I'm clear, are the individuals complaining in this thread anti-synthetic surface (all of them), or just anti-Polytrack (in the form that it has taken at Keeneland and started at Del Mar)? My sense is that has not been that much negative reaction about the manner in which races have been run at either Arlington or the Cushion Track at Hollywood.

Also, I'd like to raise another point. In another thread (on "Drug Free Racing"), DrugS contended that there is an over-emphasis on speed-oriented pedigrees in the breed today, and that speed biased tracks carried these otherwise inferior horses farther than they would otherwise be able to do so. If "artificial" racing surfaces tend to negate the built-in speed bias otherwise prevalent on most conventional dirt surfaces, won't that work to the benefit of the breed in the long run?

..priceless

This is an excellent point! If these infirm speed horses start to lose more races, the breeding orientation toward speed will change. This can only result in more durable stock. With this idea in mind I am now looking upon these artificial surfaces in a more positive light. Maybe these surfaces will really become the salvation of racing that their supporters claim. Albeit for an entirely different reason!

It's not just speed that is all the rage, but quick developers.

Bingo.

To me, there is much ado about little regarding artificial surfaces. Hundreds of races are being run over them, quite successfully, and most quite predictably.

what is interesting to me would be to see if poly actually is safer that dirt. does anyone know the real world data for injuries over poly vs dirt?

The only real knock I've read anywhere is in an article in the Thoroughbred Times about the challenge of shoeing for the poly. They said that horses don't push off in the same manner as on conventional dirt and turf and that is causing soreness in the backend or backs of some horses.

Have not seen any of the races from Delmar yet...but just wanted to say that this is damn good discussion/thread...Riot you state your views very eloquently

All this thread is missing is oracle and eurobounce.

Exactly.

Really!!?? come on now.

i took a look at the first two days and there have been 12 poly races, half of them were won by horses with odds of 5/2 or less. Do you seriously not see any reason for those horses? Someone did.

Looking back at the bomb that paid $133 yesterday, I can see why that horse could easily be construed as very live.

Yes, because drugs help carry fragile made speed horses...much more than they do your typical endurance horses with strong constitutions.

The breeders can only breed for what wins races in this modern environment.

Horses have raced on natural dirt surfaces in America all throughout the 1900's.

The only reason it's come to where people think we need polytrack racing, and that horses can't stand up to rigors of racing over dirt, is because of the compounded negative effect drugs (legal and illegal) have had on the breed.

You, and a few others in this thread need to develop better reading comprehension skills.


I didn't compare the splits on that track to any other track...I compared it with the splits in other route races throughout the day.

I'm seriously done with this.

I'm not going to keep explaining this over and over to people who don't bother to finish reading.

How come you can say that without getting crucified here?:D

What conclusion did you draw from your pace analysis of those races?

You said the races were ugly, I'm curious what that means. I'm being honest when I say that to me, it seems that the races are being called ugly only because your traditonal pace analysis methods do not shed any light on the outcome, that they are the wrong tool. I don't know why that makes the races ugly, it might mean that a different tool is required. no?

once he's said the same thing 412 times, we'll lay into him too.

There is alot of published scientific information relating type of injuries sustained to track surface characteristics (the basis for the development of artificial surfaces, which are constructed to eliminate undesireable characteristics and maintain desired characteristics). Look in PubMed or google, "thoroughbred" and "fracture".

There is no one published study on "Polytrack vs dirt". Many tracks don't even officially track injuries. CA does have an injury reporting system.

Just this year, Dr. Mary Scollay has started a national injury reporting system, and alot of tracks have signed up to participate (search in BloodHorse for the article from May, I think, of this year?).

This will provide the detailed information needed to accurately cross-compare many tracks (turf, dirt, synthetic) regarding frequency of injury occurence at a particular track, type of injuries, types of injuries associated with different working surfaces, etc. I wish Steve would have Dr. Scollay as a guest on ATR.

I'm at the computer, but don't have the time now to search it out right now - does anybody have the stats as published in the trade mags regarding Keeneland, Turfway, Arlington? Times/racing styles for their last dirt year vs. first poly year?

by my count we're at 405 so it won't be long now.

I think its you who need to brush up on your reading skills.. What I said was that you were deciding what fractions were slow or not by comparing with those fractions run on a dirt track. You said 47 and change was genuine and 48 change would have been a once in lifetime set up on a dirt track. Who cares what 48 change would mean on a dirt track in this case?

47 change for the 10k claimers was not a "genuine" fraction as you said but in fact lighning fast compared to others on the day (and also the sprints from Day 1) and the horse who was second through those lightening splits was not beaten all that far.

The 2nd race the pace "very comfortable fractions of 48 for the half mile."
Now if that had been a dirt race as you admit it would have been disheartening to see that easly leader lose but this is not dirt and 48 change seems like a farily swift pace compared to other routes on the day. Spanish Bandit who was that pace setter had faded just ad badly on her turf race prior and had faield to last vs much weaker at Pleasanton. Is it a suprise that after moderate (maybe even fast fractions) that he faded yesterday? You could argue that he held on much better today than in either of his prior routes


PS before this arguement gets too heated you should know that you know me from another place

For starters, the 10K claiming race for fillies, the first route race run over Del Mar's polytrack was the race that went 47 1/5ths to the half.

After the second route race had been run, it was quickly appearent to everyone that horses can't use any of their speed early on in route races.

The conclusions are obvious. You can't use your horse early, and you have to make one-run.

Basically, these races can't be run like true horse races. Pace doesn't have anything to do with it. Horses are reserved early on in turf races, but they can showcase exciting acceleration through the late stages.

These races are very ugly to watch, only to someone who actually loves watching traditional horse racing.

If you look at yesterdays feature race, a field of very good older males in a 75K ALW race struggled through 8.5 furlongs in 1:47. Basically, horses can't use their exciting natural abilities, and they just have to try and be as reserved as possible for as long as possible, and simply try to be the least tired horse in the race, in order to win.

I don't have a problem with polytrack from a handicappres prospective, however, from a racing fans prospective....it makes horse racing look boring unwatchable.

Having strong feelings or heated debate about a particular subject doesn't imply one has those feelings towards the poster debating one side of the issue at all - it just means people hold very strong opinons, and thus it's a subject important to many.

If we all thought alike, we wouldn't have pari-mutual betting ;)

I have great respect for the people here who don't like synthetic surfaces, and I like hearing why they feel that way. Knowing the pluses and minuses benefits us all as handicappers.

What other board do I know you from?

You do realize that that race was THE FIRST ROUTE RACE run over Del Mar's polytrack? Right?

If you look at the way my post was structured, it was CLEARLY done so to show that jockeys and trainers had made a correction from seeing what happened in the first two races.

No **** 47 1/5, for 10K claiming fillies, is fast compared to 50 3/5ths for 75K older males in an allowance race.

Once again, you do realize that ZERO route races over the Del Mar polytrack had been run at the time of the 47 1/5th fraction??

I called it a truly run race because the riders rode the race as though they'd ride the race normally over dirt.

It's remarkable that I need to keep explaining something like this.

Even if the jockeys rode that first race way too fast early the pace setter hung on at least as well as he had done in his prior races if not better. Would that horse have hung on as well in a 46 change on the drit?
The same is true of the pace setter in the second race.

Apart from the 7th where the splits very exceptionally slow (and the best horses finished well) pace setters ran ok...

I just dont see that these races look all that ugly if you take away the clock. The times are slower but the sprints have looked fair to me and the routes maybe edging closers but that isnt all that much different from a track like Belmont right?

So if I don't find these races ugly, are you implying that I must not love traditional horse racing?

All I see is the lack of a true speed bias to the same extent that most dirt tracks exhibit. For me there is nothing more boring than seeing a horse zip to the lead on a speed biased track and watching them run around the track in a futile attempt to catch the E horse. I don't know why this is the only thing considered "real" racing.

"and they just have to try and be as reserved as possible for as long as possible, and simply try to be the least tired horse in the race, in order to win"
What is the other approach? Don't dirt races also end up basically with the least tired horse winning the race?

gun the horse balls out and count on the bias against closers to get you across the wire first? this is what I see happening on many dirt tracks.

Arlington Polytrack stats
 

This is from a handicapping bloggers website, so I can't verify accuracy (looking for stuff published by the track to compare):

Winning Margins on the Arlington Polytrack (May 4 - June 24)
½ length or less 77/267 = 29 percent
¾ to 2 lengths 92/267 = 34 percent
2 ¼ to 4 lengths 63/267 = 24 percent
4 ¼ or more lengths 35/267 = 13 percent

Winner's Odds on the Arlington Polytrack (May 4 - June 24)
Post-time favorites 68/267 = 25 percent
3-1 or less 118/267 = 44 percent
7-2 to 9-1 98/267 = 37 percent
10-1 and up 51/267 = 19 percent

Arlington's Average Exotic Wager Payoffs (May 4 - June 24)
$2 Daily Double -- $114
$2 Exacta -- $109
$1 Trifecta -- $409
$1 Superfecta -- $3,388
$1 Pick 3 -- $562
$1 Pick 4 -- $3,160

Arlington's 2006 average winning payoff in their main track races was $11.24, compared to $15.80 this year on Polytrack.

Arlington's Average Field Size Comparison
'07 Polytrack all -- 8.67 horses per race (through June 27)
'06 Main Track all -- 7.14
'07 Polytrack sprints -- 8.96
'06 Main track sprints - 7.31
'07 Polytrack routes -- 8.21
'06 Races Main track routes -- 6.84

I agree with Drugs, this stuff is just ugly to watch, not only are the races not being truely run alot of the races end up with 3 or 4 races at the wire which we all know is not a good sign of a great performance but of mediocirty.

The hollywood cushion track is light years better to watch and wager then del mar.

The stuff is all garbage.

The reason you have such a big difference in dirt routes and poly routes is because the slow grass horses can transition to poly and run route races.

When I look at the list of what most people consider the greatest races of all time or best races they have seen in person I see a list of races that stand because of how the pace unfolds...an exciting closing finish...a speed horse that keeps pouring it on. Perhaps the track will adjust itself though and the jockeys won't be riding it in such a hesitant manner. I did like what I was seeing at Hollywood better though.

There may be something to that. I will say that i can recall no great races, nothing memorable so far on poly. The bluegrass was entirely forgetable. While i like it for the day to day races, I still want to see the great races, thrilling races, like we had in the TC races this year.

They should have a stronger bottom and if they take to the dirt they will be hard to beat.

Mike would say if it anit dirt it aint racing and that all I have to say about that.

The winners appear to be cutting back in distance and have a stronger foundation. Understand that these horses have not been training over this track and it is different that Cushion track at Hollywood Park. The trainers that stayed at Santa Anita didn't do well at all when they raced at Hollywood and I expect the same with the change to Poly track at Del Mar. I will start looking for form reversals from second time out horses at Del Mar plus the cut back in distance and just add the class = winners.

Del Mar Is Still Feeding Us Chalk, Chalk And Chalk. Exactas Are Small, But Money Is Made On The End. Jumps From 10 Bucks To 100+ And More On The Super. You Dont Need To Handicap, Just Circle Morning Lines From The Program And Go From There. Then Add Bombs On The End. You Will Make Money In The Long Run.

Did anybody else hear Hammer's and Mig's comments on poly on Steve's show today? Maybe Steve can recap their comments.

drugs, i don't think these horses are coming back tired. the races look ugly, and look like everybody is tiring, and the times look like every horse is tired, but the trainers are saying that their horses aren't coming out of these races as tired as they came out of the dirt races. the times are slower, but i bet it has more to do with footing than being tired. the track maintenance will work this out, as they did at hollywood, and the times will quicken. hollywood, albeit a different surface, started playing very well this spring. i thought just like "honest dirt", not like a super highway that is meant to give every 3yo optional claimer a chance to run 108 and change.