Strong field shaping up for Woodbine Mile
 

The Usual QT
Victor's Cry
Crowded House
Riviera Cocktail
Court Vision
Straight Story
Zifzaf
Famous Name (Euro)
Grand Adventure
Smokey Fire
Signature Red

http://www.drf.com/news/californians...-woodbine-mile

NT

Always a good betting race it seems.

Wow, The Usual QT going 8 on turf?

What a strange experiment.

I know, imagine that. This will be a good test to see how he handles a potentially softer course.

It's a mile long---don't ya know.

Why did they change the name?

It use to be longer?

Lost Atto as a sponsor. Been the Woodbine Mile since '07.

I loved Atto.

This is such an easy cold punch number, Im not seeing the tough part.

Sigh.

Ok, lets hear it.

Great that Famous Name is making the trip.

Very, very nice horse.

Other Euros..

Redwood (Barry Hills is the trainer. He was just 2nd in the Prix de Deauville) is going to the Northern Dancer and Latin Love (David Wachman. Won her last race at the Curragh) to the Canadian Stakes.

The Natalma and the Summer for 2yo's are on Sat. then the Canadian, Northern Dancer and Woodbine Mile on Sun. I wish I were able to go to Toronto this weekend. Very serious racing up there this weekend.

Yep, the 2YO races should be nice, not sure if Roxy Gap is going in one of them. More Than Real, who was a very impressive debut winner for Chad Brown, has been working extremely well and I noticed on the nominations that she's in Todd Pletcher's barn now for Bobby Flay. I think she might be headed to the Natalma or potentially waiting for the Miss Grillo.

NT

Roxy Gap is Going in the Natalma

Worked in company with Street Chimes today. . .

I usually like the Euro's but Famous Name will not be one of my choices, didn't he just race weeks ago against Twice Over and Rip Van Winkle?

Yes, but the the turf was firm/yielding.

This is no joke, but you would think with the progression of various technological advances in human civilization, horseracing in NA still depends on a simplistic, soft, yielding, good and firm ratings for it's description of turf races.

Regardless I am happy a yielding turf course still yielded a time of 1:03 and change for a 5 1/2 furlong sprint for the past Spa meet. That's your good/yielding course for you. :rolleyes:

Last time I checked, rollseyes, 103 and change for a turf sprint, rollseyes, is pretty slow, rollseyes.

The Canadian Spaceship program has been scrubbed.The mere mention of one mile made it dizzy.



In its place,they are now buidling a pseudo universe in the vast,unpopulated bread basket area of Canada.

When completed;they will land Canadian Helicopters on the moon and Canadian Satellites ( giant jacks) will pierce the far reaches of Andromeda.





Should be fun.

For a simple minded person 1:03 may be considered slow for 5 1/2 furlongs. Let's just assume they ran the last 1/2 furlong in a more than respectable 6 seconds. Can you do the math and guess how fast they ran 5 f, still think that's slow?

Assuming your super sonic race over the yielding/firm turf went 103.3 and the last 1/16th was in 6 seconds, then the 5f was run in a putrid 57.3.

While 57.3 on dirt might be real nice, on most turf courses, that's crawling.

For instance, in the first race on the last day of Toga, 25k claimers went 55.2 and 101. In other words, your idea of yielding giving fast times is actually more than a full two seconds slower.

In the fourth race that day, a minor stakes, the 5f and final times were 54.4 and 100.4.

That's almost 3 full seconds faster than your blazing fast idea of what a yielding turf course is.

Are you really this stupid?

Bottom line here is, you said running 57 and change or 1:03 and change for 5 and 5 1/2 furlongs was slow as to indicate I can only speculate the course was a boggy wet mess ie. yielding as listed. I don't know what world you are living in, but this does not indicate it is a slow & soft course. Is it slower than a hard rock/rainless turf course, obvious answer. But was it run in a bog... Have a nice time talking your way out of this one.

I'll try talking my way out of this one once you try to talk your way into this one.

Dude, 3 seconds difference at a short sprint distance is enormous.

By the way, I forgot to mention. Everytime one of your posts comes up on my screen, the theme music from that old Dragnet show plays.

Duhhhmb, duh dumb dumb.
Duhhhmb, duh dumb dumb DUUUUMB.

So, your final answer to my question above is yes?

Oh come on now, what's 12 or 15 lengths at 5.5 furlongs between friends?

Splitting hairs.

Do you think he has any idea that he has no idea what he's talking about?

What does 3 seconds difference with another race have to do with 1:03 and change being run on a course that is closer to firm then soft? Could the idiot be any less clear. :rolleyes:

I agree DUuuMB is a great word for you. :rolleyes:

I know those two words (I and idiot) have the same meaning to you, but me thinks it was necessary to fix another typo for you to clear up any possible confusion others might have.

The Canadian Space Program is a much more fun read..

Don't tell me you can't tell the difference if a course that is truly soft or not? My original point was it is high time horseracing progressed and used another system, preferably measuring numerically, the depth of moisture in turf races. That way the "Indian Charlie's'" of the world can have a better and accurate representation of the cut in the ground, rather than making blanket statements that all races with moisture in the ground are either soft or yielding.

I think it's going to rain tommorow, it's a yielding turf course, therefore it's a slow track... I gotcha.:rolleyes:

That's all well and good. Propose that and let's get the ball rolling.

But that doesn't change the fact that you've spent two pages trying to point out that a course that's playing about 3 seconds slower at 5.5f is somehow NOT noticeably slower than it would have been on a different footing, ie "firm."

That's hogwash, and to use your words, "don't tell me you can't tell the difference."

I can assure you, I wouldn't waste 2 pages explaining the obvious. Nor would I ignore the fact that those races that were 3 seconds faster were run on a turf course that resembled concrete more than a turf course and somehow equating this to a race being run in a cut, induced bog. There are distortions and then there are distortions, I figure you should know better being that you are a public handicapper.

The fleet of 2 Canadian Spaceships will be dismantled.The disassembled pieces parts will be melted down and reconstructed into huge monoliths to be used in the Canadian upcoming movie entitled ,2001:How Canadian Time Flies.

This is still absolutely crazy. If let's just say, 12-15 lengths worth of time is NOT grounds for admitting that a course is likely "good/yielding," compared to its "firm" counterpart, what is?

Would 7 seconds be enough to these silly arbitrary designations we have to make sense? 10 seconds? If they had run 5.5f in 1:34.4 would it then have been yielding enough for you to accept these clearly far-too-simpleton-for-your-taste designations?

If a "firm" turf course was producing times of, let's say, 1:00.3, and a "yielding" course producing times some 15 lengths slower, it certainly shouldn't matter what job someone has to be able to see that rolling your eyes about the latter being called "yielding" may just be someone with too much time to pass today looking for a "debate" of any kind, yea?

Those are the designations we work with, and the differences in times on the two courses listed as "firm" and as "yielding" seems perfectly appropriate to me to label them as such, no distortions necessary. If you want to change the game and rename turf conditions with your special moisture meter, then as I said, that's great and let's get used to that -- that's an entirely different conversation.

But given the framework from which we're working in, this is an abjectly frivolous and silly argument to even be having, because it makes the most perfect kind of sense when actually looked at from a time v. condition of turf course perspective.

If you really believe that a difference of that kind in a 5.5f race doesn't indicate a significant amount of give in the ground compared to a dry and firm course, then nobody can change your mind. But that, in my estimation, is not so much a problem of an American inability to rate turf courses as it is your ability to understand it.

ABC News projecting Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and North Dakota all going with 'The horsey is dead'...

The game is better for players when it can cater to detail, horseplayers often complain about chart summaries for instance, high beyers, low beyers, inaccurate beyers. If there is more information, how can that be not good for the player? btw they do measure the moisture of the turf course for the Arc. I don’t think it would be revolutionary at all to expand on the 4 turf descriptions we have for turf races over here. I commend Arlington for doing this on Arlington Million day. I don’t know about you but I have seen ratings in the form that state yielding and soft, and frankly am left guessing how much give or cut was in the ground. Therefore, I always make an effort to evaluate final times to better gauge this. We all take into consideration horses that run better or worse with cut in the ground. As for the semantics of running 1:01 or 1:03 with one listed as firm and the other yielding, I can only surmise both were run on what generally could be termed as fast ground. The point is we have all seen in the past p’s races that the turf is rated as yielding yet run in excruciatingly slow times. 1:03 for 5 ½ is not an excruciatingly slow time for the distance, which leaves one to believe there can be room for improvement with the rating of course descriptions, especially with an emphasis on more detail in the future.