Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kasept
More and more, the tracks we're all going to look to for REAL horses will be Oaklawn, Fair Grounds, Churchill, NY and FL... Yesterday demonstrated the disparity between authentic thoroughbred racing and the sideshow of the synthetic tracks where results are random and generally meaningless.
|
While I agree with you comments as they apply to FG and CD, which are LEGITIMATELY FAIR tracks, I certainly don't think the same applies, in general, to NY or FL racing. GP and TAM certainly don't play as fair as the above two tracks, and NY winter racing is a JOKE. And, betting closers, the little that I've seen, at OP is a quick path to the poor house.
By 'fair', I mean horses having an equal chance to win from off the pace.
I certainly disagree, and disagree strongly with your assessment of POLY. Of course, this is the standard take, and thus I'm in the minority. Horses having a competitive chance to win from behind does not imply that the results will be 'randon and generally meaningless'.
The fight on this forum (and others) AGAINST fair racing rivals that of the Aristotelians against the Copernicans. I realize it involves a conceptual shift and the present system won't allow for it.
Let's face it, having an advantage because you have the lead is something unique in racing in general. It only happens in thoroughbred DIRT races.