Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Betsy
That's right - I do have to remind myself. I find it pathetic that we have to take into account this fake surface and who can handle it or not. It's frustrating because in this instance I have no clue if MN will take to it. If the race were to be run on a regular dirt track, I could just accept the results as it were. Now, we have a day where championships could be decided based on the results on a freaky sort of surface. It's really unfortunate.
|
And if the races are held on a sealed, sloppy track, which places many horses at a disadvantage, you are willing to accept the results as definitive? Churchill Downs for years has been disparaged as a 'cuppy track', that not all horses 'take to'.
Note to the newbies: this is why we oldsters liked the previous way of determining champions - the entire campaign was taken into account, and performances on unsuitable surfaces discounted. Skip Away didn't like Churchill - no problem, he won a lot of races elsewhere. Some other champions couldn't handle wet tracks as well as dry. Well, if it was sloppy for the Woodward, it could be dry for the JCGC. Horse racing is not a tournament sport; there is no 'final' where a win determines the champion.