Santa Anita's Surface

[justindew]

I have to admit that I didn't follow the SA meeting all that closely so it's extremely possible that this entire post is a waste of time (Andy, please restrain yourself), but I would be curious to hear what some of you who DID follow SA have to say about the following:

It seems that front-runners in routes are up against it at SA, while off-the-pace types have some degree of an edge. If this is the case, can't Gayego and Bob Black Jack be moved up on dirt while Colonel John is moved down, especially considering Gayego's effort at Oaklawn? Yes, we are ALL hearing that the California horses in general are strong, and that Bob Black Jack will probably prefer dirt. I get that. But you don't hear that much about how perhaps Colonel John's SA Derby win may have been the result of the surface and the way it affected the entire field, especially BBJ. All we hear about is how much he seems to love CD.

I'm just looking for a reason to bet against Colonel John, since everyone is up his rear-end this week.

[ateamstupid]

From what I've seen, it plays completely fair to all running styles. I wouldn't move anybody up or down going to dirt.

[hockey2315]

Maybe if the front-runners weren't by Stormy Jack and Gilded Time. . . I'm not crazy about Colonel John but he's got the style and pedigree to outrun his fellow west coasters. . .

[pointman]

Justin, you may want to read the Randy Moss article that Byk has posted in the paddack thread which addresses this aspect to some extent.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by pointman

Justin, you may want to read the Randy Moss article that Byk has posted in the paddack thread which addresses this aspect to some extent.

Yeah, I read that. But it just sort of glosses over the SA Derby effort by focusing on how he ran in the Sham against El Gato Malo, and then mentions how his pedigree "makes it likely he isn't just a synthetic wonder". I'm not sure that really addresses the issue of his SA win in the first place. But isn't being by Tiznow an added bonus on synthetics? So I don't really see why his pedigree makes it "likely" the synthetic stuff didn't help him, rather than make his SA Derby something less than it appeared.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by justindew

But isn't being by Tiznow an added bonus on synthetics? So I don't really see why his pedigree makes it "likely" the synthetic stuff didn't help him, rather than make his SA Derby something less than it appeared.

Tiznow excelled on dirt. Won his Breeders' Cup Classics at Churchill Downs and Belmont. His brother Budroyale placed in the BC Classic, Santa Anita H, etc., ON DIRT. Several of Tiznow's better runners have done their thing on dirt, like champion Folklore in New York and Tiz Wonderful at CD. Even some of his 'synthetic horses' have also run well on dirt, like Bear Now (won Cotillion S at Philly), Well Armed (third in the Dubai World Cup to better horses), and Slew's Tizzy (won Lone Star Derby). Don't swallow this nonsense that Tiznow is a 'synthetic' sire only; his horses win where they run and a lot of places have synthetics now, especially his home state of California.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by justindew

Yeah, I read that. But it just sort of glosses over the SA Derby effort by focusing on how he ran in the Sham against El Gato Malo, and then mentions how his pedigree "makes it likely he isn't just a synthetic wonder". I'm not sure that really addresses the issue of his SA win in the first place. But isn't being by Tiznow an added bonus on synthetics? So I don't really see why his pedigree makes it "likely" the synthetic stuff didn't help him, rather than make his SA Derby something less than it appeared.

Tiznow has been the top synthetic sire the best two years and that has included a lot of Keeneland specialists so isn't just a product of more progeny running in California. That being said, I don't have any doubt in Colonel John in the Derby anymore after his work. It is no longer an issue. He has as good a chance of being on the board as anyone.