Weekend Beyers: Blind Luck 104; Sidney's 100; AmLion 98

[philcski]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

She wins the Oaks if she's not blocked the length of the stretch -- which would've been a ridiculously huge accomplishment. Combined with the Las Virgenes, where Evening Jewel was 'supposed' to win, one gets a sense of how good this filly is. Then, she comes off the surface that supposedly 'favors' her running style and runs what appears to be an identical type of race (haven't done the charts for this yet.).

All I want is some consistency. I want the Beyers to be able to show that this is a good horse, whether on synthetics or dirt --- as she now has proven. Clearly, there are horses that are better on one surface over another but is this really the case here? Did this filly suddenly get good by running a respectable number or was she always good? (note: I don't know what she's run in the past and have made the assumption that her peak was around 90).

16 Beyer points at 8.5F is 1.6 seconds, or about 9 lengths. If the trouble she had in the Oaks was worth 3-4 lengths, and moving to dirt was worth 5-6 lengths (certainly reasonable assumptions, no?) the number makes a lot of sense.

She is absolutely a good horse, and the one to beat on April 30th. Synthetics make her "not as good" a horse as she is on dirt like it does to a lot of horses. Others have about equal ability on both surfaces. A third group move way up on synthetics. The same phenomenon occurs on turf- plenty of turfers can't run a lick on dirt, and excellent dirt horses just look like they're running in place over turf. It's been proven time and again over the last 4 years that synthetics are NOT a replacement for dirt, but rather a 3rd surface, and must be treated as such in both handicapping through speed figures or visual/trip/charting assessments.