Moniker should be changed to CluelessMaytoMay......Steve,Andy,DrugS and other ACCOMPLISHED Handicappers with are far greater understanding of Racehorses have repped that these colt stink... Geez wake up... Pyro could gert within 10 lengths of last years colts.

I am assuming if a horse runs big on poly or other fake stuff, and doesn't run well on dirt, he probably didn't handle the footing as well. That is all I was trying to say. Sure, maybe a lot of them handle it by running slower.

Wat about Sierra? And the LA Derby 3rd?

What about them? I wouldn't say either one of them ran very well on synthetic.

any prominent examples? horses that run slower on dirt, thats my question.

I thought that Yankee Bravo won the California Derby on Tapeta.

Its hard to read some of these posts anymore

How about one race of PPs, the Big Cap. All the following have run much better on synthetic than dirt:

Big Booster
Monterey Jazz
Zappa
Celtic Dreaming

Nobody is forcing you to.

Monterey Jazz just happen to get a track that we cant call a normal Synthetic track when he went wire to wire. I think he would of ran the same race on the old dirt track at Santa Anita. The horse just got good at the right time.

The top 3 finishers in the Big Cap were all turf horses.

these horses are better on synthetic? based on what criteria?
lets take a look at these horses records.


Big Booster
dirt record 8 3-0-0
aw record 5 1-0-2
appears to favor dirt

Monterrey Jazz
dirt record 3 1-0-1
aw record 3 1-0-1
has won in the past year going short and long on dirt, aw, and turf.

Zappa
dirt record 11 4-1-4
aw record 5 3-0-1
does well on aw, but also seems to run on any surface. won a 3 turn stakes race last year on the FPX dirt.

Celtic Dreamin
dirt record 2 2-0-0
aw record 7 3-4-0
I love this horse. he never runs a bad race. however you can't say he prefers aw because he is undefeated on dirt winning convincingly both times.

what I am looking for, are examples of horses that run well on synthetic (aw), but show a marked decline in form whenever they try dirt. these examples do not fit that description.

I really hope you are kidding.

In his final start on dirt, which was March 24th of 2007, Big Booster was 4th beaten 5 lengths at odds of even money in a 50K claiming race.

In his first start on synthetic, which was May 24th of 2007, Big Booster (under 123 pounds) wins an alw race on synthetic by 3/4 of a length at 25/1 odds. The 2nd place finisher, it was Heatseeker (under 113 pounds)

In his 2nd start on synthetic, Big Booster is beaten less than one length in the Hollywood Gold Cup at 25/1 odds.

Either KYRIM stole your login - or you are out of your mind for saying that Big Booster appears to favor dirt over synthetic.

Since beating Heatseeker at 25/1 odds in an alw race in his synthetic debut - Big Booster has raced exclusively and competitively in Grade 1 or Grade 2 stakes.

When Big Booster was racing on dirt, he was either competitive in claiming races at Gulfstream - or getting blown out in allowance races on the AQU inner dirt.

Yeah, we all know that Mike Mitchell had nothing to do with it;)

Here is the reality of switching surfaces for the first time...

Some horses can run better on the synthetic, some can run better on the dirt, some can run better on the turf, and some can run just as good on a combination of the surfaces or all of the surfaces. It is your job as a handicapper to figure out which horses can make the switch when they try out a new surface for the first time because it happens a lot more now than it used to, and there is money to be made...

you say this, but he really doesn't have any major drug violations. Now, I don't think he is a drugger, but I do think he is a shaker, but a majority are out there, especially given the rule that they are allowed to have a horse over the natural level of tCO2, that they can produce.

Mike Mitchell moves horses way up off the claim.

Not all the trainers out there do that kind of stuff. There are some good guys in horse racing out there.

Mitchell also had him when he ran 8th in his first start in California before being placed on a synthetic. Peter Walder (who is currently 18-for-51 and winning at a 35% clip at GP) trained him when he was 4th on the dirt in the 50K claimer.

Mitchell obviously played a role in this horse improving - but that has nothing to do with the surface question.

Peter Walder is one of the highest percentage guys around - he's not some bum who gets in horses way.

Becerra off the claim is just as strong as Mitchell, and there are no allegations there. Becerra just doesn't claim as much as Mitchell. For every 50k claimer that turned into a stakes, he has one running for 10k 2 months later.

Sun Boat too? RIP buddy.

For horses like Big Booster and Sun Boat, I think there are other variables that could account for their improvement. I'm not just going to say that it was the synthetic. There are other examples of horses out there that are definitely better on synthetic than dirt that don't have question marks about their improvement like these horses.

I'm not really one that usually talks bad about trainers, and if I do there is always a very valid reason. I would never use Mike Mitchell as a trainer. I will leave it at that.

Has Heatseeker ever ran over the traditional dirt surface?