4/27: Incident mars Derby Works..

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by philcski

5.2 lengths on average (Saturday) at 6F isn't abnormally slow?

It's among the slowest 10% of days I have on record for CD.

The cards at Churchill this weekend were abnormally weak, with more cheap, short fields than I can ever remember for the opening weekend of a big race meet. And Tuesday's card is even worse.

I don't know where the par times came from, but assuming they are accurate, if you take out Saturday's first race, most of the races were within a second of "par." When I think of a track being slow, I think of horses running 6F in 1:13 and 1:14 (like we saw on the inner track this winter on several occasions), and miles in 1:39 and 1:40. That was not the case on Saturday, and on Sunday, most of the final times for the races were within a tick or two of the "par" times you provided.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

The cards at Churchill this weekend were abnormally weak, with more cheap, short fields than I can ever remember for the opening weekend of a big race meet. And Tuesday's card is even worse.

I don't know where the par times came from, but assuming they are accurate, if you take out Saturday's first race, most of the races were within a second of "par." When I think of a track being slow, I think of horses running 6F in 1:13 and 1:14 (like we saw on the inner track this winter on several occasions), and miles in 1:39 and 1:40. That was not the case on Saturday, and on Sunday, most of the final times for the races were within a tick or two of the "par" times you provided.

I realize that you are holding out hope that somehow I'm wrong... but I'm not.

The pars are over the last 3 years in a database I maintain. While I agree the fields were very weak this weekend, it's not atypical for the first weekend at CD because the better horses on the grounds either just ran at KEE or are waiting till next weekend (wouldn't you if it meant a free ticket for the Derby?) Second, I am comparing apples to apples- so if they're slow horses, they still ran slow compared to other slow horses. Third, a one second difference is an ETERNITY in this game, you know that. Finally, the times on the inner track this winter were because the horses running were truly terrible, worse than any year previous, not because the track was inherently safer- plus, you cannot compare a two turn mile to a one turn mile. the AVERAGE horse at Aqueduct will run 1.6 seconds slower on the inner (two turns) than the outer (one turn).

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by philcski

I realize that you are holding out hope that somehow I'm wrong... but I'm not.

The pars are over the last 3 years in a database I maintain. While I agree the fields were very weak this weekend, it's not atypical for the first weekend at CD because the better horses on the grounds either just ran at KEE or are waiting till next weekend (wouldn't you if it meant a free ticket for the Derby?) Second, I am comparing apples to apples- so if they're slow horses, they still ran slow compared to other slow horses. Third, a one second difference is an ETERNITY in this game, you know that. Finally, the times on the inner track this winter were because the horses running were truly terrible, worse than any year previous, not because the track was inherently safer- plus, you cannot compare a two turn mile to a one turn mile. the AVERAGE horse at Aqueduct will run 1.6 seconds slower on the inner (two turns) than the outer (one turn).

arent the Churchill races generally weak except for a few days a year?

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

arent the Churchill races generally weak except for a few days a year?

yes

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by jms62

Un****ing believable that they find it necessary to show that....

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Thank God they got that footage. It's really relevent to this weekend's race.

Originally Posted by jms62

Unfortunately I agree. There is something morally corrupt about showing the death of a living being to grab a few ratings points...

Everyone keeps begging for more television coverage... Well we got it.

They showed that Nascar crash a bunch of times this morning on ESPN too.

When the cameras are present, this is what you get.

I hope the NTRA doesn't take away the safety accreditation.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Scurlogue Champ

Everyone keeps begging for more television coverage... Well we got it.

They showed that Nascar crash a bunch of times this morning on ESPN too.

When the cameras are present, this is what you get.

I hope the NTRA doesn't take away the safety accreditation.

Not exactly a great analogy. This was an accident outside of competition and unrelated to the Derby. The Nascar crash was during a race.

However, I understand why it was on, I just think it's unfortunate.

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Not exactly a great analogy. This was an accident outside of competition and unrelated to the Derby. The Nascar crash was during a race.

However, I understand why it was on, I just think it's unfortunate.

It is unfortunate, I agree.

But you and I both know these accidents happen every morning. There just isn't anyone there to see it.

When outside media shows up, they usually show the extremes of anything.

They won't show the replay of the Stephen Foster on CNN, but they'll show horses and/or people in an accident.

Just like they won't have a spot just showing traffic flowing nicely, but they'll feature a grisly wreck.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by philcski

Finally, the times on the inner track this winter were because the horses running were truly terrible, worse than any year previous, not because the track was inherently safer- plus, you cannot compare a two turn mile to a one turn mile.

I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree over the relative speed of the Churchill racing surface this weekend. But just like all stakes races are not equal, neither are all claiming races. Sometimes, they come up tougher than usual; other times not. The races this weekend at Churchill all seemed to come up universally weak for the respective class levels, so we're not necessarily comparing apples to apples.

The inner track was slower than usual this winter (with admittedly weak horses sometimes clocking miles in 1:41 or 1:42) because of the cold winter preventing the NYRA track maintenance crew from watering the track, the result being a very dry, cuppy racing surface.

The 1:39 and 1:40 times to which I was referring were to one turn miles. In this regard, a perfect example of an abnormally slow, tiring racing surface was Aqueduct on Saturday, April 11. Churchill on Saturday pales in comparison.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree over the relative speed of the Churchill racing surface this weekend. But just like all stakes races are not equal, neither are all claiming races. Sometimes, they come up tougher than usual; other times not. The races this weekend at Churchill all seemed to come up universally weak for the respective class levels, so we're not necessarily comparing apples to apples.

The inner track was slower than usual this winter (with admittedly weak horses sometimes clocking miles in 1:41 or 1:42) because of the cold winter preventing the NYRA track maintenance crew from watering the track, the result being a very dry, cuppy racing surface.

The 1:39 and 1:40 times to which I was referring were to one turn miles. In this regard, a perfect example of an abnormally slow, tiring racing surface was Aqueduct on Saturday, April 11. Churchill on Saturday pales in comparison.

That was my one trip to Aqueduct this winter. The track was a MESS (and yes, abnormally slow and tiring) because it rained so much, and the fields were terrible (not to disparage your horse, who actually ran well that day behind a perfect trip winner). They missed the guarantee in the pick 4 because of the conditions.

I think my comparisons of each race at CD shows the times were slower than normal and it's incorrect to generalize that all the races were worse than their norms. In fact, the race you mentioned previously (the 30k N2L that went 1:36.40) was actually better than what's typical of that level, and they ran like it.

Slow doesn't necessarily mean safe, either.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by philcski

That was my one trip to Aqueduct this winter. The track was a MESS (and yes, abnormally slow and tiring) because it rained so much, and the fields were terrible (not to disparage your horse, who actually ran well that day behind a perfect trip winner). They missed the guarantee in the pick 4 because of the conditions.

Slow doesn't necessarily mean safe, either.

No disrespect received about Slick Wheelie. I think we've learned that, despite how he trains in the morning, he's better suited to one turn races. I know that he won't be confused with a stakes horse, but he's honest. Also, I don't think he particularly cares for the mud, but if he had changed leads that afternoon, I'm certain that he would have caught the winner. Of course, changing leads properly has frequently been a problem for him in the afternoon.

I agree that slow doesn't necessarily mean safe, but the souped-up, hard tracks are really tough on the horses.