Dead Rail on Kentucky Oaks day?
 

Apparently Thoro-Graph believes so. They are dishing out the X symbol (meaning raced on dead rail) for all horses who raced primarily inside on Kentucky Oaks day.

Authenticity (5/1 winner of the La Troienne Stakes) was the only horse on the card to win despite getting the X symbol.

No second place finisher got the X symbol.

Midnight Lucky (5th by 9 lengths) and Silsita (10th by 43 lengths) were the only two Kentucky Oaks horses who got the symbol.

Donna Barton disagrees with this completely, she tested the track herself.

Remember Super Saver's year?

Everything that day either won from right on top of the rail or extremely wide.

I know you are trying to be funny, but she tested it on Saturday, not Friday.

Maybe I am that gullible for thinking there might be a little something to that, on sloppy racetracks. And after her little demo on tv it fed my gullibility. I don't know.

Michael Dickinson always believed in that stuff and he had an excellent training record.

He also asked the lady who runs the clubhouse restaurant at PID what her favorite kind of tree is. She told me "that is one odd, odd guy. No one has ever asked me what my favorite kind of tree is"

ok, my point was I think its silly rain or shine.

I don't think you're gullible at all. I saw the piece she did and happen to agree with you.

We try and figure out when there are dead rails or vice versa all the time, based on what our eyes tell us. You had someone actually on the track showing you where the footing is better. Good enough for me.

If a trainer really cared to see if that theory had any validity they could core sample the track, replicate a few conditions, add the loads to the sample and see what happens as you go down the core sample. That muddy stuff on top aint going to do much at a track like Churchill in terms for energy used IMO because most horses are impacting the compacted dirt below the top layer whether its wet or dry. It would take a track that was very deep, had a really crappy surface, that's hardly Churchill.

So when they are sealing it trying to get as much moisture out as possible, you don't think it's at least possible it leaves one area firmer than the other?

You do believe in dead rails and rails that are golden right? How do you think that happens? What about courses that when wet carry speed, like Belmont in the early part of yesterday?

I am not real big into good part, bad part of the track, not saying its impossible but I find it a bit random, this is different than a track that has a certain profile that day after day seems to benefit a inside or outside. I think for years people would claim there was a inside speed bias when in reality the pace horses are generally the better horses in most races thus fed the perception.

When they are sealing it I always thought they wanted the water to just float on top, so they are intentionally hardening it, which I suppose could do something, but the idea that its a little softer in path 2 versus path 4 by sticking a pencil into the ground and comparing that to a 1000 pound animal running....its far fetched to me.

I've never used Thoro-graphs so this may come off as a silly question, but what is the difference in the numbers that Princess and Beholder received?

I didn't see or even knew Beholder fell until I got home from the race and saw this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCt9d...ature=youtu.be I really didn't expect the race she ran on Friday from her.

After watching that short clip of Beholder falling before the race then watching the replay of the race I'd be inclined to have a animal chiropractor adjust this filly. Her sensory panel seems out of whack also and someone mentioned they treat her condition with ear-plugs.

I'm not being rude, but I have no idea what you are saying here.

You don't agree there can be a good part and bad part...but don't think it's impossible. Yet think it is random. You think speed biases are crap because really just pace horses are better. And even though sealing makes the track harder which you think could make one area better or worse, you think it's far fetched to designate which area is better.

Makes total sense.

The piece Donna Barton did on track weight seemed a bit irresponsible to me. My inner voice keeps saying - walk around the track not across it. To infer what she did seems a little far fetched to me.

I have never physically tested it so its pretty difficult to say its impossible (I hate absolutes without evidence), I have found with my handicapping, which we all know mostly sucks, that its more times than not a normal track day to day, there is no good inside, bad inside.

Yes pace horses are better, they are often inside speed runners.

Sealing it would be about the only time I could envision it because they are making it harder and even then that's complete speculation, but the idea that an unsealed track takes rain and gets softer and "mushy" and you can determine this with a pencil is crazy, that was the original point.

Maybe they could have a new information for the public when it rains, pencil depth test today was 4" on the inside, 3" on the outside, handicap accordingly.

We're not talking about day to day though.

Out of curiosity if you determine a course is favoring rail runners or there is a dead rail, how do you determine it?

You determined she needs a chiropractor and her sensory panel is out of whack from a 15 second video where she got spooked?

:wf

yes, they seal to get water to hopefully run down to the infield. however, knowing my yard at home, i can see where water would move on some parts of a track, and pool in others. it's all similar, but some parts get mushier than others.
as for the track, if they give each section a pass with the roller, i would think the parts of the track used more would take more passes to pack down. the tracks can't be perfect, some areas are bound to be more porous than others. it's not an exact science.

I don't, I believe other handicapping factors created the reasons for a certain type or place on the track a horse or horses were winning from. I don't play day to day like I used too but there was a time I did, and took trip and tried to identify biases, did this probably a good year or so in new York.

I know this flies in the face of many handicappers but its just something I have never identified watching races.

Yeah I think so. The horse isn't balanced, watch her hind-end collapse like it did. I think if you spoke with her groom/trainer they might describe her as anxious, immature and a horse that takes time to get things. We're talking racehorses here so it's a matter of degrees.

Animals communicate things all the time. Why do you act so shocked?