Pedigree ignored in placement

[Calzone Lord]

It seems like everyday, without really trying, you can find a handful of horses whose pedigree get totally ignored in terms of the distance and or surface where they're being placed.

I don't mean that they're racing at distances and surfaces counter to what they're bred for ... I mean they are Not even being tried at the surface or distance they're bred for.

Why would a breeder bother to take a turf sire, breed him to a turf slanted mare, and have that horse run on dirt their entire career and never try the surface they're obviously being bred for?

I'm sure there is no logical answer for that, but it happens a lot.

Another mysterious thing is when horses are bred for distance -- and they never get tried beyond 6 furlongs.

An example would be like Bonita Sonata in the 5th race at AQU today. Her sire is Anasheed:





Anasheed was one of those well bred textbook A. P. Indy plodders. His offspring have made 404 starts in sprint races and won 8%. They have made 538 starts in route races and have won 13%.

Yet, Bonita Sonata is making her 10th career start today, and all 10 starts have come at the distance of six furlongs.

At some point, all horses should be given a chance to do what they're bred to do. It's head-scratching how many don't get a chance. Especially with cheaper horses bred for turf.