Track bias and big days

[Scav]

While I realize its common place to juice the track and fast times make people ohh and ahh, its really become ridiculous. Not sure how others feel but it makes me want to reduce my plays because of unpredictable race flows. I mean 7f races that run in 43.4. 8.5 furlong races that 45.2 and the horse that is 2wide the whole fn trip holds on to win.

From what I watched so far at Santa Anita, the track was fair with reasonable times, and I just don't understand why they have to have it so tight, to a point where you have these jocks riding two turn races like they are 400 yard dashs.

[cmorioles]

Since when do fast times mean there was a bias? I've seen plenty of scorching fast tracks that were fair.

[Travis Stone]

I thought the track was anything but fair all weekend.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

I thought the track was anything but fair all weekend.

I don't think it was fair either, I'm just saying that raw times aren't always the best indicator.

[Calzone Lord]

As far as biases go, I don't think it was that much of a speed bias over the two days.

The South American horse in the Dirt Marathon came from more than 20 lengths out of it to blow them all away in the stretch.

Pace battles never materialized in a lot of spots where they figured to. The Dirt Mile looked loaded with speed on paper -- and that pace was an absolute crawl.

Rail Trip and John Scott really got screwed badly when Shackleford blew the start. The dirt mile field was so bunched up, John Scott's dead last and just 5 behind that crawl ... and he's pulling Espinoza so much that he feels the need to try and circle six wide.

Other than Mike Smith on Atigun and Royal Delta I didn't see unexpected overly aggressive tactics from any riders.

I think the performances of Tapizar and Fort Larned have A LOT more to do with Shackleford and Game on Dude both blowing the break, and no one else wanting any part of being anywhere near the lead than they have to do with that track.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

I think the performances of Tapizar and Fort Larned have A LOT more to do with Shackleford and Game on Dude both blowing the break, and no one else wanting any part of being anywhere near the lead than they have to do with that track.

In what way did Game on Dude blow the break? Looked to me like he got away fine.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

As far as biases go, I don't think it was that much of a speed bias over the two days.

The South American horse in the Dirt Marathon came from more than 20 lengths out of it to blow them all away in the stretch.

Pace battles never materialized in a lot of spots where they figured to. The Dirt Mile looked loaded with speed on paper -- and that pace was an absolute crawl.

Rail Trip and John Scott really got screwed badly when Shackleford blew the start. The dirt mile field was so bunched up, John Scott's dead last and just 5 behind that crawl ... and he's pulling Espinoza so much that he feels the need to try and circle six wide.

Other than Mike Smith on Atigun and Royal Delta I didn't see unexpected overly aggressive tactics from any riders.

I think the performances of Tapizar and Fort Larned have A LOT more to do with Shackleford and Game on Dude both blowing the break, and no one else wanting any part of being anywhere near the lead than they have to do with that track.

You make some good points but even BC races aside, particularly on Thursday, I felt like horses on the lead in the stretch just kept staying on and closers were spinning their wheels. Every dirt race felt like a parade from the quarter pole to the wire. Meaningful moves from off the pace were mitigated regardless of the pace. Sure, a few closers clunked-up for a share, but on a fair racetrack, I think we see a lot of different results. Too many horses just didn't quit down the lane all weekend.