Curlin & the Classic

[Withers]

Anyone else totally disgusted by the Santa Anita surface? ProRider my bottom!!!

If we want to race on grass, why don't we just race on grass -- replace the main track with turf and be done with it?

I don't understand why the US industry is taking the one thing we've been doing for the last 100 years -- dirt racing -- and destroying it.

Curlin lost -- no big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it's a damn shame when the most sporting owner in the last decade is unable to race his dirt champion on a dirt surface in the most important US-based raced of the year.

[Danzig]

the most sporting owner in the last decade? i disagree. i would think lord derby might be able to claim that title, with shipping his wonderful mare ouija board all over the world, and to the bc twice, to contest her title.

jess jackson had nothing to lose by going to santa anita-who will hold the loss against curlin? no one. but it was either have curlin lay around all year and do nothing, or race him-no stud farm was interested in that drama.

thankfully, the 20% ownership of midnight cry will be resolved in two weeks at keeeneland. and then you'll see how sporting he really is, as curlin will be retired to stud.

[the_fat_man]

The surface was fair. The best horses won.

DIRT is old news. Fair racing TRUMPS biases.

[Danzig]

i disagree. how one can call a synthetic surface a fair surface is beyond me.

[King Glorious]

There were eight main track races. That's 16 horses that were in the exactas. Of those 16:

-9 have never raced on actual dirt.

-all 16 had either won on grass or on synthetics before yesterday.

-5 had won stakes on grass (Ventura, Church Service, Rebellion, Raven's Pass, and Henrythenavigator).

-4 had won stakes on dirt (Indian Blessing, Zenyatta, Cocoa Beach, Midnight Lute).

Anyone that doesn't see how this stuff leans towards producing results favorable towards grass horses just doesn't want to see it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

There were eight main track races. That's 16 horses that were in the exactas. Of those 16:

-9 have never raced on actual dirt.

-all 16 had either won on grass or on synthetics before yesterday.

-5 had won stakes on grass (Ventura, Church Service, Rebellion, Raven's Pass, and Henrythenavigator).

-4 had won stakes on dirt (Indian Blessing, Zenyatta, Cocoa Beach, Midnight Lute).

Anyone that doesn't see how this stuff leans towards producing results favorable towards grass horses just doesn't want to see it.

interesting stuff. especially the figure that only 1/4th had won on dirt, compared to all 16 having won on turf or awt previously.

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

The surface was fair. The best horses won.

DIRT is old news. Fair racing TRUMPS biases.

Hey trip king, do you think Albarado moved a little early with Curlin?

[Smooth Operator]

Wouldn't have mattered when Albarado decided to ask him. The two superior Euros would've still left him in their dust at some point in the stretch, imo.

Asmussen can say what he wants about it being a 'turf race', but, imo, the mandatory 'roid testing this year and the fact that Curlie finally lined up against a couple legit G1 performers had more to do with his sound defeat than the synthetic surface.

[Smooth Operator]

It's a very fair question, DaHoss9698 ... and, frankly, I'm not convinced that Curlie would've been able to handle the Euros at, say, Churchill or Belmont. Heck, he was barely beating mediocrities like Wanderin Boy and Past the Point in his dirt races this season. And his speed figures (at least his Beyers) have been nothing to write home about.

He simply doesn't seem to be as formidable when he's not getting a regular 'roid fix ... like he did last season.



By the way, was it hard tearing up your $2.00 win ticket on Curlie last Saturday? lol