Dead Rail on Kentucky Oaks day?

[Calzone Lord]

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"

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

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"

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.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

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"

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.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

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?

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

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.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

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'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.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

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.

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.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

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?

[tabs]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

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.

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

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.

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.