Oracle thanks for mushing Circular Quay

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Why, genetically speaking, should the dam theoretically have more influence on the stamina of its offspring? Why? Since you know pedigrees, lets see how much you know about genetics and cell biology. Because you have to understand these or your pedigree stuff is astrology.

Are you stating this as an established fact? Or as a frequently seen assertion? Or just for this one instance? The fact is that even classic winners and classic sires like Thunder Gulch sire a goodly number of horses who don't last out a classic distance. (Horses in the wild didn't need to run fast more than a couple of furlongs to get out of harm's way and without continuous human intervention, we wouldn't have horses who run longer distances; therefore, we have to keep testing, ie running the races, to find the ones with distance ability.) Having a mama who couldn't run long, although a mare of some class, puts CQ at a disadvantage in the genetic roulette game. I would also note that if on looks a horse strongly takes after one parent or the other, they are most likely to replicate that parent's distance preferences.

[georgewashington]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

Are you stating this as an established fact? Or as a frequently seen assertion? Or just for this one instance? The fact is that even classic winners and classic sires like Thunder Gulch sire a goodly number of horses who don't last out a classic distance. (Horses in the wild didn't need to run fast more than a couple of furlongs to get out of harm's way and without continuous human intervention, we wouldn't have horses who run longer distances; therefore, we have to keep testing, ie running the races, to find the ones with distance ability.) Having a mama who couldn't run long, although a mare of some class, puts CQ at a disadvantage in the genetic roulette game. I would also note that if on looks a horse strongly takes after one parent or the other, they are most likely to replicate that parent's distance preferences. CQ doesn't remind me a lot of Thunder Gulch.

I am not sure that because a horse takes on the looks of the sire or mare that the horse is going to replicate that parent's distance performances. I can't honestly say I have ever seen any data that backs that up.

If you have ever seen Dynaformer, he is one of the ugliest horses ever to walk the face of the earth (mean bastard too), but his stamina has come through in some really attractive horses he sired.

There was a Dynaformer this year that was very attractive out of a Carson City mare. Obviously he didn't take on the looks of his daddy, but he got his stamina from him. Over the last few weeks he has even started to act a little like his daddy, which is actually a good thing right now.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by oracle80

If Circular Quay runs the same way in the BC Juvy I will be the first one to say hes a closing sprinter. If Asi Siempre runs well an even hits the board in the Distaff i will say I was wrong about her winning because of the surface. But I won't be holding my breath, and doubt that any of the winners of the weekend's BC preps on the poly at Keeneland make any kind of impact whatsoever on BC day.

How about Circular Quay just isn't that good? He blew by a bunch of tired horses that ran four furlongs under 45 and were crawling home. Great Hunter would have won that race just as easily if not more easily. If you want to give me Great Hunter and Street Sense (my picks BEFORE the Lane's End) against Circular Quay in the BC Juvenile then I will happily take that bet.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by georgewashington

I am not sure that because a horse takes on the looks of the sire or mare that the horse is going to replicate that parent's distance performances. I can't honestly say I have ever seen any data that backs that up.

This is my impression, not the results of any study. And like anything in heredity it is more tendency than certainty. You can always find a counter-example because nothing in TB ability inheritance is 100%. Even a good mating doesn't succeed every time, like the one that produced Mr. Prospector, which only 'hit' 1.5 times (if you consider Search for Gold a good horse) out of 5 tries.

I am curious - when you say 'ugly', are you talking about his face, his forelegs or hindlegs, or the entire conformational package? I am told that breeding people considered Sunday Silence ugly and that was one reason why Arthur Han**** couldn't find anyone to buy him for stud aside from the Japanese. (There was a great call - they drooled over Easy Goer and dismissed SS.) I didn't see it, especially not on the track. He wasn't a 'pretty horsie' like War Chant, but not particularly unattractive to my eye.

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

How about Circular Quay just isn't that good? He blew by a bunch of tired horses that ran four furlongs under 45 and were crawling home. Great Hunter would have won that race just as easily if not more easily. If you want to give me Great Hunter and Street Sense (my picks BEFORE the Lane's End) against Circular Quay in the BC Juvenile then I will happily take that bet.

Using that race as a basis of his dirt ability would be the same as using a grass race as the basis. They are both foreign surfaces unlike dirt in any way. CQ will rebound in the BC, and beat both of those.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Using that race as a basis of his dirt ability would be the same as using a grass race as the basis. They are both foreign surfaces unlike dirt in any way. CQ will rebound in the BC, and beat both of those.

I was talking about the Hopeful. He was overrated from passing tired horses in that race. So if that surface will have no impact on the BC Juvenile then why won't you give me Great Hunter and Street Sense against him?

[Pedigree Ann]

Do you see that? They censored one of the greatest names in American breeding! Claiborne Farm and now Stone Farm and their name can't be typed on this forum. Bizarre.

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

Do you see that? They censored one of the greatest names in American breeding! Claiborne Farm and now Stone Farm and their name can't be typed on this forum. Bizarre.

uhhh. I hope you're trying to make a funny.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

I am curious - when you say 'ugly', are you talking about his face, his forelegs or hindlegs, or the entire conformational package? I am told that breeding people considered Sunday Silence ugly and that was one reason why Arthur Han**** couldn't find anyone to buy him for stud aside from the Japanese. (There was a great call - they drooled over Easy Goer and dismissed SS.) I didn't see it, especially not on the track. He wasn't a 'pretty horsie' like War Chant, but not particularly unattractive to my eye.

I think dynaformer is ugly too...he looks like he could pull a plow...not that he isn't correct, he's just a heavy, common, unattractive animal...IMO. And as stated earlier I hear he's nasty mean.
But for my money if I was breeding to race (not to sell) I wouldn't hesitate to go to him...

[GenuineRisk]

Regarding the looking to the dam for stamina thing, I may be completely wrong here (nothing new for me, ha ha ha...sigh...) but I believe the gene for the large heart is carried on the X chromosome so it tends to show up through the dam. Secretariat had a heart what, almost three times the size of an average horse heart, which is why he could run so long so fast. But that characteristic, being on the X chromosome was something he could only pass on to his daughters, who could then pass it on to their sons and daughters both. He is generally regarded as having been a better broodmare sire, right?

Anyway, my guess is that is why people look to the dam's side for stamina. Not that every dam has that particular gene, of course.

Speaking of Polytrack, it looks as if you can throw form for the most part right out the window judging by some of the weird winners over the weekend, most of whom had either run or trained over the track, and the number of good horses who didn't run their usual race over it, such as Happy Ticket and Spun Sugar in the Juddmonte Spinster (gr. I), and a host of others in the Phoenix Breeders' Cup (gr. II) and Alcibiades (gr. I).

That quote courtesy of the bloodhorse.com from Steve Haskin's article which just appeared on the site within the past hour.
I guess I have pretty good company in my thoughts.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Speaking of Polytrack, it looks as if you can throw form for the most part right out the window judging by some of the weird winners over the weekend, most of whom had either run or trained over the track, and the number of good horses who didn't run their usual race over it, such as Happy Ticket and Spun Sugar in the Juddmonte Spinster (gr. I), and a host of others in the Phoenix Breeders' Cup (gr. II) and Alcibiades (gr. I).

That quote courtesy of the bloodhorse.com from Steve Haskin's article which just appeared on the site within the past hour.
I guess I have pretty good company in my thoughts.

Spun Sugar throws in clunkers all over the place so that isn't surprising. Happy Ticket was totally cut off in the stretch which cost her second which would have made sense since she was the second best horse in the race behind Asi Siempre who won. The Phoenix BC and Alcibiades were two of the more wide open races on paper that I've seen so nothing would have surprised me in either of them. Does it put turf horses on equal footing with dirt horses? Yup, absolutely. Can you throw it out when capping their next races off of poly? Absolutely not. Obviously it would be idiocy to bet turf horses that do well on it if they move to the dirt afterwards but to ignore the form of the dirt horses that run there when they return to the dirt would be a mistake, in my opinion, 90% of the time. You are always going to have a few horses that may not take to the track but you have that with horses going from one dirt track to another as it is.

[nebrady]

I think great hunter has a legitimate shot to win the juvenille. First of all, his sire is aptitude. So going the longer distances should not be a problem. Second of all, no one really knows how the horses on the new track at keeneland are going to do at churchill. But if you look, out at california, you would see that oneil has been training them at hollywoods new surface and winning a great amount at santa anita. So the theory that they will do bad at churchill, to me doesn't really add up. I'm looking forward to seeing him run on bc day. It could also be a big day and more of a national coming out party for oneil. With lava man and great hunter, oneil could have a great day. Will just have to wait and see them race. Thats whats great about horse racing.

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Speaking of Polytrack, it looks as if you can throw form for the most part right out the window judging by some of the weird winners over the weekend, most of whom had either run or trained over the track, and the number of good horses who didn't run their usual race over it, such as Happy Ticket and Spun Sugar in the Juddmonte Spinster (gr. I), and a host of others in the Phoenix Breeders' Cup (gr. II) and Alcibiades (gr. I).

That quote courtesy of the bloodhorse.com from Steve Haskin's article which just appeared on the site within the past hour.
I guess I have pretty good company in my thoughts.

Not only him, but Pletcher himself said in DRF, that he's chalking Spun Sugar's loss up to the Poly Track...

Originally Posted by Pointg5

Not only him, but Pletcher himself said in DRF, that he's chalking Spun Sugar's loss up to the Poly Track...

Yeah Point I read that as well. It chilled me out 100 degrees when I read that.
Nyer's are about the best alive at spotting complete and total con jobs. Its been so obvious to me that that's what this stuff is, a complete con job. It may be a bit safer, but a deep cushion and deeply harrowed surface will get you the same thing, and no matter what you do horse will always break down no matter what we do. Noone wants to see that, including me, but its part of the game. Same way that guys getting hurt on Sunday playing NFL football is always gonna happen despite the changes in rules to protect players and new hi tech pads that are stronger and lighter.
I'll let up on my rants now. So long as trainers are addressing the fact that many horses just don't like the stuff.
I have no problem with and understand why guys may want to train on it, at all. Can understand why owners of cheap crippled claimers who shouldnt even be racing(which is the real issue here) would wanna run on it.
The problem is that its being marketed as a dirt replacement surface, because there isn't any way that a track can have both. Its always gonna replace the dirt.
I think in the future should new tracks be constructed that perhaps they could build a track with a turf course, poly course, and dirt track. That I have no problem with.
But the people who market this stuff at 8-10 million per track, have made claims about the stuff haviing no bias at all(yeah right, good luck with the speed today at Keeneland again 1-22 and counting), and never needing maintenance at all. Yet Turfway has had to redo the track 3 times in 1 1/2 years. That sure doesn't sound maintenance free to me!!!!
If they have made false claims about those things, what else is there? And more than one trainer has expressed in my presence serious concerns about the kickback and what having that stuff go into the lungs will do to the horses in the long run.
The marketers used tragic breakdowns to pound the table that we need the stuff, despite the fact that horses do break down on Poly and we don't know if it would have prevented those breakdowns or not. They also painted anyone in the horse business a horrible guy who didn't want the stuff, as if they supported cruelty to animals. So long as trainers just aren't afraid to say they or their horses don't like it, and express that to the media, thats fine with me.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Yeah Point I read that as well. It chilled me out 100 degrees when I read that.
Nyer's are about the best alive at spotting complete and total con jobs. Its been so obvious to me that that's what this stuff is, a complete con job. It may be a bit safer, but a deep cushion and deeply harrowed surface will get you the same thing, and no matter what you do horse will always break down no matter what we do. Noone wants to see that, including me, but its part of the game. Same way that guys getting hurt on Sunday playing NFL football is always gonna happen despite the changes in rules to protect players and new hi tech pads that are stronger and lighter.
I'll let up on my rants now. So long as trainers are addressing the fact that many horses just don't like the stuff.
I have no problem with and understand why guys may want to train on it, at all. Can understand why owners of cheap crippled claimers who shouldnt even be racing(which is the real issue here) would wanna run on it.
The problem is that its being marketed as a dirt replacement surface, because there isn't any way that a track can have both. Its always gonna replace the dirt.
I think in the future should new tracks be constructed that perhaps they could build a track with a turf course, poly course, and dirt track. That I have no problem with.
But the people who market this stuff at 8-10 million per track, have made claims about the stuff haviing no bias at all(yeah right, good luck with the speed today at Keeneland again 1-22 and counting), and never needing maintenance at all. Yet Turfway has had to redo the track 3 times in 1 1/2 years. That sure doesn't sound maintenance free to me!!!!
If they have made false claims about those things, what else is there? And more than one trainer has expressed in my presence serious concerns about the kickback and what having that stuff go into the lungs will do to the horses in the long run.
The marketers used tragic breakdowns to pound the table that we need the stuff, despite the fact that horses do break down on Poly and we don't know if it would have prevented those breakdowns or not. They also painted anyone in the horse business a horrible guy who didn't want the stuff, as if they supported cruelty to animals. So long as trainers just aren't afraid to say they or their horses don't like it, and express that to the media, thats fine with me.

Oracle, you really know your horses, and I like to read your opinions about horses, but your incessant bashing of polytrack is ridiculous. A lot of trainers seem to really like it and arguably the biggest owner in the game likes it too. If you don't like the surface, don't bet it. Why is it so difficult to just view poly as another surface. There is grass, dirt, slop, yielding turf, poly, etc. Some horses will like it and some won't. It is just another interesting part of handicapping.

There are certain places where is makes sense like in CA where they had breakdowns and Keeneland where the speed bias was ridiculous. Belmont and Saratoga aren't changing unless the trainers and owners demand it.

As a biology major I view data and make decisions. The data from europe and the little data from the US, clearly shows that horses are safer on it, and the fields are larger at places where they have installed polytrack. The small fields at belmont saturday compared to the large fields at Keeneland did not exactly make the people who installed poly look bad.

As for an excuse for a horse not liking it, then the trainer should have put the horse on the surface and figured that out.

My friend's brother said Aqueduct will eventually go poly on the winter track and Belmont will have a poly training track soon enough. It isn't going away.

Originally Posted by Revolution

Oracle, you really know your horses, and I like to read your opinions about horses, but your incessant bashing of polytrack is ridiculous. A lot of trainers seem to really like it and arguably the biggest owner in the game likes it too. If you don't like the surface, don't bet it. Why is it so difficult to just view poly as another surface. There is grass, dirt, slop, yielding turf, poly, etc. Some horses will like it and some won't. It is just another interesting part of handicapping.

There are certain places where is makes sense like in CA where they had breakdowns and Keeneland where the speed bias was ridiculous. Belmont and Saratoga aren't changing unless the trainers and owners demand it.

As a biology major I view data and make decisions. The data from europe and the little data from the US, clearly shows that horses are safer on it, and the fields are larger at places where they have installed polytrack. The small fields at belmont saturday compared to the large fields at Keeneland did not exactly make the people who installed poly look bad.

As for an excuse for a horse not liking it, then the trainer should have put the horse on the surface and figured that out.

My friend's brother said Aqueduct will eventually go poly on the winter track and Belmont will have a poly training track soon enough. It isn't going away.

Oh geez, the friend's brother again. Look he hasn't been right about two things out 200 hes predicted since we had the pleasureof making his 2nd hand acquaintance. Lets just say if he takes the high road, I'm taking the low road. If he orders the Steak, I'm ordering the Chicken, and if I board a plane and see him on it I'm running off that thing just as fast as my legs can carry me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As far as attendance goes, its a joke. Ny offers racing 300 days a year, its not a novelty. Keeneland is a track in a state thats based upon horse racing in the city most based up on racing.
Its only common sense that when they havea 3 week fall meet with good fields that attendance is gonna be high. If you think those people went out to see polytrack, rather than to enjoy the wine, women, and racing, then you really don't have any idea what you are talking about.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Oh geez, the friend's brother again. Look he hasn't been right about two things out 200 hes predicted since we had the pleasureof making his 2nd hand acquaintance. Lets just say if he takes the high road, I'm taking the low road. If he orders the Steak, I'm ordering the Chicken, and if I board a plane and see him on it I'm running off that thing just as fast as my legs can carry me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As far as attendance goes, its a joke. Ny offers racing 300 days a year, its not a novelty. Keeneland is a track in a state thats based upon horse racing in the city most based up on racing.
Its only common sense that when they havea 3 week fall meet with good fields that attendance is gonna be high. If you think those people went out to see polytrack, rather than to enjoy the wine, women, and racing, then you really don't have any idea what you are talking about.

George Washington knows the business just a little. You need to stop making everything personal though and answer questions. It seems like whenever you are wrong you make personal attacks.

You have not made one good argument against polytrack. All I have read from trainers is that they like it. Todd Pletcher is moving horses to CA to run on it and he sent his top 2yr old to run on it this weekend, when he could have run him in NY this weekend.

Obviously, people who live off the sheets don't like it, because it makes it more difficult to find races to bet. Why don't you just admit you have an agenda and it is you making money? There is nothing wrong with admitting that.

[lemoncrush]

We can argue for or against Polytrack until we're blue in the face, but nothing will be solved until we have more race history on this surface.
I don't like it at all personally, but what do we really have to go on besides what we've seen at Turfway, and opening weekend at Keenland?
The biggest races ever ran on polytrack prior to last weekend was..I guess the Lane's End last March.
Until we see several Graded stakes on this surface, it's hard to gauge.
If we saw horses like Ghostzapper, Afleet Alex and St. Liam struggle on poly, and win everwhere else, it would be easy to draw a conclusion.
But they never ran on it.
For me, I'll need to see Grade 1 calibur horses in their prime run over the surface and perform similar, or just as well as they do on dirt, before I become even a moderate fan of polytrack.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Revolution

George Washington knows the business just a little. You need to stop making everything personal though and answer questions. It seems like whenever you are wrong you make personal attacks.

You have not made one good argument against polytrack. All I have read from trainers is that they like it. Todd Pletcher is moving horses to CA to run on it and he sent his top 2yr old to run on it this weekend, when he could have run him in NY this weekend.

Obviously, people who live off the sheets don't like it, because it makes it more difficult to find races to bet. Why don't you just admit you have an agenda and it is you making money? There is nothing wrong with admitting that.

Polytrack will change the horse racing world PERIOD. I don't think it has as much to do with making money as it does the fact that the business is being drastically changed. Some people don't just roll over when things like this happen... it takes an adjustment period. Until you can learn to make your own decisions (without consulting your "friend's brother"), perhaps you should keep your mouth shut about it. Let me know when you've made up your own mind about it.