I am not going to get into the debate about whether or not we should be running our championships over the pro ride because no one is going to convince anyone else whether this is right or wrong so I think it\'s a waste of time and energy to debate this subject.
What I will say is that I actually found it very easy by the end of the weekend to pick winners over the stuff. You can eliminate any horse in the field who doesn\'t have that explosive move because that\'s what the track favors, there is a clear bias toward explosive closers and I think a bias that one can pick up over the weekend is a huge advatage to those who are on the lookout for such a thing (remember the live rail on Breeders Cup Day at Churchill a few years back, this was no different). I sat at the top of the stretch in Clockers Corner both Friday and Saturday and had a great vantage point of every big move by the winner in each race. After it happened twice right in front of my eyes on Friday, I knew how to handicap the rest of the weekend.
It\'s very very clear that horses need a big turn of foot to win on the pro ride. The high cruising speed horses don\'t run their races over the pro ride. They can run well but not their best. The horses that run their best are the ones that have a huge turn of foot. Importantly, horses who have been running on dirt that have that explosive turn of foot can indeed translate their performance over to the poly (see Midnight Lute) so I don\'t thnk its fair to say that Curlin having to run on the pro ride somehow invalidated the results. Different tracks reward different horses for different things. This isn\'t an issue specific to pro ride. Street Sense\'s two best lifetime races were at Churchill where his amazing ability to handle the turns in tight is handsomely rewarded. At other tracks where that isn\'t such an advatage, he was great but not brilliant like he was at CD.
Pro Ride rewards horses that have that explosion just like East Coast dirt tracks generally reward the horses that have a high cruising speed and who are near the lead early. I don\'t see why one is any more or less fair than the other as the late closers who have the big turn of foot on the dirt on the east coast are at a disadvantage just as the high cruising speed horses are at a disadvantage over the pro ride. Why is one bias anymore fair than the other?
The Indian Blessing\'s, Curlin\'s, Ginerger Punch\'s, Hysterical Lady\'s, etc of the world who are very talented due to high cruising speeds have a big advantage on the east coast dirt where its generally harder to close and they are at a big disadvantage on the pro ride where the closing kick is rewarded.
Two final thoughts:
1) if we start to change our breeding behavior due to the synthetics, then I think that\'s all we need to know in order to believe that the move to synthetics is a good thing. I couldn\'t agree more with the earlier post that this weekend was the culmination of years of poor breeding decisions where we breed for speed (even going a route of ground) instead of stamina and explosiveness. We got what we deserved this weekend and will continue to do so until we change our breeding practices. I breed some of my own horses and aim trying to practice what I preach here by avoiding the unsound sprinter types. They should be prevented from going to the stallion barn.
2) for whatever it\'s worth, I thought the SA track folks did a WONDERFUL job this weekend. There were no lines, they didn\'t run out of anything, they brought in tellers from all over the place that knew what they were doing (I bet with 2 guys they imported from Churchill Downs all weekend who were terrific). This isn\'t to be taken for granted as I have been to all of the breeders cups for the last 7 years and too often, the tellers have no clue, they run out of food or the lines are ridiculous, even at the bigger tracks like Belmont. They deserve some kudos in all of this.
Just my two sense on all of this, I understand others will have different opinions.
