Anyone have a guess on a number for Quality Road today

[Michael D.]

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"The synth surfaces have been much safer so far,
> across the board\"
>
>
> ...synth surfaces are not much safer than NYRA
> tracks so far


Across the board in Cal Mikey. Nearly a 50% decrease in the catastrophic injury rate, through \'08. When we get the \'09 info, we\'ll have to reassess the situation. And forget all the anecdotal evidence not supported by fact. Most of it is driven by one\'s personal surface preference.

And I agree 100%. There likely is a dirt surface out there that is perfectly safe. We should all be pressing NYRA to come up with that surface.



> and old dirt injuries have been
> replaced by new ones on synth for some runners. If
> they did a real comprehensive study/trial run
> before they knee jerked to install synths, there
> would now probably be a cloned dirt type surface
> that would make most happy, trainers, owners and
> players.There is still no justification to
> radically change racing for less than 1 breakdown
> per thousand.
>
> I don\'t know the break down statistics against the
> old Cali dirt highways and one might want to
> consider the new tightening of drug rules re
> breakdowns, in part, as a reason for any
> decrease.
>
>
> Mike

[covelj70]

I\'m  not sure who the comment about running fillies against the boys is directed to but what I do believe (and I know not everyone agrees) is that the decision to skip the Belmont make what we are seeing now much more likely.

After the Preakness, I posted many times that I hoped they would skip the Belmont because the cumulative effect of the big efforts could likely knock her out, especially after she showed signs of distress in the Preakness (yeah Calvin, she just didn\'t like the track, that was it!)

Anyway, it\'s so great to see the connections give her some time to recover from the big efforts which made what we are seeing now more likely.  Surely no way to know if she would have done this if she had run in the Belmont but I think we can all agree that from a percentage likelihood, the time off increased the chances of this type of sustained campaign.

[Cartman]

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cart,
>
> Given the speed of the track and the caliber of
> the horses it does not seem too crazy:
>
> 22.45
>
> 44.95
>
> 1 07.22( third quarter in 22.27 is the suspicious
> one imo)
>
> 1 13.45
>
>
> Mike

I agree.

The 3rd quarter looks ridiculously fast and the last 1/16th was also fast. The pace was slow based on the fractions. So you would expect the horses to come home fast. I\'ve just never seen them come that fast. So maybe the early fractions are also wrong. It didn\'t exactly look like they were crawling to me, but that\'s exactly what is suggested by 22.45 and 44.95 on that surface.

[beyerguy]

The early fractions (1/4, 1/2) are way too slow.  Check other 6.5f races run at Saratoga the last few years.  You had two quality horses fighting for the lead and quitting badly.  You really think they set a slow pace?

[Cartman]

beyerguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The early fractions (1/4, 1/2) are way too slow.
> Check other 6.5f races run at Saratoga the last
> few years.  You had two quality horses fighting
> for the lead and quitting badly.  You really think
> they set a slow pace?

I agree for the same reason.

That figure is probably best calculated in isolation based on the record of the horses unless someone can get very accurate times off the replay.

[Boscar Obarra]

I would think in this disital day and age you could get a very accurate time off a replay.

 Assuming you can see where the timing pole is, it should be a matter of counting frames.