Tweet
Interesting article
We've of course been hearing a lot of talk about the speed bias on the main track at Monmouth. (Interesting that discussion of that sort lacks the disdain that we hear directed toward the synthetic surfaces at Del Mar and Keeneland that have instead favored closers [though not quite as much at the current meeting at the latter]. Many horsemen and breeders just love that speed, and some seem to feel threatened by the thought of tracks playing the way Del Mar did this year.)
Ever since Monmouth opened for its regular 2007 meeting in May and the dirt track, always perceived as being friendly to front-runners, now seemed to be even more so with its new dirt base, talk of the bias has pervaded discussion of the Breeders' Cup. We've heard trainers sound queasy about the chances of their closers, and speculation that Street Sense's style has been altered towards more early speed in order to adapt.
Sometimes, common perceptions of particular tracks are wrong. The prime example would be Pimlico, when every year at Preakness time we need to be reminded that the turns there are not really tighter than those at Churchill Downs. Another is the inner track at Aqueduct, which may favor speed, but not because of a shorter stretch as some believe. It's actually 21 feet longer than that of the main track which surrounds it (don't ask me, but it's true).
We've been hearing a lot about tight turns at Monmouth too, and Jessica Chapel, at her Railbird blog, either used Google Satellite or expended a lot of frequent flyer miles putting together this instructive visual comparison. You may be surprised what you see. Jessica concludes that "Monmouth's sharp curves may well be as apocryphal as those of Pimlico." (Er....being of questionable authenticity, I had to look it up too.)
But the main question for us trying to unlock the formidable handicapping challenge that awaits us (have you started yet?) is whether the track's early speed reputation, which has started to reach the heights of pre-Poly Keeneland , is real or overrated?
Brad Thomas is the paddock analyst at Monmouth and at the Meadowlands (though there from the third floor clubhouse), and is as sharp and assiduous (Jessica got me going with the fancy words) in his preparation on a daily basis as anybody in the profession. His observations on the Monmouth course and the types of horses, both in terms of running style and conformation, he feels will succeed (and fail) next weekend is worth the cost of the Daily Racing Form's Advance Edition alone. Thomas told the Form's Dave Litfin that the bias is "much more myth than reality in recent years." Not, he says, that it doesn't favor speed to the extent that any one mile dirt track would, but not "10-star speed favoring on a consistent basis." He feels that the perception has been enhanced this year due to a truly biased track on the weekends when people were watching nationally.
Jason Servis has been based at Monmouth since he started training horses in 2001, and has proven to be a consistent high-percentage winner. He was the leading trainer not named Todd Pletcher or Bruce Levine at this year's meet, with an impressive 31 for 97 (32%), and 67% in the money. Servis has a somewhat different view on the bias: "My opinion, I think it's real. You got a few speed riders here that add to that reputation. But I think it's real." He spoke of the belief around the backstretch that the track gets faster at high tide. "You can see the infield lake go up a few feet. That could put more moisture in the track."
However, Servis also agreed that the track has been more speed favoring on big race days. And more significantly, he told me that the surface has changed since the summer meeting ended on September 3. That's the big question - how natural factors such as cooler temperatures and diminished sun strength, as well as any adjustments by the track crew, will affect the way the track plays. Servis, who called the current condition of the track "terrific," saying that it looks "almost manicured," said that "you can't really hear the horses when they gallop on it anymore; it wasn't like that during the summer." He added that the track doesn't seem nearly as fast as it was early in the summer meet. "The [workout] times have been pretty reasonable over the last month."
We may of course get some clues from the races coming up on Wednesday and Thursday (which for some reason I find myself particularly psyched for...where the hell are the pp's already?), keeping in mind that the track may be different on Friday and, particularly, Saturday. One would think that if it were up to the Breeders' Cup folks, the track would be fair given the suspected rail bias at Churchill last year (or, given the controversy it generated, maybe not).
What will certainly be different on Friday and Saturday though will be the horses running. Writing at Brisnet.com, Steve Zacks (apparently still a little worked up over last year's bias question) points out:
Better horses are more likely to run down the speed, even the loose speed, than are lower-quality runners. I would suspect that from the more than 40 races carded over four days, there will be some overlooked late runners winning races on both turf and dirt.
Thus, he advises: "If one is prepared to take a contrarian view about closers then the rewards may be there!" Indeed, I think that might be the case even if Wednesday and Thursday offers strong evidence that any bias which may have existed previously is gone. The perception of a strong speed trend has been so pervasive for so long now that a lot of that extra money in the pools may be oblivious to anything that happens on those first two days. So I'll be looking for some solid value on horses that are being discounted due to its style even should there be obvious evidence against that view. (And I'll keep an eye on that infield lake too.)
- Jason Servis also spoke of the condition of the grass course. "I heard on the grapevine that the Europeans wanted the grass to be at least seven inches tall. It's stopped growing now and I don't know if they're going to get that. But the grass is definitely longer." That could be good news for the Euro invaders who will have to overcome the turns which are tighter than to what they're accustomed.
We've of course been hearing a lot of talk about the speed bias on the main track at Monmouth. (Interesting that discussion of that sort lacks the disdain that we hear directed toward the synthetic surfaces at Del Mar and Keeneland that have instead favored closers [though not quite as much at the current meeting at the latter]. Many horsemen and breeders just love that speed, and some seem to feel threatened by the thought of tracks playing the way Del Mar did this year.)
Ever since Monmouth opened for its regular 2007 meeting in May and the dirt track, always perceived as being friendly to front-runners, now seemed to be even more so with its new dirt base, talk of the bias has pervaded discussion of the Breeders' Cup. We've heard trainers sound queasy about the chances of their closers, and speculation that Street Sense's style has been altered towards more early speed in order to adapt.
Sometimes, common perceptions of particular tracks are wrong. The prime example would be Pimlico, when every year at Preakness time we need to be reminded that the turns there are not really tighter than those at Churchill Downs. Another is the inner track at Aqueduct, which may favor speed, but not because of a shorter stretch as some believe. It's actually 21 feet longer than that of the main track which surrounds it (don't ask me, but it's true).
We've been hearing a lot about tight turns at Monmouth too, and Jessica Chapel, at her Railbird blog, either used Google Satellite or expended a lot of frequent flyer miles putting together this instructive visual comparison. You may be surprised what you see. Jessica concludes that "Monmouth's sharp curves may well be as apocryphal as those of Pimlico." (Er....being of questionable authenticity, I had to look it up too.)
But the main question for us trying to unlock the formidable handicapping challenge that awaits us (have you started yet?) is whether the track's early speed reputation, which has started to reach the heights of pre-Poly Keeneland , is real or overrated?
Brad Thomas is the paddock analyst at Monmouth and at the Meadowlands (though there from the third floor clubhouse), and is as sharp and assiduous (Jessica got me going with the fancy words) in his preparation on a daily basis as anybody in the profession. His observations on the Monmouth course and the types of horses, both in terms of running style and conformation, he feels will succeed (and fail) next weekend is worth the cost of the Daily Racing Form's Advance Edition alone. Thomas told the Form's Dave Litfin that the bias is "much more myth than reality in recent years." Not, he says, that it doesn't favor speed to the extent that any one mile dirt track would, but not "10-star speed favoring on a consistent basis." He feels that the perception has been enhanced this year due to a truly biased track on the weekends when people were watching nationally.
Jason Servis has been based at Monmouth since he started training horses in 2001, and has proven to be a consistent high-percentage winner. He was the leading trainer not named Todd Pletcher or Bruce Levine at this year's meet, with an impressive 31 for 97 (32%), and 67% in the money. Servis has a somewhat different view on the bias: "My opinion, I think it's real. You got a few speed riders here that add to that reputation. But I think it's real." He spoke of the belief around the backstretch that the track gets faster at high tide. "You can see the infield lake go up a few feet. That could put more moisture in the track."
However, Servis also agreed that the track has been more speed favoring on big race days. And more significantly, he told me that the surface has changed since the summer meeting ended on September 3. That's the big question - how natural factors such as cooler temperatures and diminished sun strength, as well as any adjustments by the track crew, will affect the way the track plays. Servis, who called the current condition of the track "terrific," saying that it looks "almost manicured," said that "you can't really hear the horses when they gallop on it anymore; it wasn't like that during the summer." He added that the track doesn't seem nearly as fast as it was early in the summer meet. "The [workout] times have been pretty reasonable over the last month."
We may of course get some clues from the races coming up on Wednesday and Thursday (which for some reason I find myself particularly psyched for...where the hell are the pp's already?), keeping in mind that the track may be different on Friday and, particularly, Saturday. One would think that if it were up to the Breeders' Cup folks, the track would be fair given the suspected rail bias at Churchill last year (or, given the controversy it generated, maybe not).
What will certainly be different on Friday and Saturday though will be the horses running. Writing at Brisnet.com, Steve Zacks (apparently still a little worked up over last year's bias question) points out:
Better horses are more likely to run down the speed, even the loose speed, than are lower-quality runners. I would suspect that from the more than 40 races carded over four days, there will be some overlooked late runners winning races on both turf and dirt.
Thus, he advises: "If one is prepared to take a contrarian view about closers then the rewards may be there!" Indeed, I think that might be the case even if Wednesday and Thursday offers strong evidence that any bias which may have existed previously is gone. The perception of a strong speed trend has been so pervasive for so long now that a lot of that extra money in the pools may be oblivious to anything that happens on those first two days. So I'll be looking for some solid value on horses that are being discounted due to its style even should there be obvious evidence against that view. (And I'll keep an eye on that infield lake too.)
- Jason Servis also spoke of the condition of the grass course. "I heard on the grapevine that the Europeans wanted the grass to be at least seven inches tall. It's stopped growing now and I don't know if they're going to get that. But the grass is definitely longer." That could be good news for the Euro invaders who will have to overcome the turns which are tighter than to what they're accustomed.
Comment