synthetic surface fake out
 

Now that we're getting down to the nitty-gritty, how are people going to deal with the synthetic to dirt angle? Some commentators have opined that while form doesn't translate dirt to junk, it works just fine vice versa.

If this is true, throw out bad performances by usual dirt runners, like Pyro, who have tried the stuff (assuming you don't think there's other reasons for the anomalous stinker), and handicap the junk runners as if they were going to run the same on dirt.

Or, is it a mistake to treat the subject monolithically? Maybe there's a big difference among different synthetic surfaces at different tracks, in terms of how form transfers.

I gave a list in another thread of about 10-15 graded stakes winners on synthetics that came back to not be able to run anywhere near as well on the dirt so that just isn't true. I'm going to actually pay attention to the works for the first time for the synthetic horses. Most of them I will be tossing cause they will be overbet on their synthetic form but if one of them turns in a nice work I will give them consideration. If Colonel John were to not work on the dirt I will significanly cut back the money I'm wagering on the Derby as I don't care to have to guess whether or not the horse will like the dirt for a horse that certainly has a shot but will be at far too low odds for my taste.

It seems to me that the Poly surface is much different that the other synthetics. From what I've seen, the transition from dirt to Poly is much more difficult than from dirt to "Cushion", "Tapeta" or "Pro-Ride". Many horses just don't seem to take to the Poly and don't run their true race. I think the other synthetic surfaces are closer to dirt, and a greater percentage of them will run "their race". I agree that synthetic to dirt seems to be an easier transition.

I will forgive Pyro for his Poly blunder. I saw so many horses at Del Mar last summer that did not run a step on the stuff, and others that were Poly freaks. In my opionion, Pyro will be a major player in the derby. Like Colonel John, he will need racing luck, but I believe they will run their races at Churchill. I still have some work to do on the race, but they are my top 2 contenders at the moment.

Why work ? Pyro and Col John are obvious choices.

The paralysis of analysis. :p

I think it is a mistake to treat all synthetics the same - most of us do not do that for the various dirt tracks, or turf - recognizing that they differ, sometimes quite markedly. Barbaro was a bit hard to follow for that reason.

The synthetics are just another surface. I'm going to do the same as I always do - pay the most attention to how the horses are looking and going the last couple of weeks (my own and others observations - Haskin is the best) and where they are training.

I'm treating it the same way I always treated changes in surface- whether it be dirt to turf, mud, whatever. If they have proven they can or can't, then make the judgement accordingly. Otherwise you have to be flexible and see what else you can use to make sense of the whole puzzle. Colonel John, Pyro, and Coal Man are the ones with the huge questions on surfaces with the latter two having disastrous synthetic results after good dirt races. For them, the works at Churchill will go a long way to helping me decide who is and isn't a contender.