Quote:
|
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
I think it more than likely that the track changed speeds between the Ginger Punch race and the Whitney. If someone was actually at the track, they might know if the maintenace crew added water or worked on the track prior to the Whitney like they often do before feature races.
|
I did not make any particular observations about what the track crew did prior to the Whitney. The track had been harrowed most of the day, but was sealed prior to the Diana, and subsequently "re-opened." Whether that may have had an impact on the glibness of the track, I can't say.
The only comment that I have on the figures is that the problem seems to stem from the comparison of the Whitney to the Go For Wand. To my eye, the Go For Wand was a pretty ugly race, and the winner still got the 9F in 1:49, the second fastest running of the race since the Maskette was transferred to Saratoga in 1994 and renamed after Go For Wand. As so often happens, horses don't set track records, but the glibness of the racing surface results in track records. The final times for the Vanderbilt (only Speightstown, Prospect Bay and Five Star Day had run faster times than Diabolical) and the modest group of NY-bred maidens in the last race suggest that the track was playing faster than par at the end of Saturday's card. Perhaps that explains why a track record was set by a very talented horse that ran a very big race.