Re: Did Exaggerator not like Belmont Surface? (858 Views)
Posted by:
bobphilo (IP Logged)
Date: June 13, 2016 08:55PM
Jim,
You know better than using pace figures for 1-turn races at shorter distances to determine a pace par for the longer 2-turn marathon Belmont distance. As this was the only race on dirt at the distance you have to see how the pace affected the horses in this race and horses running on the pace did worse than the closers.
Another method I often use is based on the physiological principle that the best way to run a race is to distribute energy evenly, especially at longer distances.
One compares the pace call to the final time to see how efficiently a horse is running. Now a deviation of about a second is no big deal but anymore is a very fast pace and the longer the race the more serious the consequences.
Given the final time the pace call shows the Belmont was run inefficiently by front runners, as the results show. The fact that the race was run inefficiently in the past has no relevance.
Just to clarify, are you calling me dumb because I called Kent's ride dumb. If so, please skip the personal insults.