Mandown, I'll get right on it.

I was glad to hear that Mall's guy decided there wasn't enough to this to pursue, since my brain revolted just having to read that report, but a couple of thoughts:

1-- All horses run at different speeds at different parts of a race, and they each have different fatigue curves, which would make things even more complicated.

2-- Even if we did have accurate moisture readings, the moisture level varies at different points around the track due to shade from the grandstand, exposure to wind etc.

3-- At a personal level, and as a side issue, the most interesting thing about the study was that they found even slight differences in moisture content had a significant effect on energy returned to the horse (or as Friedman said in his ill-fated attempt to appear scientific, "resiliency"). In terms that matter here, slight changes (like 1/2 of 1 per cent) in moisture were found to lead to what we would note as changes in track speed. Those of you who read the post about my discussion with NYRA track superintendent Jerry Porcelli might remember that he said a track labeled fast could have a moisture content of anywhere from 3 to 12 per cent. There are a lot of posts to be found here on this subject (like "Changing Track Speeds", 11/17/01), but the short form is that Ragozin's claim that only rain storms, freezes, and thaws can affect track speed (made both in his book and by Friedman on their site), is archaic, dogmatic nonsense, the furthest thing from science. We are dealing with a surface that is having water added (or not) at intervals, has its own absorbtive qualities which can be different from those of another track, and is affected by wind, sun, shade, humidity,and groundskeeping. Moisture content and track speed are changing constantly.



TGJB