I do not like what I am about to write here. It goes against a lot of stuff that I believe in and feel. However, the evidence as I look at it makes me see things I prefer not to see but are there.

It seems to me that Dance of Fate's last race is good enough to win the Derby and he could easily pair it up or even more forward. It seems that the ONLY reason people are discounting this horse is based on the belief that he is better on synthetic or grass than he is on dirt. First, I am not convinced that reason for throwing him out is correct. Second, even if it is correct, grass horses seem to have a certain edge with that oh so tricky last 1/8 of a mile and I have heard people say that the Churchill Dirt is kind to grass specialists.

As to the first point, what is the basis for saying he is better on one surface over another? His connections say so? is that good enough reason to reach the conclusion? I find the pedigree very difficult to discern, and there are bases in there that one could say there is a dirt affinity. He did run a new lifetime top first time on dirt (not true of California Chrome -- who required a third try on dirt before he could run a lifetime top on the stuff). That first race on dirt was a grade 1 two turn race at Santa Anita. He was made the favorite in the race and he did run second. Those all suggest that at least at the time, people putting their money where their mouths are thought this horse was a Grade 1 dirt horse and he ran like it. Yes, he did already run second in the synthetic Grade 1 Del Mar Futurity (beating California Chrome who himself looked like a synthetic specialist until first dirt new top which was only last month), but I just do not see how people say he is a synth/grass specialist. Yes, he backed up in the breeders cup, but he arguably had a trip excuse, plus he also had to run without lasix. An argument could be construed that this horse has a history of stepping forward moving from synthetic to dirt, and could do so again on May 3.

As to the second point, two years ago, Dullahan and Went the Day Well could both have been thrown out for being specialists and both hit the super (WTDW did actually make tops every dirt effort). The year before that, Animal Kingdom won first time dirt, but also "specialists" Master of Hounds and Brilliant Speed both ran tops in the Derby that either were not fast enough to crack the super (MoH ran 5th) or were concealed (!) by an awful trip (BS's 2.5!). The year before that Paddy O'Prado AND Make Music for Me both hit the super at good prices...same theory. The year before that, Pioneerof the Nile and Papa Clem both hit the super as synthetic specialists. I understand that these anecdotes are not scientific. However, there is plenty of evidence of the Derby crowd throwing out logical contenders because they are perceived to be synth or turf specialists and being wrong. This horse, Dance with Fate seems another in this line. If he were being bet down, I might feel differently, but I have to think this horse is going to go off at 20-1 or better and he seems to me like he is no different than all the other contenders people are talking about.

Am I crazy? Where is my error? I wish I were wrong. I hate Synthetics. I don't like betting horses like this, but it seems he is a logical bet. He completely clobbered me in the Blue Grass...but now that he has jumped up....I think you have to give that number a lot of credence.