The Churchill surface on Derby Day......was it closer-biased?
DiscreetCat
Moderator
Interesting discussion on another forum regarding the Derby results, mostly in relation to handicapping Shackleford for the Preakness. Someone was insisting that Shackleford ran big against an anti-speed bias. I did a little research on the matter (though i'm not much of a bias handicapper, i prefer to stray away from that), and here's what i came up with. Interested to hear you guys' thoughts:
Regarding your stance that the Churchill surface was anti-speed and that Shackleford ran well despite of it, i'm not really the person to ask about that. Track bias is more Crick's area than mine. The track definitely wasn't running slow, however. That much i know. I even went back just now and looked at the charts, and wrote down the results for all the Dirt races on the undercard. Here they are:
Race 1, a starter allowance around a one-turn mile
23.14, 45.85, 110.80, 122.80, 135.69
Definitely not slow, and the winner here was leading at the 6-furlong mark.
Race 2, a first-level allowance around two turns
24.26, 48.63, 113.39, 137.41, 143.61
This was the only two-turn dirt race that was run before the Derby, and it's definitely slower than all the others. Do note however that the winner here was never worse than second during the race, and was never more than a length off the pace. So that doesn't fall in line with the uber-closer bias.
Race 3, a straight maiden race
22.21, 46.15, 57.60, 109.62
The winner here went wire-to-wire. Definitely no anti-speed bias through the first three races, or so it seems.
Race 5, a first-level allowance race
22.52, 45.40, 109.83, 122.07
The winner here came from well off the pace. Fractions were definitely not slow however, something that holds true all the way up until the Derby, so i'll stop mentioning fro this point.
Race 7, a stakes race
22.29, 44.68, 108.54, 121.01
The winner here was 5 lengths back after a half-mile, but was only a half-length behind the leaders at the 6-furlong mark.
Race 9, another stakes
22.56, 45.00, 108.84, 121.40
Another off-the-pace winner here.
So i guess you can say that results favored closers in the races leading up to the Derby, but it wasn't that way in the earlier races, so i think the jury is out on that. Track seems fair, if i'm forced to make a determination. I do find it interesting that the only other two-turn race had a very slow pace (much like the Derby), but again, note that the winner was forwardly-placed throughout. As for the overall speed of the racing surface throughout the day, i don't think anyone can argue that it was running slow.
Btw, it should probably be noted that there was a 50-60% chance of rain in the forecast (though the rains never came), so i'm guessing the track was sealed. Perhaps that's why speed appeared to be doing better earlier on the card, who knows.
As for my Preakness selection, i picked Animal Kingdom. I thought he was pretty close to a standout in the race, i was hoping to get 3/1 on him, and i thought there was a decent chance that i might. I'm happy with the selection, i still think he was best. I think Shackleford was fortunate that AK was taken so far back early. I think that was the difference in the race. Kind of reminded me of the BC Classic with Zenyatta, although not to such an extreme. I did not like Dialed In, as you suggested, primarily because i feel he's not as effective around two turns.
Going back to the Derby, my selection there was Soldat. I did however give an honorable mention to three other horses, because i know that people love to bet exotics in the Derby, or perhaps bet more than one horse to win. One of those three horses was Animal Kingdom. In fact, we discussed that horse at length over on HRT in the weeks leading up to the race. The other two horses were Archarcharch (who would've been my top pick if not for the rail draw) and Midnight Interlude.
Regarding your stance that the Churchill surface was anti-speed and that Shackleford ran well despite of it, i'm not really the person to ask about that. Track bias is more Crick's area than mine. The track definitely wasn't running slow, however. That much i know. I even went back just now and looked at the charts, and wrote down the results for all the Dirt races on the undercard. Here they are:
Race 1, a starter allowance around a one-turn mile
23.14, 45.85, 110.80, 122.80, 135.69
Definitely not slow, and the winner here was leading at the 6-furlong mark.
Race 2, a first-level allowance around two turns
24.26, 48.63, 113.39, 137.41, 143.61
This was the only two-turn dirt race that was run before the Derby, and it's definitely slower than all the others. Do note however that the winner here was never worse than second during the race, and was never more than a length off the pace. So that doesn't fall in line with the uber-closer bias.
Race 3, a straight maiden race
22.21, 46.15, 57.60, 109.62
The winner here went wire-to-wire. Definitely no anti-speed bias through the first three races, or so it seems.
Race 5, a first-level allowance race
22.52, 45.40, 109.83, 122.07
The winner here came from well off the pace. Fractions were definitely not slow however, something that holds true all the way up until the Derby, so i'll stop mentioning fro this point.
Race 7, a stakes race
22.29, 44.68, 108.54, 121.01
The winner here was 5 lengths back after a half-mile, but was only a half-length behind the leaders at the 6-furlong mark.
Race 9, another stakes
22.56, 45.00, 108.84, 121.40
Another off-the-pace winner here.
So i guess you can say that results favored closers in the races leading up to the Derby, but it wasn't that way in the earlier races, so i think the jury is out on that. Track seems fair, if i'm forced to make a determination. I do find it interesting that the only other two-turn race had a very slow pace (much like the Derby), but again, note that the winner was forwardly-placed throughout. As for the overall speed of the racing surface throughout the day, i don't think anyone can argue that it was running slow.
Btw, it should probably be noted that there was a 50-60% chance of rain in the forecast (though the rains never came), so i'm guessing the track was sealed. Perhaps that's why speed appeared to be doing better earlier on the card, who knows.
As for my Preakness selection, i picked Animal Kingdom. I thought he was pretty close to a standout in the race, i was hoping to get 3/1 on him, and i thought there was a decent chance that i might. I'm happy with the selection, i still think he was best. I think Shackleford was fortunate that AK was taken so far back early. I think that was the difference in the race. Kind of reminded me of the BC Classic with Zenyatta, although not to such an extreme. I did not like Dialed In, as you suggested, primarily because i feel he's not as effective around two turns.
Going back to the Derby, my selection there was Soldat. I did however give an honorable mention to three other horses, because i know that people love to bet exotics in the Derby, or perhaps bet more than one horse to win. One of those three horses was Animal Kingdom. In fact, we discussed that horse at length over on HRT in the weeks leading up to the race. The other two horses were Archarcharch (who would've been my top pick if not for the rail draw) and Midnight Interlude.