[lone speed]

I thought these were interesting comments by DRF writer Mike Watchmaker in one of those rare articles that I was able to read for free..

link:
http://www.drf.com/news/watchmaker-s...l-major-stakes

Here's what Watchmaker wrote about the Big Cap race:

Example 3 – Donworth in the Santa Anita Handicap. I liked Donworth in the Big Cap and I’ll be the first to admit he did not run well, even accounting for his clipping heels into the far turn.

However, given how well he ran in his comeback in last month’s San Antonio after a pace trip, Donworth was supposed to be the controlling speed Saturday. He was supposed to pull the trip Melatonin got. Short of that, Donworth was supposed to be right with Melatonin early.

Instead, despite having every opportunity to move up between horses early, Mario Gutierrez wrangled Donworth back, effectively conceding his best path to victory. And Donworth clearly resented the strategy. Of course, Melatonin wound up being the controlling speed that Donworth should have been, and he drew off to post a resounding upset.

Here’s the point. When horseplayers can’t rely on horses employing the running styles they have established over time, it means they can’t effectively project how a race will unfold. If bettors can’t rely on a speed duel happening when it absolutely is supposed to happen, chaos will ensue, and reasons for playing this game will evaporate. And as I’ve said before, take the betting out of this game, and it becomes polo.

As the sport is currently structured, the solution really lies in the stewards’ stand. I know some are going to find that unpalatable, but the stewards are the front line when it comes to racing integrity. If a transparent program is put into place that requires connections to explain to stewards why a horse didn’t, for example, show the speed he was expected to show, it might make questionable strategic decisions less commonplace. And that would be only good.