[Tim Y]

Anyone who believes that the footing underneath a horse does not play a part in predicting the outcome of a race has not made a serious study of how bias can change rthe overall complexion of a contest COMPLETELY.

Time was, before the reconfiguration and track surface change, that old Keeneland was a front running paradise. Find a horse that got out on top, hugged the rail and could go at least a quick 6 furlongs and you most likely had a VERY GOOD SHOT of hanging on at most of the classic route distances. Look a the match up two years before the resurfacing and see how Bandini and the ridiculous Sinister Minister, both of whom has e/l's and percent medians akin to middle distance horses, AIDED BY THAT BIAS, parlayed that bias into 9 furlong wins, and were, for a very short moment, considered for the LONGER and more demanding energy necessary for that first Saturday in May.

Now two years later, look at the energy distributions on the entire field for the 2007 contest where a tight photo had Dominican over the reigning two year champ and soon to become Kentucky Derby winner, Street Sense. Riders didn't change, medications didn't change, weather wasn't radically different nor were trainers brought in from Europe (Carl Nafzger called it the stupidest Grade one race ever).

Over a single season, the only variable in the equation that altered that result was the racing surface. It and IT ALONE dictated a completely different way of looking at that race, which by the way as the synthetic track aged, differed yet again the following season to some degree.

Anyone who follows the dramatic differences of energy profiles at Del Mar or Arlington can vouch for the fact that this is not an isolated phenomenon, WHICH is now, although to a much lesser degree, extant in New York on the Aqueduct inner.

When the track dictates the outcome, the only thing that will save your ROI is being on top of the change AS IT HAPPENS.