drdom wrote: I'm pretty sure those horses with Good merit ratings on sand will get priority, but I don't see any reason to give inferior horses places over superior ones just because they have not raced on sand. Lots of these good sand horses also have good turf and poly records, why suspect the good turf horses can't do it on on the sand ?
Anyhow, unless there is a stipulation about horses having to have sand form, it should not be the major determining factor. Perhaps they should have it in the race entry requirements in future?
I give up ....
'The race has attracted 40 nominations and it will be interesting to see how
the panel manage to whittle it down to just 14 runners as there are a
number of entries who have not yet raced on the surface.
Proven performance
on the sand is one of key criteria for any nominee but there are some
excellent runners who do not meet that rule.
Would be great if they finally got it right at the last attempt - why not have a log like the July - then everyone knows which horses are likely to run? And imo, proven sand performance should influence log position? I'd rather have a horse in the race that has won 5 times on the sand with a rating of 90, than a sand debutante rated 100 - and it is a handicap after all. If it were a conditions / plated race, perhaps the argument of having the higher rated sand debutantes in the race would make more sense ?
And where is the Ante-Post betting ?
