Dosage Figures on Dirt, Turf and Synthetics 2009

Annual Dosage statistics clearly differentiate Dosage figures according to track surface with, for example, the averages on turf (DI 2.58, CD 0.58) being significantly lower than the averages on dirt (DI 3.59, CD 0.77).  At the same time, the average distance of turf races is longer (8.84 furlongs versus 7.76 furlongs), making the lower turf overall average consistent with the traditional Dosage model correlating Dosage figures with distance.  The table below additionally reveals that between 6f and 12f, the Dosage figures are lower on turf than on dirt at every distance.  Therefore, the general Dosage differences between the two surfaces can not be attributed exclusively to differences in the average distance of the races because the figures are different even at the same distance.  So although the traditional Dosage vs distance model holds, it appears there may be a general, undefined aptitudinal predisposition for turf associated with chefs-de-race assigned to the more stamina-oriented aptitudinal groups.

This year, for the first time, we have added data for races on synthetic surfaces and the early results show Dosage characteristics somewhere between dirt and turf, perhaps closer to the latter.  The average figures on synthetic surfaces (DI 2.75, CD 0.69) fall between those of dirt and turf even though the average distance of races on synthetic surfaces is 7.80 furlongs, almost identical the the average on dirt.  We do observe, however, a similar trend to turf where at any given distance the figures for synthetic surfaces are lower than for dirt.  Thus, there may be and undefined aptitudinal predisposition for synthetic surfaces as well.  The situation should become clearer once more data for synthetic surfaces become available.  At any rate, the significance of these observations is that synthetic surfaces are not direct replacements for dirt and that aptitudinal assignments for future chefs-de-race probably should take into account not only the average winning distance of their progeny, but also the distribution of their wins by surface.