Dosage Figures on Dirt, Turf and Synthetics 2010

Annual Dosage statistics clearly differentiate Dosage figures according to track surface with, for example, the averages on turf (DI 2.57, CD 0.58) being significantly lower than the averages on dirt (DI 3.58, 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 average Dosage figures (ADI and ACD) 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.

When we include data for races on synthetic surfaces we find the Dosage figures for the races on synthetic surfaces fall close to the figures for races on turf except at classic distances where they are a bit closer to the figures on dirt.  Overall, the average figures on synthetic surfaces (DI 2.77, CD 0.69) fall between those of dirt and turf even though the average distance of races on synthetic surfaces is 7.84 furlongs, just slightly above the average on dirt.  We do observe, however, a trend similar to that observed on 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.