On the face of it I'd think track and distance stats are important. I've started to pay more attention to them recently. But I don't doubt you can have a succesful system without them. Aren't there some stats to guide us on things like this? Of the two factors I'd think distance is the more important. I remember running in athletics. How far I had to run was more important than the venue. I'm sure its the same for a horse, even if they prefer certain tracks. So I usually factor in performance over distance and glance at the track stats for anything peculiar.

Seems to me the two primary characteristics of a race horse, or any racing animal, are (1) speed and (2) distance. A horse must be fast and be able to run the distance (endurance) or its not a race horse. Wouldn't it make sense to assess form on these two things first and foremost, perhaps?

Chief, I reckon at Distance = 5-0-0-0, Track = 5-0-0-0, I'd eliminate it. Looks like a meaningful stat to me, in this instance, and you'd have to say the prognosis is not good.

I note that it is unpredictable where you will find "meaningful" stats. I note this from reviewing old races (losses usually, alas). In one case you look at a winner and the track stat, say, stands out. Five starts, three wins, two places. Ordinary stats otherwise, but the track stat is outstanding. And it wins, and with hindsight you can say, well, look at that track stat, no wonder. But the track stat may be irrelevant in most other cases. I've got this hair-brained idea of searching out the "peculiar and unusual" stat in a field. Just an idle idea...

Thanks for the informative discussion all.

Hermes