I don't take as much interest as I probably should in the actual physical side of racing, it tends to be a bunch of numbers to me, but one thing stood out to me about this years Melbourne Cup. The more I saw Lee Freedman say Makybe Diva wouldn't run if the track was too dry the more I saw shots of them watering the Flemington race course. Perhaps this amount of watering is usual but it reminded me of Indian groundsmen preparing a pitch before a cricket match in India - specially prepared to favour one team.
Is this extensive watering usual?
KV

The media have a way of creating doubt about certain things. I have never seen them water the track before, but that doesn't mean it has never happened.

I think it is their responsibilty to create a fair track for all. With the hot weather in Melbourne that day they needed to put a bit of give into it. Who would want to run their horse on a hard track over 3200m.

I don't really know either way, all I have to go by is the media coverage, so I choose not to make a decision.

It seems to me that it is alright to run any other day's racing on a fast track except when there is the usual amount of hype concerning the Melbourne Cup. I don't bet in the Melbourne Cup so I'm not talking through my pocket but I think the weather that Mother Nature serves up is all that should be considered.

I think Makybe would have won no matter what the track rating, but I think they should have prepared the track as they do for every other meeting of the year. it just puts a bit of an unneccesary ? over the race.

When have they ever prepared Flemington by saying we will make it a dead rating for the start of the meeting because we know it will be good at some time during the day. Can we expect to see dead ratings throughout the summer from here on in.

I became a little annoyed with all the "we will scratch if the track is not what we want." by L. Freedman. who has also become a little too smug for my liking. Maybe I am becoming a little too carried away, excuse me if I am.

Top Rank, rest assured there are a lot of like minded people to yourself on this one. (taking nothing away from the victory of course)

There's been alot of debate about this - mostly media beat-up plus some sour grapes. The Vic stewards have adopted a strict 'no fast track' policy for all meetings, out of concern for the horses. I think it's fair enough. If you doubt the reasoning, go run two miles on concrete in bare feet and see how you feel.

You can debate this according to your opinion, but it is not a case of the track being watered for one race.

Glad to hear that Shoto, as long as what's good for the Goose ....etc, etc......

The Melb. Cup was run on a 'good' track. It was upgraded to good straight after the race. Meaning it didn't suddenly become good after the 7th. race. They always water to avoid a hard track now, but the 3mm of rain that fell that they could never have predicted, added a little more than normal, but it still ended up a good track anyway.
Sour grapes are always around after a Cup, it's just that this time the mouths they came from were bigger than usual and the press made a meal of it.

My bitch is about all the earlier races that where run on an obviously dead track, which would have given unfair advantage to some horses over others from a deliberate act [watering] to suit one race on the card :-)

the "manufactured" result, if you will, was derived not so much by track "tampering" as the weight allotted to the great mare.

any guesses as to what might & power would have been asked to carry had he been attempting his 3rd cup in a row?

that said she still had to win it & i was more than happy to see her pass the post in 1st.

and if the track was a 'manufactured' dead rating for the sake of the diva, then clearly the run of the race was Xcellent. The trainer said the horse cannot run on the wet yet he ran third on an unsuitable surface and on a very limited prep (less than 6000m in his legs, as opposed to MD: 7000+, LF: 10,000+, Rail: 12,000+). Watch out for Xcellent if he goes abroad!