When horses are no better than what they're seeking: the Dispute rule, as demonstrated by Astrology on 6/16

It didn't occur to me until a quarter of a mile into Saturday's 3rd at Churchill, but race favorite Astology fit a tenet I've developed through the years, which is that good established horses running in soft spots are not generally good bets. The first race I saw that made me consider the merits of this philosophy was an ungraded stake in the winter of 1994 with Dispute in it. Dispute had won the Kentucky Oaks, Gazelle, and Beldame the previous year, all grade Is. As the layoff was not particularly long, and the competition not particularly, she struck me as much more of a 1-5 shot than the 7-10 she offered, and I lamented the surrounding stupidity. But Dispute finished 3rd that day and contiued to run sluggishly, until taking the Spinster in her final start of the year.

Race conditions are designed to produce evenly matched horses. We do have heavy favorites sometimes, however, and legitimately so. Connections still tend to be conservative with young horses and try an allowance race rather than a stake in the aftermath of a strong maiden win. There's nothing generally suspicious about a 3-year-old maiden winner proceeding to a nw1x allowance. We also find maidens who ran fast in their previous start but ran into the wrong horse. There's nothing suspicious in their taking advantage of the available maiden race once again. Favorites in starter races seem to be most reliable of all.

But conditions do not do all of the work in leveling a race's playing field. If Astrology was the horse who won or placed in five consecutive graded stakes, culminating with the Preakness, over a 9-month period, he wouldn't have been running in Saturday's allowance/optional claimer. Not after already having his race back as a 4-year-old, an allowance, and having won it. On form, Astrology may have been better than a nw3x allowance horse, but Steve Asmussen was saying by running him in the race that he wasn't, or at least not markedly so.

The public responded to Astrology with some caution, making him 3/5. If he had been lower, the race would have been very playable. With that amount of betting on Astrology, the race was generally unplayable by the percentages, despite a $1,781.20 trifecta resulting. You see I am not saying that the playing field was entirely level, or that Astrology should not have been the strong favorite. Only that his form could not be taken entirely at face value with the chosen spot.