We had a Derby yesterday where a 50-1 who was 19th fastest out of 20 horses on T-Graph figures, won the Derby. A 70-1 shot ran second. (he did figure better than that price on T-Graph. I believe Jerry said he was one of the ones to most likely run his race, although it likely wouldn\'t be fast enough). A \"figure horse\" who probably bounced, still ran 3rd, and then a horse coming back on 7 days rest, filled out the super. 1.7 million dollar superfecta.
The pace was hot, the rabbit did his job, and the race collapsed, run in what appears to be very slow time. At first glance, looks like maybe Closing Argument will be top figure.
The horse who T-Graph thought was the most likely to run his race, comes in dead last. Now, most of the talk on this board is that the drugs that were apparently used in these horses prevoius races, were not used yesterday.
that is one explanation, but it isn\'t the only one and there are at least questions that can be asked. Miff asked some on other threads, and I don\'t think he really got answers.
A lot of people on this board questioned the figure given to High Limit BEFORE the Derby, saying that he did not pair up. His Derby sure looks like a 0-2-X.
These numbers are getting too fast, too often. -5 on Bellamy Road, -3.25 on Bandini, -2 on Greeley\'s Galaxy and -2 on Afleet Alex. The fastest crop ever on T-Graph, yet this crop somehow looked average to \"slow\" on Beyer, with the big exception of Bellamy Road. A 103 Beyer for the Bluegrass is very slow for that race. Which set of figures is right?
The more damning case to me is Northern Stag, a horse who failed to break his maiden in 5 previous races, suddenly runs a negative 5 in a maiden race at Keenland. Jerry, he is the second fastest horse of all time on your figures. Does anybody in the world actually believe that Northern Stag is the second fastest horse of all time? Wildcat Shoes is a negative 3.25?
Yes, with these aberrations, we can just say \"drugs\" and move on. But is that really it?
There is more to horses getting faster than drugs, as I said in the stuff I wrote about the subject (archives). But I would point out that Wildcat Shoes ran 1:08 flat yesterday, and Beyer had that his Kee figure the same as I did. I\'ve talked about that Northern Stag figure here before, and Beyer only has him about 2 of our points slower-- you would feel better with neg 3?
More to the point, if you add to Bandini and High Limit\'s BG, you have to add to Closing Argument\'s as well. Who also was coming in off only two starts this year.
Jerry,
Negative 3 is better than Negative 5. I don\'t want to read into your posting, but is 2 points \"within the margin for error\". I guess if I spent the time to try and make my own figures, I would understand the answer to that question.
Jerry, my self-proclaimed worthless opinion would be that I am fine with taking two points off of Bandini and High Limit, even in the context of Closing Argument\'s race yesterday. I think 2:02 and change on that track is worth of a pretty slow figure and even though CA ran visually well, I would not expect a real good figure for Closing Argument.
But now with the huge figures to Bellamy, Bandini, Afleet Alex and Greeley\'s Galaxy, we will see Derby figures that are potentially (probably?) faster than they should be, because they are tied to figures that were too fast to begin with.
I understand that horses getting faster is more than drugs. I did read the very interesting piece that you wrote about it. I am only questioning why many of us on this board are willing to chalk up yesterday\'s Derby to \"drugs\", without doing any real investigation/analysis. Maybe no explanation is necesary or plausible. 20 horses running a distance they have never run before, in a group with lots of bumping. Some run better than expected, some ran awful.
Last point, what about the earlier posted question. Why is it not OK for 80% of the horses in the Bluegrass to bounce, but apparently we will see 80% of the same 3 year old group bounce in the Derby.
Thanks,
Jim
Jimbo,
You said some things very worthy of thought. That was a very well thought out and well presented post, but the thing that you touched upon which undoubtedly has some merit pertains to this cliche:
\"One bad apple can spoil the whole bunch\"
Welcome to the careful thinkers world of speed figures. You are far more knowledgeable than you represent.
One last thing. The Host and others have put forth a hypothesis regarding drug testing in Kentucky that on its face can not be discredited by race results.
Post Edited (05-08-05 18:19)
JB said
\"More to the point, if you add to Bandini and High Limit\'s BG, you have to add to Closing Argument\'s as well. Who also was coming in off only two starts this year.\"
Even more to the point, why would you even suggest that adding to the BG means anything as to the result of the derby.
Why is necessary for you to \"assume\"that 80% of the spring 3yr olds in the BG couldn\'t possibly have \"not paired\".Why can\'t you just let the horses \"speak\" on the track as to how they ran instead of making ANY assumptions re spring 3yr olds , horses getting faster, drugs et al.After using the TG product forever,I feel the figs are becoming too fast relative to whats really happening on the track.
Something in the figs has changed rather substantially and I think it may even be unintentional, but it\'s there.
King Chuckles,
Glad that I could be worthy of your thought. If I achieve nothing else in my life, at least I will die knowing I was worthy of your thought.....
The thesis that the host and others is not capable of being proven or disproven. A certain percentage of trainers cheat, injecting a certain number of their horses, in a certain amount of races, thus skewing a certain amount of results and figures. And those figures are all tied together. And, all of the \"certain amounts\" and \"certain percentages\" are unknown.
So any result in any race can be attribued to drugs.
Jimbo-- I\'m tired and getting ready to leave, I\'ll take a fast pass at some of this. I\'m guessing we will all be discussing this for a while.
1-- I\'m not saying the NS figure is 2 points off, or that that would be acceptable, although that is certainly the typre of race you could get wrong, given that all but one Xed no matter what you do with it, and there is water in the track. What I\'m saying is, there was no way to see that horse running either figure based on previous form-- in that sense neither figure is acceptable.
I would point out that the first time he ran it the figure seemed crazy for GZ too. NS will probably never see that figure again-- and it is now beginning to look like GZ might not either, at CD or NY, anyway.
2-- I haven\'t done the Derby yet, prob Mon or Tues, so I don\'t have any opinion on what they ran. But it would certainly make CA less likely to run a new top if his last was worse. Additionally, you are using the Derby as evidence the BG figure is wrong, and a) for reasons I have stated I think they are apples and oranges, and b)Bandini would certainly be no less likely to run WELL (as opposed to win) if that last was 2 points worse, and probably would be more likely.
As I said to Miff, I won\'t be tying the race to the horses who ran the negs last time out.
3-- I understand that the drug question is not settled. This is for us all to watch going forward.
4-- That last is an interesting question. You could come up with several possible reasons less horses run their tops in the Derby than other stakes (distance certainly being one, also trouble, the crowd, being pushed hard for months, etc.), but historically they have, regardless. Again, the only horse in the BG who got a new top in the BG was Bandini-- if you take him out of it, it\'s completely reasonable, and would look much worse with an add. And again, a) whether you believe he bounced in the Derby or was getting help in the BG,adding 2 doesn\'t make any more sense for Bandini, and b) CA would look worse. If anything, CA running well can be taken as confirmation of the BG figure.
1. You\'re never going to get to the bottom of the drugs issue. Certainly it\'s a factor but no one can quantify it or frame it. It\'s part of the uncertainty we live with as horseplayers.
2. The word and the concept \"bounce\" is so overused that it\'s laughable. To use the example at hand, Afleet Alex did not \"bounce\". He got tired. He\'s not really a ten furlong horse, most of them aren\'t.
3. Too much time is spent trying to define races already run. Keep your eye on the ball. We\'re trying to pick winners. Using numbers as a tool is fine as long as you remember they\'re not definitive.
Based on his public utterances, I would have no hesitation in saying I can pick horses as well as Andy Beyer. And so can a lot of other people. Yet more and more, public h\'cappers refer to his number as if it were some kind of absolute. I\'m not complaining because this situation works to the advantage of people (like me) who ignore his numbers.
4. I said here once before it\'s more of an art than a science and on the day that ceases to be true the game\'s over.
5. One last thing - yesterday was wonderful. Not for me personally, I had the $37 horse who won the big turf race and nothing else. But for horseracing, it was a great day.
Not one of us thought yesterday when we got up that we were about to witness a $9800 exacta, a $133,000 trifecta and a $1,728,000 superfecta. That will make some new horseplayers - at least until they find out how tough the game is.
>One last thing - yesterday was wonderful. Not for me personally, I had the $37 horse who won the big turf race and nothing else. But for horseracing, it was a great day.
You got that one right. The handle on the Derby alone was $93 Million. A 66% increase over 2000. A quarter of a billion dollar handle on the Ky Derby is maybe 5 years away.
The line of the day came from Billionare Richard Branson, \"I\'ve never seen so many beautiful women in my entire life. I\'d take the Ky Derby over Ascot. Here, they\'re a little more attractive, slightly less snobby.
It\'s worth traveling halfway across the world for.\"
The talent this year was OFF THE CHARTS!!
>Not one of us thought yesterday when we got up that we were about to witness a $9800 exacta, a $133,000 trifecta and a $1,728,000 superfecta. That will make some new horseplayers
Next best line.
D Wayne Lukas, \"Let me put it this way. I train in Calif where that horse trains. I went eight deep on my super ticket. I never even thought about Giacomo.\"
Slots and these kinds of payoffs will bring back the Lottery guys. This should give the handicappers an advantage in the long run.
There was alot of chatter about the Belmont Stakes result rife with
\"juice\" implications last season ... it\'s just not that simple - if I understand what\'s being said and best I can tell - some seem to say that everyone was wrong then becouse they did and now everyboby is wrong becouse they didn\'t ... Unfortunately and short of blog fodder , we can\'t have it both ways - we can\'t have our cake and eat it too ...
lol
I\'d rather have the consistency of knowing they are always juicing than the inconsistency of not knowing if they are.
I think thats what you\'re addressing. Drugs have impacted the game for a long time. They\'ve impacting it dramatically over the last 3 plus years. Aptitude is when I got suspicious. I think that was 2000 or 2001. I\'d have to look at the past performances again, but he changed from a closer to a close up stalker or better. I think thats when it started for Frankel.
Post Edited (05-08-05 20:09)