Some futures being put up by one of the sportsbooks I play at. (although after IWR and QR being scratched before the Derby, this gambler has sworn off future bets on horses.....)
Rachel Alexander 1-1
Mine that Bird 9-2
POTN 5-1
Musket Man 6-1
Papa Clem 8-1
General Quarters 9-1
Friesan Fire 13-2
Hull 14-1
Big Drama 16-1
Interesting prices on both Hull and Big Drama IMO, although I have not seen the figures TGJB gave either horse in their last race. Both come in rested and realtively fast (against anything other than RAchel and her negative 4)
IMO, anyone who likes RA should take that 1-1 if it is being offered b/c every horseplayer I talk to thinks she\'s a lock so I think she\'s going to go off at 3-5.
That\'s not my cup of tea so that\'s a pass for me but I have been really surprised that I haven\'t heard one \"a filly isn\'t going to beat the boys\" comment in the last 5 days from my regular circle.
I wish I thought someone could beat her but she seems to me to lay over this field as much as BB laid over last year\'s field.
I\'ll not play her. This race will be as rough as it gets and the new owners are going to get what they deserve.
The Preakness ends a pick 4 that paid 1200+ last year with Big Brown.
Ok Covelj,
You said you aren\'t hearing it much, so I will oblige you. At somewhere in the neighborhood of even money in a 13 horse field, the filly comes off a 4 point top and runs on two weeks rest. Under \"normal\" circumstances, these are the betting opportunities that most of us on this board live for.
The 4 point forward move and two weeks rest is reason enough to bet against her, but there is another factor to consider. I hate to use the word \"pace\" so let\'s just say that the trip she projects to get in the Preakness will not be as good as the one she got in the Oaks. She won\'t sit second off of a weak horse and then get to demolish a weak field. She will have to put away seasoned horses with quality speed on the front end, like Big Drama and Friesan Fire, then hold off the quality stalkers and closers. I would put fair odds on her at around 3-1 and I think she goes off nowhere near that.
Just to clarify something so I don\'t sound like a complete hypocrite, I am not contradicting the previous posts I have made where Miff and I both think TGJB is wrong about big efforts knocking most young 3 year olds out. I am saying that on two weeks at short odds, I am betting against those types of horses, I am not saying that Quality Road, off 5 weeks rest going into the derby, would have been a bad bet. And I am certainly not saying he got the quarter crack because of the fast effort.
If the filly wins, god bless, she is awesome. But she won\'t have my money on her.
Jimbo, you pegged it. 2 weeks rest - and a filly at that - is a definite bet against in the TC campaign. Not often will we get this opportunity. Should she get in - and win - my hats off to her as a \"great equine\". If not, we will have cashed in as bettors on a unique opportunity.
jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok Covelj,
>
> You said you aren\'t hearing it much, so I will
> oblige you. At somewhere in the neighborhood of
> even money in a 13 horse field, the filly comes
> off a 4 point top and runs on two weeks rest.
> Under \"normal\" circumstances, these are the
> betting opportunities that most of us on this
> board live for.
>
> The 4 point forward move and two weeks rest is
> reason enough to bet against her, but there is
> another factor to consider. I hate to use the
> word \"pace\" so let\'s just say that the trip she
> projects to get in the Preakness will not be as
> good as the one she got in the Oaks. She won\'t
> sit second off of a weak horse and then get to
> demolish a weak field. She will have to put away
> seasoned horses with quality speed on the front
> end, like Big Drama and Friesan Fire, then hold
> off the quality stalkers and closers. I would put
> fair odds on her at around 3-1 and I think she
> goes off nowhere near that.
>
> Just to clarify something so I don\'t sound like a
> complete hypocrite, I am not contradicting the
> previous posts I have made where Miff and I both
> think TGJB is wrong about big efforts knocking
> most young 3 year olds out. I am saying that on
> two weeks at short odds, I am betting against
> those types of horses, I am not saying that
> Quality Road, off 5 weeks rest going into the
> derby, would have been a bad bet. And I am
> certainly not saying he got the quarter crack
> because of the fast effort.
>
> If the filly wins, god bless, she is awesome. But
> she won\'t have my money on her.
I agree with you Jimbo on the 4 point top/2 Weeks back \"opportunity\". We also know that a filly is more susceptible to a bounce than her male counterparts, but RA looked like she was going through a breezing workout on Oaks Day, so I\'m not sure she even ran. Is there anything to bounce off of? There was no effort on May 1.
I disagree.
I thought that Randy Moss summed it up perfectly in his recent column on ESPN.com:
\"Bringing her back against colts two weeks after such an epic performance in the Oaks would be needlessly risking her future. She needs time to recover, and there is no justification for impatiently rushing her back....Her Oaks was stressful. It may have appeared she was giving minimum effort, but nothing could be further from the truth....In her final pre-Oaks workout, she kept motoring so hard while \"galloping out\" that clockers looked at their watches in disbelief. In her gallop the morning before the race, her exercise rider struggled to keep her from breaking into a full-speed run and had to wrestle with her to finally bring her to a stop. She puts her heart into everything she does, and those who believe she wins her races effortlessly are missing the point...\"
more
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/horse/triplecrown09/columns/story?columnist=moss_randy&id=4149555
Don\'t believe the numbers. Believe your eyes. Believe Arazi demolishing the BC Juvenile field with no effort at all. Believe Big Brown\'s \'easy\' Preakness win (confession -- I did). Believe IWR\'s \'easy\' non-effort Wood off of his big top that took nothing out of the horse. And Believe that a 3 y.o. filly runs a big negative number without even putting forth an effort.
If she gets beat, it is possible that the dynamics of the race may do it, not necessarily the short rest or the 4 point top.It is worth noting that both Beyer and Rags have her last in the TG neg-2 3/4 area, a meaningful difference from the TG neg -4.Either way seems plausible.
Cov has pointed out that even seemingly effortless big negative figs still take their toll.Sometimes that is true and even though RA appears to be energetic and thriving,the \"silent\" bounce is still possible.On ability, she lays over this ordinary bunch,gets a few pounds and is an imposing physical specimen. I doubt she\'ll get \"pushed\" around.There is also a positive trainer change to a prolific winning guy who knows big time horses. It is doubtful that he will do anything to change this filly\'s regimen in the two weeks leading up to the race.
The final make up of the field and the draw will be important,imo, especially if RA draws inside and is hooked early by some of that colt gas(something very new for her).The best of this group are the tactical ones, the closers all slugs, MTB somewhat mysterious to me, still leaning that he\'s a slow rat off that iron rail and wet track.
Mike
imo - She\'s definately a very special filly but 3-1 is too short a price against the prospects of a bounce now on two weeks rest , the last one was not only a 4 pt top but also represents 7 points of development past her best two year number as well .
recent oddschecker.com UK Bookmaker odds ;
Rachel Alexandra (1) ,
Mine That Bird (9/2) ,
Pioneerof The Nile (6) ,
Musket Man (8) ,
Papa Clem (8) ,
General Quarters (10) ,
Conservative (16) ,
Hull (20) ,
Big Drama (25) ,
Flying Private (25) ,
Take The Points (25) ,
Terrain (33) ,
Tone It Down (66)
The pace might only be hot if Hull stays in the race.He\'s quick early if nothing else.Sounds like the connections are on the fence now with RA in the mix.Barry?
Big Drama won both times routing(not on the engine)but he got his last 5/16ths in 33\'s.Is another furlong gonna help that horse?
Terrain(25-1 ML?)looks like the slow horse in here that could pop a new top on dirt third race back.Curious to see if he inched forward in the Bluegrass.Real pace would help that horse IMO.
If you toss the failed experiment blinkers on Delta race-he\'s a one run closer.Pace has been slow in both outs this year and Theriot found trouble three times routing last year.
Hoping Stall tosses Theriot and doesn\'t pick up Albarado.Dominguez or Rose would be fine and an inside draw wouldn\'t hurt.Thinking he can find his way onto the ticket at a price.
Miff-- there is absolutely no way Rachel ran any worse than I gave her, the only question was whether she ran better. That\'s 100% definitely not worse.
She gets 5 pounds here, I believe.
JB,
Those blow out wet track figs are often not representative of reality for some reason which I given up on trying to figure out. You have seen, I\'m sure, fairly common horses throw gigantic wet track figs that they never repeat.
RA is a legit beast but did run a substantial top on a wet surface.I need to see her run that fig (neg-4) on a dry surface to believe it.I don\'t think she can.
I have no doubt that Hopkins/Friedman will stand behind their figs 100% also.
Mike
I\'m offering no opinion on what she will do in the future, wet track or no. But if there is ever a sure thing in making figures, it is that she ran at least what I gave her.
Curious if Beyer uses the same beaten lengths relationships that we do. At 20 lengths a difference could be magnified, and might account for why he got it slow. In Ragozin\'s case, he simply won\'t give out big figures on off tracks. He got stuck with the Derby winner because there is just so bad you can have the others running.
I think the Belmont in five more weeks is a better move.
Controlling speed, tackling tired Triple Crown battle tested colts, Bigger Stage.
The owner who I\'m sure is calling this shot needs to realize its this one then a pretty good break. The Belmont there would be another dance perhpas as soon as mid-July then the Spa.
Racing needs this kind of shot in the arm
JB,
One thing that is fairly constant in my unsophisticated translation of TG/Rags/Beyer is that when there are differences going in, the results usually show the same difference coming out. My guess is that you are projecting off a data base which, on some horses, differs from theirs going in.I did not translate RA\'s last three TG figs but that might give me an idea.You noticed yourself some substantial difference between you and Rags pre derby.
Was not aware that Rags don\'t give out big wet figs. Unless Beyer changed something, beaten lengths carry the same Beyer point value at a 1 length win or 20 length win at the same distance.
I have heard you say on many occasions that the \"figure is solid\" or in this case 100% right but I can\'t imagine that there is way to verify that outside of your own data base.Any ideas on my hopeless endeavor?
Mike
Since both of BD\'s routes were at two, I\'m not sure how to weight them.
Don\'t believe the numbers. Believe your eyes. Believe Arazi demolishing the BC Juvenile field with no effort at all. Believe Big Brown\'s \'easy\' Preakness win (confession -- I did). Believe IWR\'s \'easy\' non-effort Wood off of his big top that took nothing out of the horse. And Believe that a 3 y.o. filly runs a big negative number without even putting forth an effort.
--------------
Can\'t resist this one!
You really believe Arazi bounced in the Derby off his BC Juvy effort? I think the chip surgery, recovery, inane prepping (one short turf race), and travel had much more to do with the difference in races that occurred 7 months apart.
Big Brown\'s Preakness was easy, so don\'t be embarressed to confess, your eyes didn\'t deceive you. Bad feet and the toll of the TC can make the weird happen. It certainly wasn\'t a bounce.
Don\'t even know how to comment on IWR since he was injured coming out of a work.
I believe my eyes. They\'re certainly as right as any number out there. If Rachel doesn\'t win or doesn\'t even run well, it\'s not going to be because she regresses off a big effort that was, incidentally, effortless. It\'s going to be because she\'s finally met some good competition.
Hey wasn\'t the Chilukki figure they gave out on a Wet Track?
~6 for a 2YO Filly in late April. The same figure they gave Charismatic five days later when he won the Derby.
And Beyer had no problem dolling out a 109.
Since all the animals who ran at CD will be carry close to the same weight of their last race, does weight really matter in the sense of comparing last figs?
Leamas,
First off,the filly RA gets 5 pounds, picks up no weight. All derby participants carry 126 again. Horses like Big Drama picks up 6 lbs, Hull 9 lbs.
Mike
If you truly believe that Rachel Alexandra\'s Oaks was effortless, then I imagine that you would conclude that she could have run a faster fig if she exerted herself, which is almost impossible.
No one is going to run an equal or better number in the Preakness than she did in the Oaks. If she pairs that figure, she wins for fun.
If she doesn\'t pair or improve on her Oaks figure Saturday, she will have regressed, period, whether or not it is still enough to win.
The \"good competition\" argument will just be an excuse, just as Big Brown\'s \"loose shoe\" was.
Hull to Woody Stephens.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/horseracing/bal-hull0511,0,3532125.story
Mike,
I know the filly gets 5 pounds, but in comparing figs, I believe it is irrelevant that Big Drama and Hull pick up weight, as the figures are already \"normalized\" for weight carried, as part of the compilation. (unless I am wrong)
Miff-- there is no chance the figure is slower. Period. If anything it\'s faster. And yes, since we all use the horses\' previous figures, garbage in, garbage out. It will be hard for bettors to test the figures going forward, since Rachel may never run that fast again, and all but the second filly (who paired) X\'d out. But the way you know as a figure maker IS with your data base.
I would be surprised if Beyer was using the same length/point relationship at all distances (to say the least). The question is whether he is using the right one for 1 1/8.
SC-- if I remember correctly, the Chilukki race was fast sealed, the next wet harrowed, the rest wet sealed, and Ragozin lumped them together.
Leamas-- you need to check the part of the intro seminar that deals with weight.
What are the reasons against pairing the winner at -0.5 or slight new top?
If you truly believe that Rachel Alexandra\'s Oaks was effortless, then I imagine that you would conclude that she could have run a faster fig if she exerted herself, which is almost impossible.
No one is going to run an equal or better number in the Preakness than she did in the Oaks. If she pairs that figure, she wins for fun.
If she doesn\'t pair or improve on her Oaks figure Saturday, she will have regressed, period, whether or not it is still enough to win.
The \"good competition\" argument will just be an excuse.
-------------------
Horses don\'t run figs. Humans assign them figs. Of course she could run faster -- weren\'t you watching?
You really think that good competition can\'t bring her down, but some human-assigned number can?
I was watching and I don\'t think she could run faster.
There is no horse in the Preakness that can beat her if she runs as fast as she did in the Oaks.
The competition will only look \"good\" in the Preakness if she regresses.
It wouldn\'t fit with either the day or the horses. You would be giving all the other fillies just horrible figures-- they ran bad enough giving them 4 points better. If it worked for the horses I would have had no problem breaking it out, and in fact did so a little not to give RA better. But there is no, and I mean NO, chance that race was slower.
\"I would be surprised if Beyer was using the same length/point relationship at all distances (to say the least). The question is whether he is using the right one for 1 1/8\"
JB,
Maybe I did not explain the Beyer thing. The number of beyer points, re beaten lenghts, is not the same from sprint to routes. From memory, it\'s like 2 1/2 points in sprints and less app 1 3/4 in routes.
Mike
Yes,thanks.
Perhaps I might have worded it more cogently: there\'s no relative change between oaks/derby runners. I knew the new entrants would add, but my point is simply that for Rachel and the Derby runners, weight doesn\'t come into play as a new variable.
Yes, it does. She gets weight worth one TG point.
Mike,
I know the filly gets 5 pounds, but in comparing figs, I believe it is irrelevant that Big Drama and Hull pick up weight, as the figures are already \"normalized\" for weight carried, as part of the compilation. (unless I am wrong)
Jim,
Not sure I understand \"normalized\"
Now sure how 5 lbs affects animals that weigh 1,000+ pounds but do know that they have different weight carrying capabilities. Impossible that they are all of equal strength and affected exactly the same way by weight shifts, speaking performance wise.I\'m sure a horse can pick up a certain amount of additional weight and stop the clock just as fast as he did with less weight under the same conditions. At some unknown point of weight increase, a horse is sure to not run as fast.
I thought that if a horse ran a TG 2 carrying 117 lbs and was picking up 9 pounds, you would have to rate him slower even before considering the spot he is going to give or receive. Just my take,hate picking up weight.
Mike
Miff,
I guess my point here needs to be confirmed by TGJB.
My point was that if Horse A ran a negative 2, carrying 121 pounds and Horse B ran a negative 2 carrying 110 pounds, the figure is adjusted already such that if they are carrying the same weight in their next race (say 121 pounds), they are exactly as fast as each other, it is NOT that the horse that ran the negative 2 carying 121 pounds is faster, because the negative already considered that he was carrying the 121 pounds. (as did the negative 2 for horse carrying 110 pounds)
Jerry?
Correct. Only thing you have to worry about is the weights today of the two horses relative to each other.
Don\'t know if you looked at the TG UK, but we have a column where the figs are adjusted for today\'s weight-- otherwise those 24 horse handicaps are some pain in the butt. We may do it here as well.
Jim,
I\'m missing it, cause that means if they ran the neg 2 in the same race same day, different weights, the one picking up 11 pounds in the next race is just as fast? Can\'t be, no?
Mike
She closed her last furlong in a shade over 12 seconds. You think she could have run faster if she had been asked?
I think it is ludicrous to think she could have run any harder.
You are assuming the horse that wins gets the highest figure. That is incorrect.
The two horses in your example, both run -2. But if in the next race they face each other and one is getting weight from the other, and all other things are equal, and they both pair that -2, the one getting the weight will win by a length or so depending upon distance run, etc.
Same thing if one goes wide and one doesn\'t. They both may get a -2, but the one that loses ground loses the race.
Happens all the time.
Concur. Just because an athlete can make something look easy, that doesn\'t make it easy.
Miff,
They ran in the same race, same day, one carried 110 pounds and one carried 121 pounds, and they both get negative 2\'s.
A month later, they run against each other and they both carry 121 pounds, they are just as fast.
The 11 pound weight difference was factored into the negative 2\'s in the first race they ran. (meaning the horse carrying 110 pounds really ran faster, assuming equal beaten lengths. JB factored the weight into the negative 2\'s).
You are assuming the horse that wins gets the highest figure. That is incorrect.
The two horses in your example, both run -2. But if in the next race they face each other and one is getting weight from the other, and all other things are equal, and they both pair that -2, the one getting the weight will win by a length or so depending upon distance run, etc.
Same thing if one goes wide and one doesn\'t. They both may get a -2, but the one that loses ground loses the race.
Happens all the time.
Mjellish,
Not at all if you referring to my post. It is unlikely that a horse can run as fast AGAINST THE CLOCK picking up 11 pounds, all things equal. If all things are equal, with 11 more pounds, and he gets neg -2 again, that means he ran 2/5\'s slower against the clock.
Mike
said another way, Rachael\'s \"adjusted top\" coming into this race is actually 5 negative. A scary proposition against a bunch of horses who are likely to run a 0 at best. She could move backwards by 5 points and still win unless someone jumps up (again) on short rest.
I will not be making any big win bets on this as the risk/reward isn\'t there but purely on the numbers, she seems very very likely to me to bounce hard and still win.
I think she will bounce hard because there\'s no question that a horse will react to that kind of effort on short rest (as MJ said, you don\'t run a nearly 12 second final 8th in a mile and an eigth race without exerting alot of effort) but she can bounce very hard and still win this.
Maybe as someone else suggested singling her in the pk 4 which was very juicy last year even with BB thanks to David Donk on the turf but we will need to get there live to her to have it mean anything.
Jim,
The light finally went on now as you are strictly speaking in terms of how TG methodology handles weight adjustments.
I was more referring to the fact that I do not think that a horse picking up 11 pounds can run as fast, against the clock, all things otherwise exact.That would mean that 11 additional pounds does not slow a horse against the clock.Fact is, he would slow down, say 2/5ths of a second, but get the same TG fig because of the added 11 pounds.Incidentally, thats pretty mechanical in a game with so many moving parts.
Mike
Do you care if the horse runs as fast or if it wins?
Horses don\'t race against the clock. They race against each other.
She might not be able to go faster, but I think her rate of deceleration is just slower than that of other horses. She can just go along and click off 12\'s like a machine. She\'s flat just that good.
She will win, pay $2.80 and then she\'ll get grief because she skips the Belmont.
Wrong again, the one that stops the clock first wins,every time
Mike
Unless they get DQ\'d.
Was just trying to help explain the figures to you because it seemed like you had some questions.
Not worth debating.
Okay, thanks. I will have to review this.
Mjellish,
Not at all if you referring to my post. It is unlikely that a horse can run as fast AGAINST THE CLOCK picking up 11 pounds, all things equal. If all things are equal, with 11 more pounds, and he gets neg -2 again, that means he ran 2/5\'s slower against the clock.
Mike,
This is very confusing to me. Here\'s what it says in the Intro section:
\"5 pounds in weight = 1 point at all distances. The figures are adjusted for weight carried in previous races. If 2 horses run a TG figure of 10 today, a horse in at 115 will beat a horse in at 120 by 1 point, or 1 length at 5f.\"
I interpret that to mean that if a horse runs a -2 then runs a -2 with 11 more pounds (all things being equal), the second -2 is a stronger effort....do I have that wrong? Thanks for any input.
No, the efforts are equal. A -2 is a -2.
But say you have two horses coming off negative 2\'s. Now they race each other. Horse A is in at 115, Horse B is in at 120. Horse A can run a negative 1 and finish even with Horse B even if it runs a negative 2. The fact that Horse B carried more weight and finished even with horse A means that that horse ran a stronger race, so they earn a higher figure.
Same thing would apply to ground loss. Lets say the same two horses at the above weights run against each other. Horse A gets a 1w 1w trip, carries less weight and beats Horse B by a length. But horse B carried more weight and got a 4w, 5w trip. So in this case Horse B will get the best figure, but Horse A wins the race.
The figures are calculated and they are what they are. But when we look at figures we are trying to figure out how the horses are going to run today, not what they did in their last race. So when two horses come back to race against each other at a later day, but this time at different weights, you may want to factor that into your handicapping on some level.
As this relates to the Preakness, the filly is getting weight from the rest of the field. Which means she has more room to bounce. She already has the best fig with room to spare, but she could run even slower and still win.
We are trying pick winners, not pick the horse that will run the best figure. Having a horse run the best figure but lose is not much consolation when you are tearing up your mutual tickets.
Beginner,
The question of the TG formula for calculating weight into their figs is as stated in their intro.
The example cited by Mjellish regarding who ran \"better\" between two horses that both get negative -2\'s carrying 115 vs 120 is a matter of interpretation.The figures are the same, but the lower weighted horse wins every time in the example below.
Assume the horse with 115 goes wire to wire on the rail and the horse with 120 follows one length behind on the rail, all the way, and finishes one length behind. They both get neg-2 and the horse with 115 wins every time in this exact scenario.The raw time ends up like this:
Horse with 115 runs a raw time of 1.10 equals TG fig -2
Horse with 120 runs a raw time of 1.10.1 equals TG fig -2
Hope this helps explain that particular issue.
Mike
Thanks for the info - makes perfect sense. And absolutely agree - I\'m not looking for the horse that can run -2, I\'m looking for the winner!
Yes,
Thank you. I see the difference between what you are saying and what MJ is saying. Appreciate it.
Miff\'s example IMPLICITLY assumes the distance is 5 furlongs. Since both horses ran on the rail, no ground loss, horse B\'s length beaten and 5 pounds more weight carried cancel each out--remember 5 pounds equal 1 point and 1 length equals 1 point at 5 furlongs.
Alan,
For info:
1 point at 5f equals 1 length
What is the value(distance wise) of 1 TG point at 6F,7F,8F. What do you use?:
1 1/4 lenghts at 6f
1 1/2lengths at 7f
1 3/4 lengths at 8f
Thanks
Mike
Miff--1 TG point is equivalent to about 1 length at 5 furlongs, and about 2 lengths at 10 furlongs. It\'s a simple linear relationship. It\'s just easier to use and conceptualize whole numbers--1 or 2 lengths equivalent 1 point at the various appropriate distances.
The point on Arazi, which you chose not to understand, was that he ran a pretty slow number in the BC but he \'looked\' a lot faster than that because of the dramatic move he made. He was one of the slower BC 2 y.o. champs and had no shot in the Derby because he was slow and had stopped developing.
There are always excuses, as you aptly demonstrate, but the bottom line is that the figs are the figs are the figs and if you understand how to interpret them and use sound historical/statistical analytic methods, you will make money. If you decide to bet horses because they look good winning \"easily\" despite what the figures say then . . . . best of luck to you.
But this leads me to believe then that there is some reference weight. So her -4 is in the context of what?--her next race when it becomes -5?
If weight is always a factor in the number, then is there ever an number without a context of weights for a race? If so, there has to be a reference point.
Or does the number change with every new race and weight assignment?
Leamas57 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But this leads me to believe then that there is
> some reference weight. So her -4 is in the context
> of what?--her next race when it becomes -5?
>
> If weight is always a factor in the number, then
> is there ever an number without a context of
> weights for a race? If so, there has to be a
> reference point.
>
> Or does the number change with every new race and
> weight assignment?
I think the reference weight is 115 lbs. Correct me if I\'m wrong but I remember reading that all numbers are adjusted as if a horse ran with 115 pounds.
The weather forecast for Baltimore is not looking good. T\'storms on Friday and scattered showers on Saturday.
jack72906 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The weather forecast for Baltimore is not looking
> good. T\'storms on Friday and scattered showers on
> Saturday.
Not again!!! I can\'t stand wet track racing!!!