Eric-- read with interest your post that states \"uneqivocally that no beaten length error was entered into the chart\". Yep, that solves it.
This seems like a pretty good opportunity to show off the accuracy of your figures. What beaten lengths and ground loss did you use for the first five horses? This is something everyone can check, and it is a pretty important race, so most of us have it on tape, or can watch it at racereplays.com.
Maybe we got it wrong-- what did you get?
I know you\'re confident in your beaten length position, (between 3rd and 4th),but I just viewed the race and I\'ll second your opinion its 2 lengths within a fraction. If anything it could be a fraction less than 2 lengths per my eye, but I have bad eyes.
Interesting. Top three are in accord, bottom 15 all 1.5 pts difference? I don\'t access the Rag board so please lets us know the outcome here.
Obviously, the issue is one (or in this case 15) bad apples spoiling the whole bunch. But if Rags relies only upon pars and one race day variant it would only be 15 bad apples. Still with their system, you have to wonder if it impacted in some manner the way they figured this race on a day when the 10th race had to be split from the early races at any rate.
My hunch is that they made a transposition error and somehow factored limehouse behind limehouse rather than Imperialism and then it snowballed downhill from there.
CtC
Post Edited (05-07-04 17:41)
Reminds me of a not uncommon error that I used to catch in the Forms charts.
Where there was a 10 length or more gap between one finisher somewhere in the pack and the next horse (Rarely the winner, but I\'ve seen that once or twice), and it would get picked up as 1 length. So all the horses behind that one showed as running 10 lengths closer than they actually did. Plenty of times , it was never fixed.
I\'d assume you guys are too smart to be fooled by that, when it happens.