I don\'t really get all the cynicism in trying to evaluate the race. SJ was running along in about the same position in the Belmont as he did in the Arkansas Derby, The K. Derby and the Preakness. The half times of those races were 46:4,46:3, and 47:1. In Jan. on the inner track, he was in the same position in a 47 flat half. Now he\'s running on a track that\'s at least a second faster than normal and he\'s loping along on a 48:3 half, irregardless of the fact that it\'s a mile and a half race, why doesn\'t anyone believe Elliot when he said the horse was pulling him along? Of course the horse couldn\'t settle. If you want to fault the rider maybe he should have gone a 47:2 half on that track to get the horse to relax. Maybe then he would have won because Birdstone would have been too far back or going to fast to keep up to have the late kick he did.
     In addition, if we say that Bailey is one of the 3 or 4 best riders of all time and a fairly decent judge of pace. What did you expect him to do off a 48:3 half on a track on which a filly broke the 6 1/2 furlong record earlier in the day?  Should he have just waited to outsprint SJ to the wire after what he had seen the last two times he raced against him?  He wasn\'t on a very good horse but the idea that Jerry Bailey would sacrifice his chance to win a million dollar race just to cause another horse to lose is preposterous.  Anyone who seriously thinks that should take up golf and stop playing the horses. Why would he do that?  Do you think MaryLou and Penny did a duet on him?
     As it turned out I thought SJ ran a great race but lost to a very good horse running the best race of his life, a la Monarchos in the derby a couple of years ago.  and that\'s what makes horse racing. I think if Smarty stays sound he will dominate the fall racing.

TGAB

As I said to Chris, let me also thank you for reponding to my inquiry. I really appreciate your taking the time. In response to your comments about the various trainers, the examples I used were just to make a point of generalities. If you took the runs based stats of Labocetta Levine and Lake and displayed them next to the stats of M.Sedlacek,Aquilino and Hertler and removed the trainer\'s names it would be pretty apparent which set of trainers is the more successful. The reverse is true if you line up the new figure based stats. My point is, isn\'t it reasonable to think that if you have created a trainer based product that that product will project the top trainers transparently, otherwise there is the risk of confusion.
     Yes, of course there\'s more to the case than saying that a Hertler horse, off a layoff, is likely to run within a point or better than, his effective top 44% of the time and Lake is only likely to do so 18% of the time. But is it necessary to produce statistics as a handicapping aid that require you to make the many distinctions that you have to in using them  when you already have the runs based figures that give, I think, a much clearer definition of the trainer\'s prowess. I don\'t mean to suggest that the new figures are without merit. I\'m not smart enough to make that evaluation.  I just think of the work you must be doing to produce them and what there value is relative to that effort.
     At the risk of also redboarding, the New York Rudy race was actually a good example of what I\'m saying. It was a 6 horse race, Hill Top Man and Chute the Breeze looked too slow. Anties Boy figured to bounce. Cape Hogue had a decent pattern but with the Correa/Espinoza combination was more likely to bounce to a 10 or 11 then match or go forward off the 9. That left Lord Langfuhr at even money who could certainly have run back to his 7 but could also bounce a little [especially since JJ is not having his best meet] or New York Rudy at 5 to 1 who has certainly been on the improve since McGaughey got him back.  I was certain he was going forward again today and he did run a 5 early on as a 3yo when McG. last had the horse. So he could certainly  run the  best number in the race today, especially at 5 to 1 when his only competitor was even money. I did have this race cold yesterday for the reasons just expressed and am glad that you used it as an example. I don\'t believe McG. new tops prowess added to my conviction nor did his weak statistics when using Castillo deter me. I was already there without the added statistics. I guess for now that is really my point. But I will continue looking at them and try to get a better grasp on them and hope you don\'t judge me too harshly while in that process. Thanks again for taking the time to address my questions.

Chris

     Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post and for the clarity of your response. In your example of the layoff horse coming back you are actually framing my concern. Let\'s say the horse is a solid contender if he runs back to or beyond the effective top of his last 6 races/1year. If the layoff stats. of the trainer are as you suggest [25% top, 25%pair] and that was the only stat we were looking at then great we have an edge. But supposing his numbers are 10% top 10%pair with the rider he\'s using today and 10% and 10% in 2 turn races and that\'s today\'s distance. Then the liklihood of the horse\'s performance today being in the neighborhood of his effective top is made much more uncertain I think. I have found in looking at the figures that if you take the figures that are applicable to today\'s race there are many conflicts such as this which really leaves me shaking my head. I know these exist in the \"runs based\" stats also but they seem more confusing and contrary in these new figures.
     If the horse runs well do we say \" well it was right there in the trainer\'s layoff \"figure based numbers\" or if he runs poorly do we say\"of course, look at the figs., he never puts this rider on a live horse\".
     It seems to me that the overwhelming strength of the Thorograph product is the way it frames a race. Eight horses in. Four are too slow. Then you look at the other four horses.  How much statistical information do you need before it becomes overkill.  There are so many factors. Rider,trainer,distance,post position,etc. in addition to figuring the number pattern. I find the runs based figures straightforward and very helpful. Do I really want more figures that are very often contradictory to look at? I really don\'t unless it\'s sure thing helpful.
     I understand the merit of your argument as you expressed it and certainly respect your right to want and use these figures but from what I\'ve seen so far or rather understood so far I feel they are more  information than I need and tend to confuse me as much as help me. I will however keep trying and thank you again for responding.

I have been a thorograph user since they were hand written and sloppy and if there is a more enthusiatic supporter of the product then me I would be shocked. But I have to say \"uncle\" on these new figures. I just don\'t get it and need help. I respect the time and effort that went into producing them but they seem to me like a bit of \"number overload\". I took today\'s [2/25] Aqueduct card as a typical race day. I could not find one instance where I felt the new figures helped me discern a live horse that was not otherwise indicated from the numbers themselves or the \"runs based figures\". Can anyone help? What am I overlooking?
     In addition, if the assumption is that you are looking for the trainer to have a good figure in the top% or at worst the pair% column for the conditions under which the horse is entered today, then make a fast eye search, in general, of the following trainers; First look at the figures for LaBocetta, Lake and Levine then look at the figures for M.Sedlacek, Aquilino and Hertler. Which set would you think is the more successful group of trainers? So, I\'m really confused. Can anyone please offer some guidance.