Mobil Ground Loss WRONG bad math

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Its looking more and more like a COMPLETE field collapse unless Mobil was significantly wider than the chart indicates.

If Mobil was only three wide and you gave him credit for a 3.1, Leroid would still have 4.75 ability lengths to subract. At a mile I\"m not sure how many lengths a point is worth, but I\'m assuming about 1.6 lengths to point.

That would place Leroid at about a Zero. 4.75 / 1.6 = 2.97 points faster than Mobil. (I said a neg 4.2 originally that was clearly an error.)

Subtract another point on weight and it is still not believeable.

The facts are STILL overwhelming for field collapse.

-6th as fast on comparable final time.
-6th horses capable of 2\'s perhaps
-Surface becoming faster due to drying out.
-Number of field sitting on bounces due to multiple point tops
-Unlikelihood of Frankel getting a near 6 yr old to jump 3 points after running him multiple times at a consistent number. (more likely than a 6 point jump...lol)

It may not happen very often or may not have happened as often in the past, but this time field collapse is the most viable explanation for the 8 length walkover unless the hand time for the 6th comes back significantly slower than 1.47.25

There, I got it out of my system. These optical races are fun and are the best way to find value.

[kev]

I\'ll say Mobil ran his 1.2 and the winner ran a new top, like I said Sunday.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

If you give Mobil a 1.2 that could equate to a negative 2.2 or faster if my no paper math is correct and I\'m not good at no paper math.

[Michael D.]

i wrote a \"4\" next to le cinq before the race. wasn\'t sure about mobil. does the math work if you give him a \"2\" and lerwa a negative \"1\"? i\'m too tired to go through this..... if this is indeed the outcome, the 1:47.25 in the 6th needs to be explained. did it rain between races? i noticed they did downgrade the turf from soft to yielding between races.

[beyerguy]

Michael D. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i wrote a \"4\" next to le cinq before the race.
> wasn\'t sure about mobil. does the math work if you
> give him a \"2\" and lerwa a negative \"1\"? i\'m too
> tired to go through this..... if this is indeed
> the outcome, the 1:47.25 in the 6th needs to be
> explained. did it rain between races? i noticed
> they did downgrade the turf from soft to yielding
> between races.

I\'m pretty sure soft to yielding is an upgrade.

[Michael D.]

yes beyer. told you i was tired.

[kev]

Like Jerry said early Nothing to loose had I think a neg 1.2,so a neg 2.2 wouldn\'t be too far off. Wonder what is the fastest turf number ever..........maybe I\'ll look threw some of the BC sheets on here later.

[kev]

As far as horses running in the BC races, looks like Nothing to lose had a neg. 1.1 at 8.0f.......these horses ran neg\'s but most were neg. 0.2 and neg.  0.1\'s....POWERSCOURT 10.0f.....SOARING FREE 8.0F.....WITH ANTICIPATION 12.F.....SWEET RETURN distance ? You\'ll see some of these horses running this big number maybe once and never come close to it again, but there were some that was running 1.2 almost ever time they stepped onto the turf.

[kev]

Here\'s some little fun facts. This is for the females dirt race on BC day only.
from 1999 to 2004......only 5 ladys has ever broke a neg. 2.0 or better coming into the BC race, they are: ASHADO -2.1  SIGHTSEEK -3.0 twice  TAKE CHARGE LADY -2.0  MANDY\'S GOLD -2.0 twice  RIBOLETTA -3.2 and a -2.2

Fastest ever ran BC race: AZERI -1.0  ADORATION -0.2  STELLAR JANE 0.0  BEAUTIFUL PLEASURE 1.3  SPAIN 2.0  SPAIN AND ATELIER 3.0

No lady\'s had any neg. number\'s coming into the 2001 BC race.

This is for the big boys, again either coming into the BC or the number they ran in the BC, year by year, number of horses that had neg. number\'s.

1999: 3 horses
2000: 2
2001: 5
2002: 5
2003: 10 out of the 10 had a neg. number
2004: 10 out of the 13

Jerry is there a database you all could look threw and see maybe the top 10 fastest horses of all times please?? I\'ll also like to know who was the first to get one, BEHRENS had a -2.1 and a -0.1 back in 1999.    

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Depending upon what number comes back you\'ll be in the Bellamania dilema. If the number comes back fast and you want to bet this horse at about 7-5 you\'ll be able to say he got about 6 weeks to recover and with the additional time he can Pair so I\'ll bet him.

If you think the number is fast but his history is a little ouchy and a bounce is likely or you think the Atto number factored too fast, you\'ll be able to take a stand against him. Obviously a tougher post would make the latter more attractive.

Buyer gave Leroid a 114, a career top. It will be interesting to see what he gave the Canadian Bell Horses. If its fast enough this years Derby lesson shouldnt be too far removed from everyones mind. There is more recovery time however.

Frankel has been managing this horse. He was contemplated for the Shadwell and Kelso Miles. The Atto just came up a little light and Frankel saw it. He knew that field had some questions. He\'s a cheater but a good handicapper too. More than anything what Leroid has going for him is a weak group of U.S. Milers.



kev Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As far as horses running in the BC races, looks
> like Nothing to lose had a neg. 1.1 at
> 8.0f.......these horses ran neg\'s but most were
> neg. 0.2 and neg.  0.1\'s....POWERSCOURT
> 10.0f.....SOARING FREE 8.0F.....WITH ANTICIPATION
> 12.F.....SWEET RETURN distance ? You\'ll see some
> of these horses running this big number maybe once
> and never come close to it again, but there were
> some that was running 1.2 almost ever time they
> stepped onto the turf.

[kev]

Silver Charm had a -2.3 and a -2.0 efforts and Cigar had a -2.1 and three other neg. numbers.

Beyer gave Leroy a 114. That would be a small new top relative to a couple of 112s he gave him earlier in the year, but the Beyer figures for the rest of the field going in were a little different.  

I\'ll wait to see what figure Jerry assigns to the race, but I can\'t see why a small new top would be a major negative in this case. This horse is still relatively lightly raced and for the most part he was developing slowly last year. He came back in fine form, so it\'s no shock he inched forward further. If it\'s a big new top it raises the question of why Frankel would have him so wound up in the race before the \"Main Event\" and what impact that will have.