Lawyer Ron's Time
 

I went back and watched the Go For Wand and The Whitney on NYRA.com and timed each race with a stop watch. I know this isnt very accurate but I was very close to the Go For Wand time and way off for the Whitney. I started the watch at the same time for each race. I got Lawyer Ron's time around 1:49 flat and Ginger Punches slightly slower (which is very close to the correct time). Thought this was interesting.

I timed the Whitney 5 times and here were my results:
1:46.63
1:46.75
1:46.59
1:46.65
1:46.94

Obviously, there are several reasons for a margin of error, most of which the timing depends upon the replay being run at real speed.

Make sure you start your stopwatch when the first horse reaches the start/finish wire, not when they leave the gate.

I think that perhaps we should look at the Go For Wand featuring a regressed BSF by Ginger Punch in a winning effort as opposed to giving her an automatic 104.

interesting article on this subject on DRF... a few highlights...

"On the Beyer Speed Figure scale ... Lawyer Ron's raw figure in the Whitney was an astronomical 138, and applying a variant of -10 again would give him an implausible figure of 128, a level reached only by Ghostzapper in the last decade.

Awarding Lawyer Ron a 128 would mean giving runner-up Wanderin Boy, who had never exceeded a figure of 107 except at Keeneland (where he earned figures of 110 and 113 when that track was in its pre-Polytrack inside-speed heyday), a figure of nearly 120. Diamond Stripes, with consistent figures of 104-105-106-105 in his last four starts, would get about a 117." from DRF.

I timed it twice using the replay on NTRA.com, and both times I started the clock less than a legth before the lead horses crossed the wire for the first time. My times:

1:47.00
1:47.00

If the replay is shown in real time, I think Lawyer Ron's time might be exactly right. Wow.

My 5 clockings of the Go For Wand:
1:49.50
1:49.41
1:49.28
1:49.34
1:49.25

I believe the track was rather fast, but the Go For Wand was run rather slow. I agree that Lawyer Ron probably did not earn a 128, but a 120 is not out of the question. Perhaps we should use Diamond Stripes as a projection horse at about a 106. That would give Lawyer Ron a 115 which is 23 points off of the raw figure of 138. Applying that variant to Ginger Punch would leave her running a 91.

If we use an average of both projections for the variant (-10 and -23) we get an average variant of -17. That gives Lawyer Ron a 121 and Ginger Punch a 97.

I think the times were right.

Let's face it; the actual time really doesn't matter. We know the gaps involved separating the horses. Lets take a look at the top 5 finishers showing their top route dirt figs, and their last race Beyers:

Lawyer Ron 109, 108 (last race)
Wanderin Boy 113, 90 (last race). His two top dirt figs, 113 and 111, were loose on lead wire jobs at the old biased Kee. Is it likely he ran superior to those numbers? Its highly doubtful.
Diamond Stripes 106 & 104---he's been in the 104-106 range for his last 4 starts.
Fairbanks-115 & 103--the 115 was a loose on the lead runaway job. The 103, accomplished in his last, would be a far more likely number he'd run.
Dry Martini- 107 & 107--This is a horse who very often runs in the 100-103 area. The 107 was accomplished on Bute, at a track that often produces Beyers that are suspiciously high.

Likely projected figures before the race:

Dry Martini--102
Fairbanks--103
Diamond Stripes---106

These are the most likely numbers that could've occurred. In reality, the differential between Fairbanks and Dry Martini should be 2 pts, not 1. Based on this, Wanderin Boy would be 2 pts higher (1 length at 9f) than Diamond Stripes, giving him a 108. He's run a 107 and 106 on non-old Keeneland surfaces, so that is plausible. Higher than a 108 would not be likely. So for Lawyer Ron, we add on 8 pts, giving him a 116, a solid new top, but very likely considering his win margin. These are my projected figures (I use the Beyer scale):

Lawyer Ron 116
Wanderin Boy 108
Diamond Stripes 106
Fairbanks 103
Dry Martini 101

Very sound reasoning in constructing your figure. The only problem is that leaves Ginger Punch with a 92 BSF. While it is possible that she scored a 6 length victory at a 92 figure, I think that it is unlikely. I believe she ran a slower than normal figure, but 12 points is quite a regression in a winning effort.
The question this poses is whether or not the timer was functioning properly in both races. Steven Crist (http://www.drf.com/news/article/87120.html) argues that the Whitney was an unlikely record time, but I think that it is more likely that the Go For Wand was an exceptionally slow race and both clockings are correct.

It is very possible (and likely) that Wanderin Boy ran a new top yesterday because he had everything go his own way on a track which favored his running style.

Interesting....from the comments of the same article.

Steve Davidowitz says:

After Alan Klayman's report of the race clocking off the ABC Video Tape that he sdubmitted to this blog a few hours ago, I tried to time the race again off the NYRA website and the streaming video quality was poor. Would not trust my own previous clocking off that site. Strongly reitterate suggestion to NYRA to time this race with calibrated timing device off their in-house, real time, video replays). As others have suggested, the NYRA should do this as soon as possible.
Regards/Steve Davidowitz

Posted by: Steve Davidowitz | Jul 29, 2007 12:52:11 PM

*shrugs* The time seems legit to me, every time I look at it and the race. Here's two of the comments from DRF.com's article that, to me, confirm it. (I think there's some sputtering about it being Lawyer Ron who did this performance and it's not really fair. If you go by what you might've thought him capable before his Derby flop, I could see him getting to this point one day. 128 might be crazy but no way is this a 107-110 performance either. His reputation was very what has he done for me lately and he's working his way back. He got a track record and it sure looked like he was turning in one with the way he ran. Sometimes your eyes aren't deceiving you when you look at the final time. Kinda refreshing and the horse should be recognized for that.)

i know the person who posted that on drf, and trust me, he's completely incompetent. i'm surprised he even knows how to turn a computer on, let alone use a stop watch.

Yeah but the timer doesn't start as soon as the gate opens either. It depends on where they have the starting gate at compared to the first timer on the tracks rail. Great run by The Lawyer but to many other horses would've had to run their personal best on the same day also. Hard yes, impossiable no.

Why can't you all just enjoy it and be happy for the horse and his connections?

Time is only important where you are in jail. Lawyer Ron's win was by daylite over a very good field, now if he can just stay a mile and 1/4.

Amen!!

This is something I've tried to explain to people on the other forum. For some of u, that's how u see it. And that's fine. But for a lot of us that are more analytical, is't not that simple. Not knocking the other forum because it has it's place but on here, there are more serious horse players. And serious horse players want to know more about what really happened and not just the end result. If u don't analyze and try to figure out what really happened, u miss way too much when it comes time to wager on the next race. Nobody here is doubting that Lawyer Ron ran a very good race and it's obvious that whether he actually ran 1:50 or 1:46, he was dominant over the rest of the field. That much is not in question. But as a gambler, if u don't look deeper than the surface, u are cheating yourself.

I think it more than likely that the track changed speeds between the Ginger Punch race and the Whitney. If someone was actually at the track, they might know if the maintenace crew added water or worked on the track prior to the Whitney like they often do before feature races.

Ditto that! The rest is blood clot, mon.

I made my figs for the day and reviewed them with a fine tooth comb. The number Beyer gave him (and the rest of the field) was an adjustment (a 116.) Here's what I got (my fig then the Beyer equivalent in parentheses) and a justification:

R1 101 (73): No recent fig on the winner, 2nd place (beaten 1l) Wood Winner had a 98 last out.
R2 105 (80): [2yo's, although this is par for 2YO MSW at SAR]
R3 Turf
R4 100 (72): Winner had a 97 last out, 2nd (beaten 1l) 98, and 3rd (1l) 96. Probably a point or two high, but longshot winning races are often bizarre.
R5 106 (82): Another longshot winner, moved up 10 lengths (I don't have much confidence in this figure but there were a lot of firsters in there so not much to work off of)
R6 107 (83): Winner had a 104 last out, 2nd 100 (off long layoff), 3rd 103.
R7 Turf
R8 The AGVandy: 116 (104): Winner had a 116 in the Carter (last fig I have). Very evenly matched group on my figs and they ran like it. All were in the 113-117 range
R9 The Go For Wand: 113 (93): Winner had a 108 and 109 last two, steadily improving
R10 The Whitney 132 (123): Winner 125 @ Mth, 2nd (5l) 122 @ CD, 6th (10l)122 @ Aqu, 7th (11l) 120 @ Aqu, 9th 122 (12l) @ Bel, 10th 119 (14l) @ Bel
R11 99 (70) Winner a 99 last out, 3rd (3l) 96

Basically the top 3 ran their eyeballs out. It happens. They probably won't run that fast again, ever. The Beyer just CANNOT only be 17 points higher than the Go For Wand- the time is 18 lengths faster, which at a mile and an eighth translates to 30 Beyer points (precisely what my figures state, even using a different method and scale.)

Take it for what it's worth but if the Whitney Beyer is "officially" a 116, the Go For Wand should "officially" be an 86. Neither are right as they stand.

If the NYRA cannot verify the clocking then they should throw the time out and leave the track record as it was. In other words Lawyer Ron should be awarded the unofficial track record. The official track record stands.

So what was the final BSF?

....that's bumba claat, mon.

Whitney (Sar): Lawyer Ron (T. Pletcher/J. Velazquez) - 116
Bing Crosby (Dmr): In Summation (C. Clement/C. Nakatani) - 111
Alfred G. Vanderbilt (Sar): Diabolical (S. Klesaris/M. Pino) - 106
Diana (Sar): My Typhoon (Ire) (W. Mott/E. Castro) - 106
Washington Park (AP): Lewis Michael (W. Catalano/E. Baird) - 105
Sanford (Sar): Ready's Image (T. Pletcher/J. Velazquez) - 104
Jim Dandy (Sar): Street Sense (C. Nafzger/C. Borel) - 104

Time has been verified as correct

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/mo..._for_todd.html

well, that's that.

who would have thought lawyer ron would leap to the fore, and in such a big way?

IMO the time didnt matter as much as Lawyer Ron's visually impressive win.

But glad the time has been verified.

Congrats to Lawyer Ron and connections

I disagree with this post completely. Time IS important for all of the reasons that King Glorious pointed out. His race was pretty nice, and as a fan of the sport....I enjoyed watching a strong performance by a good horse.
BUT, as somebody who may be betting the next race he is in, I would sort of like to know what his speed figures really were for that race. And speed figures depend on time.
I agree 100% with King Glorious........on this one.

P.S. I don't think he will ever be effective beyond 9f.

Do you think he won't be effective beyond 9fs because that's just the way you've always felt? I'm figuring that is the case because I can't imagine how someone could have watched the Whitney and afterwards said, "No way Lawyer Ron gets 10fs."

By the way, I still don't know if I'm certain 10fs is what Lawyer Ron wants.

NT

His 2 9f races this year were superior to his 3 8f races...so I would have to say he can probably get 10f...especially at speed favoring Monmouth. I think that distance at that track is probably a match made in heaven despite his 8f loss there last month.

I did not make any particular observations about what the track crew did prior to the Whitney. The track had been harrowed most of the day, but was sealed prior to the Diana, and subsequently "re-opened." Whether that may have had an impact on the glibness of the track, I can't say.

The only comment that I have on the figures is that the problem seems to stem from the comparison of the Whitney to the Go For Wand. To my eye, the Go For Wand was a pretty ugly race, and the winner still got the 9F in 1:49, the second fastest running of the race since the Maskette was transferred to Saratoga in 1994 and renamed after Go For Wand. As so often happens, horses don't set track records, but the glibness of the racing surface results in track records. The final times for the Vanderbilt (only Speightstown, Prospect Bay and Five Star Day had run faster times than Diabolical) and the modest group of NY-bred maidens in the last race suggest that the track was playing faster than par at the end of Saturday's card. Perhaps that explains why a track record was set by a very talented horse that ran a very big race.

Basically, the article says that Mark Hopkins, who creates the Beyers at Saratoga, made a judgement call. If he gives Lawyer Ron a 123, which the variant for the day called for, then the next few horses behind him would have made some big improvements in Beyers as well, namely Wanderin Boy at 113 and Diamond Stripes at 111. Wanderin Boy's 113 would have matched a career high earned at the old lightning fast dirt Keeneland and Diamond Stripes would have improved from his career high of 106.

I don't understand how this was thought to be so improbable, though. Wanderin Boy ran a great race in the Whitney and I thought that Beyer Speed Figures took into account the speed of the racetrack, even if it is a speed favoring Keeneland of old. Diamond Stripes was a lightly raced 4 year old that had run 106-105-104 in his last three with not-so-great trips. It seems to be a good bet that he would improve this time out as he is still developing. Both of these horses were most likely being trained to give a top performance at the Whitney as well.

I understand that creating figures is not always black and white, but the "there's no way these horses improved" argument doesn't exactly fit here.

I do not like that judgments are being published as facts. These judgements have too much of an effect on what the wagering public does. What if his judgement would have been to stick with the 123 and they had published that? U all know that the difference between the 123 and the 116 might be the difference between whether he's 8/5 in his next race or 3/5. This stuff is too important to rely on one person's judgement, IMO. It's dangerous. While, I'm not suggesting that his own wagering interests might be furthered by issuing a specific number, I can't help but feel like by doing it this way, u leave yourself open to people wondering if that's the case. One of my favorite quotes says "flee all appearance of evil." Not all evil only but even the appearance of it.

lawyer ron has run once ever past 9f, in the ky derby. hard to say based on one effort whether he can handle the distance or not. he might be better at 9 than 10, but again, one loss (and of course only one winner per race!) isn't enough to say if he can handle it.

based on his new and improved running style, and judging by his whitney effort, i wouldn't say 10f is out of his realm.

Don't forget he ran in the Classic last year. So he's 0 for 2. But at that time, he hadn't learned how to relax yet. So as you said, he's different now. From his Whitney effort, he doesn't look like he's stopping at 9 furlongs. I don't even consider last year.

whoops, forgot his 'run' in there!

I will be more intrested in the track condition, the weight he carries and new faces in the race.

Lawyer Ron came into this race a better race horse than we saw last year and freaked on the track conditions. I think it is that simple. I like the horse and hope he backs it up in his next race.

I didn't bet him because of the post position he had to over come.

P.S. he would of won at 10f Saturday on that track against the same field.

Great minds think alike, and Hopkins definitely got this one right on the money.

I'm not quite sure what the alleged controversy is now about. Of course, as far as the time goes, that could have been a very serious issue; however, the time could have been and was verified and relatively very quickly. There might have been a time delay in getting the verification out, but the very next day on the backstretch it was a non-issue.

Regarding the Beyer #, I read the article(s) as everyone else has as well. The "human" or personal element of the Beyer # has always been present. Being that the track record time cannot be disputed -- as a "raw", recorded time -- that only leaves other "variables" at play. If the comprehensive data comes back with a 123, then it is what it is. However, we aren't talking about 123 here. We are talking about 116.

As a matter of fact, Mark Hopkins came right out and said that the horse never came close to 123. Of course he gave all the "data" to support that.

However, my question is -- why? Because Lawyer Ron never ran better than 109? I understand the 2005 Whitney and the afterthoughts of perhaps the #'s being mistaken or inaccurate, however, is there where a "wrong" is made "right" so to speak?

There is a "human" element to the Beyer #, and we all know it's not science or exclusively formulaic.

Eric

Yes there definitely is. If they assigned Lawyer Ron a 123, it would not only been a huge new top for him, but for a number of horses in the field. The chances of numerous horses in a race jumping up and either running new tops or dramatically improved figures (with the exception of 2YO races and early season 3YOs) isn't very likely. Could Wanderin Boy run a 115, not only in defeat, but away from the old rail biased Keeneland? I seriously doubt it. Could Diamond Stripes run a 113? Maybe with a perfect trip in a winning effort; doubtful here in defeat. Could Fairbanks run a 110 without the aid of an easy lead? Doubtful. Could Dry Martini run a 109, only 2 pts better than his win in Iowa? Maybe but the 107 he ran was in a winning effort, on Bute and the figure maker at PrM is often on the too generous side. Not impossible, but not likely he ran a 109. Kudos to Hopkins and Beyer for nailing this one.