Weekend Stakes Beyers
 

SA San Pasqual S (G2): California Chrome 103 (Lucky Pulpit) A. Sherman/V. Espinoza
SA Sham S (G3): Collected 80 (City Zip) B. Baffert/M. Garcia

GP Ft. Lauderdale S (G2): Heart to Heart 104 (English Channel) B. Lynch/J. Leparoux
GP Marshua's River S (G3): Sandiva-IRE 100 (Footstepsinthesand-GB) T. Pletcher/J. Castellano
GP Hal's Hope S (G3): Mshawish 102 (Medaglia d'Oro) T. Pletcher/J. Castellano

AQU Interborough S: La Verdad 96 (Yes It's True) L. Rice/J. Ortiz
AQU Ladies H: Saythreehailmary's 89 (Repent) J. Morrison/M. Franco

TAM Turf Dash S: Fast Flying Rumor 108 (West Acre) G. Bennett/R. Allen

DED Big Drama S: Sea Vow -- (Private Vow) J. Foster/A. Castillo
DED By the Light S: Brooke's a Bookin -- (Jonesboro) T. Dixon/R. Flores

Highest BSF ever recorded at Tampa Bay Downs

How about the 1-2 finishers from Gulfstream race 8 Saturday? I think they are both good.

81 for the winner.

Maybe not so good, and the main was definitely inside favoring.

The Sham seems aptly named after seeing that figure!

For comparison, some previous winners, per my 2014 American Racing Manual:

2006 Bob and John 102
2008 Colonel John 86 (lowest Beyer prior to Collected)
2009 The Pamplemousse 107
2011 Tapizar 98
2013 Goldencents 98

California Chrome's figure was one of the 2 best vs. 2004-2013 San Pasqual winners. Only Coil ran a higher number (103 in 2013)

O

Colonel John some how won the Travers. Impossible photo with one of my pets Mambo in Seattle.

Interesting, so the 7th and 8th race at SA on sat, run at the same distance and exact final time, both winners got 103's?

No, the 7th race winner got a 95. California Chrome was given an additional 8 pts based on the slow pace of the race. The respective half-mile splits of those races were about 1.3 seconds different. The San Pasqual was very slow early.

Using past figures as a guideline, this is the only move.

I understand the process, though I do wonder how often they do this, would say a MDN race and a 1st level allowance be afforded the same adjustment?

I would imagine that if the pars and prior figures for the horses in question necessitated an adjustment, one would be made.

The two things Beyer routinely gets bashed for, and I'm NOT saying you're bashing him for it, are adjusting numbers after the fact and occasionally "projecting" a total that may differ from a given day's variant. I've never really understood the objection to the former, given that it's only done in an effort to ensure the most accurate figure exists for posterity.

As far as projecting and differing from the normal day's variant, that procedure is analyzed at length afterwards to ensure the right move was made. There would normally be an explanation for horses running significantly faster or slower than they have before, and when one doesn't exist, it is better to err on the side of precedent in my opinion.

I actually think given the context in this case its the right decision.

Just furthers my belief that any figures that do not factor pace have a very grave flaw. I am glad in some cases they can see this as well.