Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RealBigD
I hope to have time to review the Best Thread Ever soon. Thanks for the link.
I agree that it's faulty logic to say that if a longshot wins, and you didn't have him, someone was cheating. We're all going to tear up far more tickets than we cash, and I consider myself lucky to score on a longshot now and again.
But, you know, by definition, cheaters cheat. If a rider is so brazen that he will hide his horse in a fog bank while the others complete a lap and then gallop down the stretch to cross under the wire "first," all for the sake of the winner's share of a purse that was probably in the neighborhood of $2500 total, I wouldn't put it past him to carry a buzzer in a race that carried a total purse in excess of $40,000. Which certainly isn't to say he did, but I am not willing to close my mind to the possibility.
I agree that fixed races -- in the sense that there's a conspiracy to hold some entrants back so as to allow an agreed upon entrant to win -- are extremely rare. However, as shown by virtually every NASCAR race, individuals will occasionally try to gain an advantage over the competition by illegitimate means.
|
I think once you read the BTE, you'll get more of what I'm saying.
I've never said that there are not cheaters and that there are not races in which jocks plug a horse in. That's not my point.
My whole point was that the righteous attitude (titling a thread "Fixed Race on XMas Eve," not "suspicious" or "hey what do you all think about this.") ken by a poster regarding this "fixed" race had very little numerical backing. If a horse were going to be plugged in in a race like that, it jsut wouldn't make sense. The horse only improved his career best race from earlier last year by something in the vicinity of 2 lengths. That sort of improvement wouldn't even gaurantee him a spot on the board in that race, just a shot at it. Had the horse actually run a number that was wildly out of this world compared to his career top, there may have been a conversation to have.
My whole point has been that it's a whole lot of risk and work just to cheat to get a horse to improve such a little bit....to a point where that improvement may still have meant only a 4th place finish had the other horses in the race actually shown up that day.
It is really a "dead horse" so to speak. There is not much to add to it. Some think that a longshot running the best race of his life (even if ever so slightly), is indication that it was plugged in.
Others think that the numbers show that that performance wasn't as outrageous as it was made out to be.
It is what it is, and I'm touching it again only because you're new here and it came up in this thread. Bells can think whatever he wants, and I will think whatever I want. I just prefer the logical approach (how do these numbers stack up) as opposed to the anecdotal approach (he cheated before). But that's just me,and you and Bells are free to feel how you do.