Quote:
|
Originally Posted by avance2000
in the first 4 bc races run on dirt....horses breaking from post 1 were 4 for 4.
you didn't notice that? and now you still don't see that? um.........okay.
|
No, it was much more like this....
I noticed that Dreaming of Anna, wearing saddle cloth #1 was allowed to lope around the oval at her own leisure and the rest of the field ignored her while she was loose on the lead. Then when only one horse got near her, she had plenty left in the tank, as nobody had challenged her the whole way.
In the next race I then noticed an entire flight of horses running suicidal fractions up front. Then the two closers kicked in and the one running on the rail saved all the ground and drew off impressively while the favorite took the overland route and likely gave up about 5 free lengths to the winner. The rail is the shortest way home. That's call geometry, not a bias.
In the Sprint, the horse wearing the #1 finished first, but did you not notice how the horse wearing the #1 was not on the inside for almost the entire race? He broke and then was out in the 3/4 path the entre rest of the way. According to THAT logic, Octave should have easily caught Dreaming of Anna, because NOW you're claiming that the 3 path, and NOT the rail is the place to be. So which is it? A rail bias or a 3-path bias?
Round Pond ran the best race. Period.
And in the Classic, if this rail bias existed, you'd think that Mr. Darley superhorse Bernardini would have at least offered a response to Invasor, right? And that Brother Derek would have been long gone in the first place because he had the rail the whole way. Instead, Invasor came home several lengths wide and still blew by the huge favorite. That's not a bias, that's called a horse race in which the best horse wins.
Anything else?