Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
If you know anyone who knows me (which you probably don't), you would know that it's just the opposite. I never have a problem admitting when I am wrong.
Anyway, back to the argument, I still think there was a speed bias (independent of any possible rail bias). At almost all of the big tracks, when they make the track really fast for a big stakes day, it creates a speed bias most of the time.
But hypothetically if there was a day where there was not going to be a speed bias but the track was going to be faster on the rail (a rail bias), that would create a speed bias. An inside bias will manifest itself as a speed bias every time. There is no way around it. There is no such thing as an inside bias that doesn't favor speed.
It's not that complicated.
In addition, if there is a speed bias (with no rail bias), it will make it appear like there is a rail bias, because there will be a ton of winners who were on the lead and in the 1 or 2 path turning into the stretch and coming down the stretch. A speed bias can easily be mistaken for a rail bias.
|
Frankly, you have no idea what you’re talking about. It doesn’t happen much anymore, but when the Belmont main used to get really wet and speed favoring, the inside was the worst place to be. You wanted to be away from the rail. Jorge Chavez was always one of the first riders to pick up on this.
I understand the point you’re trying to make. A speed bias will look like an inside bias because a majority of speed horses gravitate towards the rail. But that isn’t a true rail bias. A true rail bias is what we saw at Belmont Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Speed and closers who spent a good amount of time on the rail did well. Look at the H Man race on Friday and where the winner and runner up spent a good portion of their time running.
You’re trying to oversimplify it and you’re incorrect. If you spent any time following the Aqueduct inner when we used to really get some gold rails you’d know the difference.