Excellent article on declining Beyer's of 3yo's

[Mike]

http://www.drf.com/news/jerardi-kent...eyers-are-wane

[Riot]

Interesting thoughts. Thanks for the link.

[The Bid]

I don't see how somebody's subjective figure is relevant to the breed as a whole. This article is as crazy as Jon Whites

[tiggerv]

"By the way, did anybody notice that, as the horses went into the gate, Union Rags was 9-2 and Bodemeister 5-1? When they crossed the wire, Bodemeister was 4-1 and Union Rags 5-1. It was a $1 million swing in the win pool from a horse that broke terribly to a horse that cleared the field."

That's the most interesting part of the article to me. I am tired of seeing this even if there are innocent explanations for it. There is no reason for these fishy odds changes with all of the technology available today to move data.

[The Bid]

If we can send a man to the moon we can certainly figure out to have the odds set once the gate is popped. Its ridiculous

[Danzig]

close the windows sooner. that's the only way to make sure the final odds are correct so that they don't change during the running of the race.

[Cannon Shell]

This article is a great look into the industry and why it continually struggles with seemingly everything. You have guys who make numbers for a living (educated opinions really) asking for reasons why the numbers that they create (hardly exact) have inched down in one single race run 365 days apart by an entire new set of horses each year, all making their intitial start at the distance and many over the surface (in other words a lot of projecting here). Not that there is anything wrong with this on the face of it but the unfortunate side effect is that far too many people will misinterpret the "trend" and use this "evidence" to "prove" that some thing "needs to be done".

I am not even suggesting that the numbers made arent "correct" but of course of those who earned them the last few years in question Super Saver never raced again and Animal Kingdom and Mine That Bird never won a significant race again. However you can expect this articles "revelations" to be used in a twisted context in a hearing of some sort soon enough. Of course the real news that there were odds changes going on during the race despite a huge pool wont be talked about at all.

Sorry for the rant but FAR too many decisions are being made in the business (and have been for a long time) based on peoples opinions (or peoples opinions of peoples opinions) as opposed to pertinent data analyzed in an objective fashion.

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

This article is a great look into the industry and why it continually struggles with seemingly everything. You have guys who make numbers for a living (educated opinions really) asking for reasons why the numbers that they create (hardly exact) have inched down in one single race run 365 days apart by an entire new set of horses each year, all making their intitial start at the distance and many over the surface (in other words a lot of projecting here). Not that there is anything wrong with this on the face of it but the unfortunate side effect is that far too many people will misinterpret the "trend" and use this "evidence" to "prove" that some thing "needs to be done".

I am not even suggesting that the numbers made arent "correct" but of course of those who earned them the last few years in question Super Saver never raced again and Animal Kingdom and Mine That Bird never won a significant race again. However you can expect this articles "revelations" to be used in a twisted context in a hearing of some sort soon enough. Of course the real news that there were odds changes going on during the race despite a huge pool wont be talked about at all.

Sorry for the rant but FAR too many decisions are being made in the business (and have been for a long time) based on peoples opinions (or peoples opinions of peoples opinions) as opposed to pertinent data analyzed in an objective fashion.

You hit the nail on the head. The time for the derby this year was faster than 27 of the last 40 runnings. I'd love to see anyone convince a jury of laymen that horses are getting slower because their "numbers" say so. The defense would simply point out countless occasions where the numbers were changed weeks after they were assigned and days when the final times of races were identical yet the numbers were not. Insanity.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

asking for reasons why the numbers that they create (hardly exact) have inched down in one single race run 365 days apart by an entire new set of horses each year.

You would be pretty surprised how exact they are in the vast majority of situations.

It's only fair to label them "hardly exact" in situations like this years Wood Memorial day and Fountain of Youth day when only a single two-turn dirt route is carded all day. The route figures are tough to make and trust when that happens.

Or obviously on days when the weather isn't consistent throughout the card, or the track super decides to play around with the track a lot in between races, or when a timing problem occurs. The Beyers and Sheet style figures also can produce some hardly exact numbers on tougher variant days when an extreme pace further messes with the variant.

However, the figures will be brutally exact if the conditions for making figures aren't difficult and tricky.