Quote:
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.
05-10-2012, 08:05 AM
Threaded Mode