Weekend Stakes Beyers

[RHT2004]

Originally Posted by Easy Goer Otis

The Sham seems aptly named after seeing that figure!

For comparison, some previous winners, per my 2014 American Racing Manual:

2006 Bob and John 102
2008 Colonel John 86 (lowest Beyer prior to Collected)
2009 The Pamplemousse 107
2011 Tapizar 98
2013 Goldencents 98

California Chrome's figure was one of the 2 best vs. 2004-2013 San Pasqual winners. Only Coil ran a higher number (103 in 2013)

O

Colonel John some how won the Travers. Impossible photo with one of my pets Mambo in Seattle.

[10 pnt move up]

Interesting, so the 7th and 8th race at SA on sat, run at the same distance and exact final time, both winners got 103's?

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

Interesting, so the 7th and 8th race at SA on sat, run at the same distance and exact final time, both winners got 103's?

No, the 7th race winner got a 95. California Chrome was given an additional 8 pts based on the slow pace of the race. The respective half-mile splits of those races were about 1.3 seconds different. The San Pasqual was very slow early.

Using past figures as a guideline, this is the only move.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

No, the 7th race winner got a 95. California Chrome was given an additional 8 pts based on the slow pace of the race. The respective half-mile splits of those races were about 1.3 seconds different. The San Pasqual was very slow early.

Using past figures as a guideline, this is the only move.

I understand the process, though I do wonder how often they do this, would say a MDN race and a 1st level allowance be afforded the same adjustment?

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

I understand the process, though I do wonder how often they do this, would say a MDN race and a 1st level allowance be afforded the same adjustment?

I would imagine that if the pars and prior figures for the horses in question necessitated an adjustment, one would be made.

The two things Beyer routinely gets bashed for, and I'm NOT saying you're bashing him for it, are adjusting numbers after the fact and occasionally "projecting" a total that may differ from a given day's variant. I've never really understood the objection to the former, given that it's only done in an effort to ensure the most accurate figure exists for posterity.

As far as projecting and differing from the normal day's variant, that procedure is analyzed at length afterwards to ensure the right move was made. There would normally be an explanation for horses running significantly faster or slower than they have before, and when one doesn't exist, it is better to err on the side of precedent in my opinion.

[10 pnt move up]

I actually think given the context in this case its the right decision.

Just furthers my belief that any figures that do not factor pace have a very grave flaw. I am glad in some cases they can see this as well.