![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I still take issue with your contention that he improved 15 lengths, as that would make his TG figure a negative number, which is impossible. I haven't pulled up the TG sheets again for this post, but I also believe that he had some 3-5w trips in the recent past and hugged the rail with a mostly uncontested lead in this one. I DO know that Teuflesburg's par number is about an 8 or a 9 from looking at the sheets yesterday. That makes his par about the same as Direct Splash's best race. So if Teuflesburg runs his par (which is all he needed to do to win that race), and Direct Splash runs his top, then by all means Direct Splash could have been faster by fractions of a second. Perhaps in the DRF there was no way, using Beyers, that you could have had this horse even coming close -- but that would prove the folly of relying on Beyer numbers. There were certainly hints in the TG numbers that the horse could run a big one and contend, while there were not only hints, but glaring items tarnishing the race's favorites' form. I just don't think that any of it points to as you say, "confirm[ing] the fix." That's pure conjecture on your part, and the more we dig into the numbers of the whole thing, the more it looks like wild and false conjecture. Do you get this way everytime a $100 horse wins? They normally don't look the winner on paper --- or they wouldn't be $100 horses in the first place -- they're animals, not machines and therefore anything can happen. So when a race unfolds like Sunday's race and there are some signs on paper (as I've laid out quite brilliantly more than once, may i add) that it was not an impossibility -- you have to just let it be what it is...an upset. |