![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() I timed the Whitney 5 times and here were my results:
1:46.63 1:46.75 1:46.59 1:46.65 1:46.94 Obviously, there are several reasons for a margin of error, most of which the timing depends upon the replay being run at real speed. Make sure you start your stopwatch when the first horse reaches the start/finish wire, not when they leave the gate. I think that perhaps we should look at the Go For Wand featuring a regressed BSF by Ginger Punch in a winning effort as opposed to giving her an automatic 104. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() interesting article on this subject on DRF... a few highlights...
"On the Beyer Speed Figure scale ... Lawyer Ron's raw figure in the Whitney was an astronomical 138, and applying a variant of -10 again would give him an implausible figure of 128, a level reached only by Ghostzapper in the last decade. Awarding Lawyer Ron a 128 would mean giving runner-up Wanderin Boy, who had never exceeded a figure of 107 except at Keeneland (where he earned figures of 110 and 113 when that track was in its pre-Polytrack inside-speed heyday), a figure of nearly 120. Diamond Stripes, with consistent figures of 104-105-106-105 in his last four starts, would get about a 117." from DRF. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() I timed it twice using the replay on NTRA.com, and both times I started the clock less than a legth before the lead horses crossed the wire for the first time. My times:
1:47.00 1:47.00 If the replay is shown in real time, I think Lawyer Ron's time might be exactly right. Wow. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() My 5 clockings of the Go For Wand:
1:49.50 1:49.41 1:49.28 1:49.34 1:49.25 I believe the track was rather fast, but the Go For Wand was run rather slow. I agree that Lawyer Ron probably did not earn a 128, but a 120 is not out of the question. Perhaps we should use Diamond Stripes as a projection horse at about a 106. That would give Lawyer Ron a 115 which is 23 points off of the raw figure of 138. Applying that variant to Ginger Punch would leave her running a 91. If we use an average of both projections for the variant (-10 and -23) we get an average variant of -17. That gives Lawyer Ron a 121 and Ginger Punch a 97. I think the times were right. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Let's face it; the actual time really doesn't matter. We know the gaps involved separating the horses. Lets take a look at the top 5 finishers showing their top route dirt figs, and their last race Beyers:
Lawyer Ron 109, 108 (last race) Wanderin Boy 113, 90 (last race). His two top dirt figs, 113 and 111, were loose on lead wire jobs at the old biased Kee. Is it likely he ran superior to those numbers? Its highly doubtful. Diamond Stripes 106 & 104---he's been in the 104-106 range for his last 4 starts. Fairbanks-115 & 103--the 115 was a loose on the lead runaway job. The 103, accomplished in his last, would be a far more likely number he'd run. Dry Martini- 107 & 107--This is a horse who very often runs in the 100-103 area. The 107 was accomplished on Bute, at a track that often produces Beyers that are suspiciously high. Likely projected figures before the race: Dry Martini--102 Fairbanks--103 Diamond Stripes---106 These are the most likely numbers that could've occurred. In reality, the differential between Fairbanks and Dry Martini should be 2 pts, not 1. Based on this, Wanderin Boy would be 2 pts higher (1 length at 9f) than Diamond Stripes, giving him a 108. He's run a 107 and 106 on non-old Keeneland surfaces, so that is plausible. Higher than a 108 would not be likely. So for Lawyer Ron, we add on 8 pts, giving him a 116, a solid new top, but very likely considering his win margin. These are my projected figures (I use the Beyer scale): Lawyer Ron 116 Wanderin Boy 108 Diamond Stripes 106 Fairbanks 103 Dry Martini 101 |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Very sound reasoning in constructing your figure. The only problem is that leaves Ginger Punch with a 92 BSF. While it is possible that she scored a 6 length victory at a 92 figure, I think that it is unlikely. I believe she ran a slower than normal figure, but 12 points is quite a regression in a winning effort.
The question this poses is whether or not the timer was functioning properly in both races. Steven Crist (http://www.drf.com/news/article/87120.html) argues that the Whitney was an unlikely record time, but I think that it is more likely that the Go For Wand was an exceptionally slow race and both clockings are correct. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() It is very possible (and likely) that Wanderin Boy ran a new top yesterday because he had everything go his own way on a track which favored his running style.
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Interesting....from the comments of the same article.
Steve Davidowitz says: After Alan Klayman's report of the race clocking off the ABC Video Tape that he sdubmitted to this blog a few hours ago, I tried to time the race again off the NYRA website and the streaming video quality was poor. Would not trust my own previous clocking off that site. Strongly reitterate suggestion to NYRA to time this race with calibrated timing device off their in-house, real time, video replays). As others have suggested, the NYRA should do this as soon as possible. Regards/Steve Davidowitz Posted by: Steve Davidowitz | Jul 29, 2007 12:52:11 PM
__________________
"You miss 100% of the shots that you don't take." Follow me with the Rays grounds crew at https://twitter.com/TripleCrown59 www.facebook.com/TripleCrown59 K&S pics- http://share.shutterfly.com/action/w...0BYtWrhw2csXLA |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() I'm not quite sure what the alleged controversy is now about. Of course, as far as the time goes, that could have been a very serious issue; however, the time could have been and was verified and relatively very quickly. There might have been a time delay in getting the verification out, but the very next day on the backstretch it was a non-issue.
Regarding the Beyer #, I read the article(s) as everyone else has as well. The "human" or personal element of the Beyer # has always been present. Being that the track record time cannot be disputed -- as a "raw", recorded time -- that only leaves other "variables" at play. If the comprehensive data comes back with a 123, then it is what it is. However, we aren't talking about 123 here. We are talking about 116. As a matter of fact, Mark Hopkins came right out and said that the horse never came close to 123. Of course he gave all the "data" to support that. However, my question is -- why? Because Lawyer Ron never ran better than 109? I understand the 2005 Whitney and the afterthoughts of perhaps the #'s being mistaken or inaccurate, however, is there where a "wrong" is made "right" so to speak? There is a "human" element to the Beyer #, and we all know it's not science or exclusively formulaic. Eric |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Yes there definitely is. If they assigned Lawyer Ron a 123, it would not only been a huge new top for him, but for a number of horses in the field. The chances of numerous horses in a race jumping up and either running new tops or dramatically improved figures (with the exception of 2YO races and early season 3YOs) isn't very likely. Could Wanderin Boy run a 115, not only in defeat, but away from the old rail biased Keeneland? I seriously doubt it. Could Diamond Stripes run a 113? Maybe with a perfect trip in a winning effort; doubtful here in defeat. Could Fairbanks run a 110 without the aid of an easy lead? Doubtful. Could Dry Martini run a 109, only 2 pts better than his win in Iowa? Maybe but the 107 he ran was in a winning effort, on Bute and the figure maker at PrM is often on the too generous side. Not impossible, but not likely he ran a 109. Kudos to Hopkins and Beyer for nailing this one.
|