Andy Beyer, Dutrow, DRF

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Kasept

What makes you think Todd Pletcher ever even saw Ikigai? Ever? Do you think Pletcher spends a great deal of time overseeing his Chicago string?

Ah, Steve....

Ikigai was never in Chicago at any point in his career.

I also assume Pletcher probably did see him ... as he was training regularly at Churchill all through April and May .. and he raced there in May or June.

You're confusing Ikigai with another horse your alchemist friend moved way up.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Ah, Steve....

Ikigai was never in Chicago at any point in his career.

I also assume Pletcher probably did see him ... as he was training regularly at Churchill all through April and May .. and he raced there in May or June.

You're confusing Ikigai with another horse your alchemist friend moved way up.

Please don't allow the facts to interfere with Steve's blind defense of his favorite trainer.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Please don't allow the facts to interfere with Steve's blind defense of his favorite trainer.

Blind defense.. Cute.







I was thinking of It's a Bird that was rarely under Pletcher's direct supervision.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Blind defense.. Cute.







I was thinking of It's a Bird that was rarely under Pletcher's direct supervision.

Then I guess I stand correct.

Make that misguided defense. Or...how about confused?

[King Glorious]

Someone on another forum asked a question that I found very interesting. While I understand where Beyer was coming from with the article and I do agree with his point of view, one of reasons he cited for pointing out This Ones For Phil's sudden huge improvement from a figure standpoint. So part of what made the argument was the jump from a career best of 81 to a 117, a 36 point jump. What kind of jump would be considered acceptable? I remember when Bellamy Road got that 120 and he had never been anywhere close to that before. Midway Road got a 124 and hadn't come close to that before. Would a 20-25 point increase for TOFP had been ok? Would Beyer still have written the article if TOFP had gotten a more normal 109 or so? The question comes up now when looking at the number for Haynesfield in the Damon Runyon. He received a 101 originally but it's been downgraded to a 93 now because of the subsequent form of the field in their next races. What if down the line somewhere, the number for TOFP is downgraded to a 109? While still a huge jump, it wouldn't have generated nearly the same attention the 117 did.

[bobselkirk]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Someone on another forum asked a question that I found very interesting. While I understand where Beyer was coming from with the article and I do agree with his point of view, one of reasons he cited for pointing out This Ones For Phil's sudden huge improvement from a figure standpoint. So part of what made the argument was the jump from a career best of 81 to a 117, a 36 point jump. What kind of jump would be considered acceptable? I remember when Bellamy Road got that 120 and he had never been anywhere close to that before. Midway Road got a 124 and hadn't come close to that before. Would a 20-25 point increase for TOFP had been ok? Would Beyer still have written the article if TOFP had gotten a more normal 109 or so? The question comes up now when looking at the number for Haynesfield in the Damon Runyon. He received a 101 originally but it's been downgraded to a 93 now because of the subsequent form of the field in their next races. What if down the line somewhere, the number for TOFP is downgraded to a 109? While still a huge jump, it wouldn't have generated nearly the same attention the 117 did.

Perhaps the 81 prior best BSF is low? Maybe the horse can't turf or go long and his subsequent figs were negatively impacted by surface/distance/# turns issues? Not that these things can explain a 117 BSF.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by bobselkirk

Perhaps the 81 prior best BSF is low? Maybe the horse can't turf or go long and his subsequent figs were negatively impacted by surface/distance/# turns issues? Not that these things can explain a 117 BSF.

how do we know the 117 is right? these numbers have been corrected lower in the past no??

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Someone on another forum asked a question that I found very interesting. While I understand where Beyer was coming from with the article and I do agree with his point of view, one of reasons he cited for pointing out This Ones For Phil's sudden huge improvement from a figure standpoint. So part of what made the argument was the jump from a career best of 81 to a 117, a 36 point jump. What kind of jump would be considered acceptable? I remember when Bellamy Road got that 120 and he had never been anywhere close to that before. Midway Road got a 124 and hadn't come close to that before. Would a 20-25 point increase for TOFP had been ok? Would Beyer still have written the article if TOFP had gotten a more normal 109 or so? The question comes up now when looking at the number for Haynesfield in the Damon Runyon. He received a 101 originally but it's been downgraded to a 93 now because of the subsequent form of the field in their next races. What if down the line somewhere, the number for TOFP is downgraded to a 109? While still a huge jump, it wouldn't have generated nearly the same attention the 117 did.

Midway Road was a Keeneland freak. I got sucked into betting him good in the Preakness off of a Kee win .. he also won like a monster as a 2yo at KEE and the 124 you speak of came when he was an older horse at KEE.

Bellamy Road won his allowance race comeback at GP by about 16 lengths and his Wood Memorial win was 2nd off of a layoff.

I would say neither performance was as suspicious as This Ones For Phils.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Midway Road was a Keeneland freak. I got sucked into betting him good in the Preakness off of a Kee win .. he also won like a monster as a 2yo at KEE and the 124 you speak of came when he was an older horse at KEE.

Bellamy Road won his allowance race comeback at GP by about 16 lengths and his Wood Memorial win was 2nd off of a layoff.

I would say neither performance was as suspicious as This Ones For Phils.

I guess somebody had to eventually pick up that loose ball and dunk it.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Midway Road was a Keeneland freak. I got sucked into betting him good in the Preakness off of a Kee win .. he also won like a monster as a 2yo at KEE and the 124 you speak of came when he was an older horse at KEE.

Bellamy Road won his allowance race comeback at GP by about 16 lengths and his Wood Memorial win was 2nd off of a layoff.

I would say neither performance was as suspicious as This Ones For Phils.

While I understand what you are saying, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. To call This Ones for Phil's number suspicious is a huge understatement and I 100% agree with Beyer's column on the subject. The point was that if you are going to use the suspicious Beyer increase in your argument, I think you weaken your argument because as we all know, those numbers get adjusted down the road, sometimes more than once. I think the argument would have been strong enough without using the numbers as some sort of basis of factual support when there's not enough evidence in as yet to say whether or not the number is indeed fact.