Butch Lehr on bias controversy -- Horseplayer Daily

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Our assessments of that quote just don't match up, and I'm okay with saying that. I think it shows nothing.

And QLM was the first horse to show that: running from the back of the pack in a race in which the best horse got to set a dawdling pace on the front end while getting zero pressure from the second best horse in the race who was coincidentally running second -- is NOT the way you win any race, let alone the Breeder's Cup. Again, no point at all here.

The thing is that I shouldn't have to sell you or anybody on this.An objective eye would see the bias on it's own.You should be coming to this conclusion on your own.I am very surprised that people, who say they are cappers,don't see the obvious.Amazes me.C.Q. TAKES THE OUTSIDE IN THE STRETCH,AND STRUGGLES WITH THAT SURFACE OUT THERE(you somehow can't see that.)Then (at the same time) 'Street' takes the inside route,and acts like a car going from dirt to pavement.Big difference.They didn't look like they were gunna be 10 lengths apart.That's not what it looked like before they went their separate ways.It really isn't as hard to see as you guys are making it.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Oh, no,all 5 previous grade 1 winners of a sprint are off the board in the B C Sprint,but you could have seen that pure as f'n snow by capping.The sheets,and every other capping mechanism all pointed to the 5 previous grade 1 winners all being out of the tri in this Grade 1.We are not talking about winning here.I am talking about hitting the board.You're telling me that good handicapping would make it obvious that the previous 5 grade 1 winning sprinters in the race(as well as TM Bling) were gunna run out of the money? You make no sense.ZERO.Deny,like the Churchill Shills that you are,but people who know how to cap,know that track was f'd up.This is what almost always happens when a mistake is made.Deny the obvious.Attack the messenger.The problem is that all the evidence is on one side,It is overwhelming(as I just gave you about n grade 1 winners even hitting the board in the sprint.)No matter what,if you don't want to see it, you will deny the words of trainers who admit they benefitted by a quick inside strip.Why would they say this? Why would ONEIL say it was obvious the inside was the place to be? Why? It makes no sense.All the Churchill Shills can say is that people who lose blame the track surface.Oh,never mind the BC SPRINT Winning trainer also said it.What is your reason for him saying it? Come on.Make some sense, you shills.

Well, you believe what you want. I don't deny what they said, that they believe what they said and most certainly that you believe what they said. However, it's certainly not the first time the tote board exploded in the Sprint. Of your 5 G1 winners, Henny, Malibu and Pomeroy certainly had knocks against them. Bordonaro ran good but got beat by a horse that had run close to him before. It was also, on balance, a fairly roughly run race with Pomeroy, Henny,Bling Areyoutalking and Lewis Michael all getting in enough trouble that most likely ended any chance for an ITM finish.

I don't discount your opinion and I'm sure Nakitani and ONeill mean what they say.

I can offer no more reason for ONeill saying what he did than I can for you calling me a f'in shill.

Big deal.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

I agree about the gambling(as far as an inside bias goes.)The problem is that they pimp this thing all year,and then they don't really give a sht about giving the connections of these horses a fair race track.I don't understand why people don't give a sht that the 5 previous grade 1 winners in the sprint
aren't on the board.You simply can't say the track is fair when that many consistent horses don't fire.There are 4 very consistent horses in there that are almost always on the board in graded sprints.That race is like "the "control" in a science experiment. The control results aren't within the acceptable range.I know that track was total crap.This attitude of "who cares who wins the races on the biggest day of the year" is very odd to me.These people may only have 1 chance in their life to race a horse in the B.C...Not only that,but these jocks count on this one day of the year,and you're telling me that you could really give a sht about if the track is anywhere near fair? I don't get that.

What about the connections of the horses who won? Aren't they happy? There will only be 8 winners and a lot of losers regardless of track condition. I'm sure that there was a horse in the Sprint who may/may not have been effected by the supposed bias that would have meant a lot of money to me but that is the way it goes. The jocks count on BC day ??? Dude the Jocks that ride BC day are doing quite ok and NO I dont care about them.
They all ran over the same surface and if there is a bias then so be it...what difference does it really make? The most important lesson that you learn when handicapping is to identify horses that ran against a strong bias and play them next out with inflated odds. If you truly believe that the track was biased, do that. As for the Eclipse Awards and all that other ****, forget it, move on. They are so unimportant in the grand sceme of life or horseracing.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by oracle80

I know its slow now, we are in between Tri Crown season and BC season, but it will be nice to put this one to bed.

Trust me Oracle, while it was probably a certainty that the bias discussion would occur again -- it was not my intention. I just found it fascinating that nobody has ever asked Lehr what he did. Nobody cared. Everyone just made their own assumptions based on what they saw (and some of us disagree about what we saw, and no amount of debate will change that), and never wondered to compare the things they saw the track team doing to the other days of racing.

I think it's funny that nobody complained to him, the stewards, or anyone during the day -- you'd think that would be the prime time to say something about an unfair track, wouldn't you?

It was meant to just be informational, because I wasn't sure if everyone would read it otherwise. I'm as disinterested in the bias debate as anyone is, but found this interesting and informative.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

"I think it's funny that nobody complained to him, the stewards, or anyone during the day -- you'd think that would be the prime time to say something about an unfair track, wouldn't you?"



Why f'n bother? Look how you've attacked people on here for writing about that track condition.Now you wonder why people didn't complain? He would just accuse peoplel(like he did in the article,) of using the track as an excuse for losing.There is no upside to it.Trainers talked to the media about the track,but didn't bother going to talk to him about it.After seeing the way people on here have acted about it,I wouldn't bother talking to him either.ONEIL told the interviewers that it was very quick down on the rail.BUTCH says he had the T.V. on,but he must have missed that.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

What about the connections of the horses who won? Aren't they happy? There will only be 8 winners and a lot of losers regardless of track condition.

Well,I don't think it is too much to want the best horse on the day to win(not just the one who gets a lucky bias in their favor.)These are supposed to be important races(not just races at some country fair.) I think people who bet huge money to win on horses should take note of what you wrote,because this is a prime reason to not bet heavy to win.

[randallscott35]

Thor Laughing All the Way to the Bank

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Oh, no,all 5 previous grade 1 winners of a sprint are off the board in the B C Sprint,but you could have seen that pure as f'n snow by capping.The sheets,and every other capping mechanism all pointed to the 5 previous grade 1 winners all being out of the tri in this Grade 1.We are not talking about winning here.I am talking about hitting the board.You're telling me that good handicapping would make it obvious that the previous 5 grade 1 winning sprinters in the race(as well as TM Bling) were gunna run out of the money? You make no sense.ZERO.Deny,like the Churchill Shills that you are,but people who know how to cap,know that track was f'd up.This is what almost always happens when a mistake is made.Deny the obvious.Attack the messenger.The problem is that all the evidence is on one side,It is overwhelming(as I just gave you about n grade 1 winners even hitting the board in the sprint.)No matter what,if you don't want to see it, you will deny the words of trainers who admit they benefitted by a quick inside strip.Why would they say this? Why would ONEIL say it was obvious the inside was the place to be? Why? It makes no sense.All the Churchill Shills can say is that people who lose blame the track surface.Oh,never mind the BC SPRINT Winning trainer also said it.What is your reason for him saying it? Come on.Make some sense, you shills.

The BC Sprint is the biggest crapshoot out there. Henny ran a terrible race, it had nothing to do with a rail bias. Bordonaro ran 4th. I don't even know who the other three G1 winners are, I guess Pomeroy was one. How did that rail bring Nightmare Affair up into the tri. If he ran that good despite the bias then are we really to believe that Nighmare Affair would have won the BC Sprint if there wasn't a rail bias? It was a hard race to come up with from capping, virtually impossible but that is nothing unusual for a BC Sprint.

I'm a Churchill shill? That's a new one.

O'Neill saying there was a bias was a brilliant move as I've said before on here. He offers it up while talking about his gelded BC Sprint winner that has no breeding value and in turn gives his intact Juvenile an excuse for running third.

[SniperSB23]

OK, I just realized that Siren Lure and Malibu Mint were the other two G1 winners. You want to use Malibu F-ing Mint as evidence that there was a track bias because she didn't hit the board? Give me a break. And Siren Lure wasn't worthy of holding the jock strap (or the horse racing equivalent) of Thor's Echo and Bordonaro at six and a quarter furlongs. I never understood why anyone thought that horse had a chance.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

The quote has to be given time and again,because people constantly say that Thor's Echo wasn't on the rail.Well he was on the rail,and Nakatani didn't want to get off the rail.He had to get off it.You'll see him try to get back to the rail later in the race.He moves back over towards it.He and Oneil know it was a golden rail.They have said it was a golden rail,but it seems to go right through you people.Yes,Bordonaro was down towards the rail,but again,if you ever simply listen to the connections of horses,you won't have to ask why Thor has to go around him.Patrick said the horse never got ahold of that track at all.See,they had 2 problems that day:

1)Golden Rail

2)a ton of horses could not get ahold of that track that day.QLM was the 1st to show how crappy that track was,but there are gunna be a lot,lot more,and this is gunna be a well documented piece of crap track.

Keep trying to explain to yourself why you lost all your lunch money on BC day. By Monmouth '07 you'll be convinced and ready to start again.

P.S. horses have a hard time getting ahold of a track all the time. It's the oldest excuse in the book...

[philcski]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

OK, I just realized that Siren Lure and Malibu Mint were the other two G1 winners. You want to use Malibu F-ing Mint as evidence that there was a track bias because she didn't hit the board? Give me a break. And Siren Lure wasn't worthy of holding the jock strap (or the horse racing equivalent) of Thor's Echo and Bordonaro at six and a quarter furlongs. I never understood why anyone thought that horse had a chance.

And Pomeroy almost went down clipping heels with Thor's. He was full of horse early, sitting 4th with no urging and moving at will before the clip at the 3/8ths pole.
Henny didn't pick up his feet, he could have run across the infield and still lost.
Bordanaro lost by a photo for 3rd after pressing the contested pace the whole way.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Why f'n bother? Look how you've attacked people on here for writing about that track condition.

Things like this make you lose all credibility. How am I, or anyone else supposed to take you seriously, when presenting Lehr's side of the story and thinking that there was no bias equals "attacking" people for writing about the track condition?

This is completely out of left field with no backing -- disagreeing with you does not equal attacking you. Either you are drunk (and therefore unable to make sense of anything I say) or just plain old unable to make sense of anything I say -- as those two options are the only possible ways one could construe anything I've said as an "attack". I'll assume the former so that in the future I can try to take you seriously again.

Sorry, in retrospect, my sarcasm will likely be construed as an attack and I am going to go down in history as the board's biggest "attacker!"

[packerbacker7964]

For yhose of you quoting Beyer. I'd take a flashlight with me in the mourning if he told the sun was going to rise.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Brad Free is also on record saying that the Churchill main favored inside runners and hurt outside runners.Wrote it when he was writing about how QLM was gunna fly home in the Moccasin.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Brad Free is also on record saying that the Churchill main favored inside runners and hurt outside runners.Wrote it when he was writing about how QLM was gunna fly home in the Moccasin.

i notice how you didn't address any of the pertinent points of one of my previous posts -- how QLM was compromised by a wide trip with the best horses setting slow fractions. Breeders' Cup or not, that's how you lose races....letting the best horse in the race lope along at her own pace.

Again (aka the third time tonight)......your point?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by philcski

And Pomeroy almost went down clipping heels with Thor's. He was full of horse early, sitting 4th with no urging and moving at will before the clip at the 3/8ths pole.
Henny didn't pick up his feet, he could have run across the infield and still lost.
Bordanaro lost by a photo for 3rd after pressing the contested pace the whole way.

Henny never ran worse than 2nd (until he met that piece of crap track.)TM Bling never ran out of the money in a sprint(until he met that piece of crap track.)Race is gunna stick out like a sore thumb on the past performances of so many horses that are gunna roar back to show that track was simply crap.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

i notice how you didn't address any of the pertinent points of one of my previous posts -- how QLM was compromised by a wide trip with the best horses setting slow fractions. Breeders' Cup or not, that's how you lose races....letting the best horse in the race lope along at her own pace.

Again (aka the third time tonight)......your point?

Since you seem to want to change the subject,I will reset,and then move on to what you're btchn about.

"Brad Free is also on record saying that the Churchill main favored inside runners and hurt outside runners.Wrote it when he was writing about how QLM was gunna fly home in the Moccasin."

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

"Brad Free is also on record saying that the Churchill main favored inside runners and hurt outside runners.Wrote it when he was writing about how QLM was gunna fly home in the Moccasin."

ok and i will make this the third [3rd] time i have said this. QLM was compromised by the rest of the field letting the best horse in the race lope along on the front end with no pressure.

you say it's ridiculous that i might not see the rail bias (which i find to be absurd). I find it ridiculous that you can't chalk the Juvenile Fillies up to the fact that nobody pressured the best horse in the race. In any race in America where the frontrunner is the best horse in the race, if they are not pressured...they will win. Without fail. Every time. Please find me someone who will disagree with the notion that the best horse in a race left alone on the lead will win everytime. I dare you.

It has nothing to do with where on the track she was. You're without a doubt, picking the wrong race if you want to argue about a closer not having a chance. I'd thought better of you from your apparent ability to deal with logic years ago when we were on the ESPN boards -- age gets to ya, eh? (OOPS ATTACKING AGAIN!!!!!!). I'd always thought better of your logic. I've never said agree with me, I've just required that those discussing with me actually be rational -- and using QLM as your 'rational' argument exposes you as someone without any connection to reality.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

i notice how you didn't address any of the pertinent points of one of my previous posts -- how QLM was compromised by a wide trip with the best horses setting slow fractions. Breeders' Cup or not, that's how you lose races....letting the best horse in the race lope along at her own pace.

Again (aka the third time tonight)......your point?

Notice how you didn't start this thread innocently.You started it to fight about the track that day. The reason nobody complained to the track super was because they didn't want to be accused by this guy of blaming the track for losing a race.That is what he accused people of doing in the article,and why you think people want to face a load of that crap from him is beyond me.What are they gunna do? Go to his office and tell him that horses on the outside are struggling on that track? He would laugh at them ,and do what you folks have done all day,and month on here(anybody who speaks of the track condition is a sore loser etc.,etc..) As far as QLM goes, your not familiar with this filly.If you were,you would know that she got very little pace to close on in the Oak Leaf(yet made a nice move on a heavily speed favoring Anita track to get 3rd.)They went a 47 or something,and then simply sprinted for home.She closed anyways.If Churchill was in any shape at all for the outside horses,she would have come in a good 2nd-3rd-4th.Your probably right that Anna wasn't gunna be run down from behind after those splits,but I know QLM was better than shown on that piece of crap track,and she returned to win the Moccasin on just 2 weeks rest.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

ok and i will make this the third [3rd] time i have said this. QLM was compromised by the rest of the field letting the best horse in the race lope along on the front end with no pressure.

you say it's ridiculous that i might not see the rail bias (which i find to be absurd). I find it ridiculous that you can't chalk the Juvenile Fillies up to the fact that nobody pressured the best horse in the race. In any race in America where the frontrunner is the best horse in the race, if they are not pressured...they will win. Without fail. Every time. Please find me someone who will disagree with the notion that the best horse in a race left alone on the lead will win everytime. I dare you.

It has nothing to do with where on the track she was. You're without a doubt, picking the wrong race if you want to argue about a closer not having a chance. I'd thought better of you from your apparent ability to deal with logic years ago when we were on the ESPN boards -- age gets to ya, eh? (OOPS ATTACKING AGAIN!!!!!!). I'd always thought better of your logic. I've never said agree with me, I've just required that those discussing with me actually be rational -- and using QLM as your 'rational' argument exposes you as someone without any connection to reality.

Who the f is saying Anna wasn't gunna win that race? That's your fiction.I am telling you that QLM WOULD HAVE RUN WELL in that race with a fair track.Horses out wide struggled all day. Invasor was able to quickly get to the 2 path before going into the 1st turn of the race.His trainer was practically licking on the rider for doing that so well.