If you know anyone who knows me (which you probably don't), you would know that it's just the opposite. I never have a problem admitting when I am wrong.

Anyway, back to the argument, I still think there was a speed bias (independent of any possible rail bias). At almost all of the big tracks, when they make the track really fast for a big stakes day, it creates a speed bias most of the time.

But hypothetically if there was a day where there was not going to be a speed bias but the track was going to be faster on the rail (a rail bias), that would create a speed bias. An inside bias will manifest itself as a speed bias every time. There is no way around it. There is no such thing as an inside bias that doesn't favor speed.

It's not that complicated.

In addition, if there is a speed bias (with no rail bias), it will make it appear like there is a rail bias, because there will be a ton of winners who were on the lead and in the 1 or 2 path turning into the stretch and coming down the stretch. A speed bias can easily be mistaken for a rail bias.

There is so much wrong about this it's hard to know where to start. Let's see, there are plenty of situations where speed horses do NOT go the rail. When the rail is good, most do, but anyone that bet Rockin Jo back at Aqueduct on a gold rail day wishes his rider had gone to the rail with him as opposed to staying two or three wide and allowing another up the inside. But I digress. Many closers do go wide, but some ( I assume you remember Sir Winston? ) spend a significant portion of the race on the rail, so they haven't expended an unnecessary amount of energy on the deeper part of the track, and are still about to close outside during the small part of the race they are outside. Think Good Samaritan in the Jim Dandy two years ago as well ( also a deep closer ridden by Joel Rosario on a gold rail track ).


Here's what you're missing, many people ( apparently yourself included ) mistake gold rail tracks for speed tracks because, as you said ( when you got oh so close to getting it, only to let your vanity get in the way ) most speed horses go inside. I hope this helps.

Using Watchmaker to bolster your side of the argument, or any argument, does not strengthen your case. It's kind of like opening the door when someone knocks and says "landshark."

I imagine there are a number of ways tracks get faster, or slower, and while I ( unlike you, who thinks you are ) am not a track super, I would guess moisture content plays a relatively significant role. If you actually followed Belmont racing closely ( please don't even pretend you do ), you would know there have been plenty of days where the final times on the dirt were quick. However, the fact that you insinuated in this thread that this was some sort of management decision is ludicrous, and given my relationship to track management ( as opposed to yours ) it's understandable, I guess, that you can't even begin to imagine how far from the truth this is. There is one constant, and one only, and that's to keep our racing surfaces as safe as possible. Given the numbers, this is working, and this is very much due to the incredible job Glen Kozak does on not just a day by day basis, but a virtual minute by minute basis.

I hope this helps.

Maybe they didn't intentionally soup up the track on Friday and Saturday. But are you denying that several tracks (including the tracks in New York) over the years have sped up the track for big stakes days? I know you are friends with Andy Beyer and respect his opinion. Why don't you ask him if over the years he's seen a pattern with tracks being extra fast on big stakes days. I hope this helps.

The vast majority of speed horses go to the rail. That is all that matters. I'm not claiming 100% of them do. It doesn't have to be 100%. None of these things are 100%. Most speed horses (who get clear) will stay relatively close to the rail. Even if only 80% of them do this, that would be high enough to create a significant correlation between a rail bias and a speed bias. You obviously understand correlations.

Coming up with individual cases doesn't prove anything. Sure there will be horses who save ground around the turn and swing out at the top of the lane. But most come-from-behinders will not get that trip. And even the ones that do will still be on a worse part of the track coming down the stretch. So they will still have a small disadvantage.

If there is a rail bias, overall that will help speed horses. It doesn't mean all speed horses will be helped. It won't help outside speed that can't get a clear lead and is 4 wide all the way around the track. But it means that every horse that goes to the lead (and races relatively close to the rail, like most horses with a clear lead run), will have a better chance that day than they would have on a day with no rail bias.

Frankly, you have no idea what you’re talking about. It doesn’t happen much anymore, but when the Belmont main used to get really wet and speed favoring, the inside was the worst place to be. You wanted to be away from the rail. Jorge Chavez was always one of the first riders to pick up on this.

I understand the point you’re trying to make. A speed bias will look like an inside bias because a majority of speed horses gravitate towards the rail. But that isn’t a true rail bias. A true rail bias is what we saw at Belmont Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Speed and closers who spent a good amount of time on the rail did well. Look at the H Man race on Friday and where the winner and runner up spent a good portion of their time running.

You’re trying to oversimplify it and you’re incorrect. If you spent any time following the Aqueduct inner when we used to really get some gold rails you’d know the difference.

Speed tracks, biased tracks, we live with it.

What boggles my mind is where the hell do some of these riders get the idea to ride like they do????

I had no problem wit the track over the weekend, but the rides! WTH?

:zz:

Like the 21.89 43.99 by Irad in a mile race...

Read this article about track maintenance at Belmont. Look at all the science and equipment they use to monitor the track closely every day at Belmont. They measure all parts of the track and test all parts of the track. They didn't use to do this years ago, but they do it now. There is practically no way for there to be a rail bias. If there was, they would see it and fix it.

I am not a big believer in inside or outside biases. I'm not saying they it has never happened before. I'm sure it has happened in the past, especially after a lot of rain. But right now I think inside/outside biases are mainly a figment of the imagination of handicappers who are trying to come up with a way to explain a certain result. If I am wrong and these biases exist and are common, then I guess I'm missing out on a great handicapping angle.

If playing inside/outside biases is making you money, then keep doing it and I wish you continued success.

Here is an article that talks about all the science that goes into maintaining the track at Belmont. By the way, if they want to speed up or slow the down the track, it is easy for them to do. They can make the harrows go a little deeper if the track is getting too fast. Don't let anyone tell you that if the track is lightening fast that it wasn't something they wanted. If they didn't want it that fast, they would slow it down. As the article says, they have all this stuff down to a science.

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...t-belmont-park

Jim, We all know that there are speed biases. If we think we see one, we will factor it into our handicapping. What about inside/outside biases? Are you a big believer in them and do you include them in your handicapping?

Do you think there was either a speed bias or an inside bias at Belmont on Friday and Saturday?

Rupert Pupkin….a psychotic fictional character who kidnaps the very talk show host whose job he has deluded himself into believing he deserves.


Ah the irony.

Speaking of the king of comedy. You definitely get the award today.

I think I better post the article again so you can read it.

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...t-belmont-park

It is hilarious that you think the track superintendent has very little control over the speed of the track. That is a good one. You brought up KYRIM the other day. She never said anything that absurd.

At least we finally got some truth out of you. You don’t believe in rail biases, so there wasn’t one. Fascinating...

Before I waste another second of my time doing this with you, have you watched all of the races from Thursday, Friday and Saturday that were run on the dirt?

Please, tell me where I said that? Enlighten me.

I will tell you exactly where you said that. I said to you, "You still didn't explain how the track magically gets so lightening fast on big days."

Your response was "I imagine there are a number of ways tracks get faster, or slower, and while I ( unlike you, who thinks you are ) am not a track super, I would guess moisture content plays a relatively significant role."

You were implying that it is outside factors that control the speed of the track and not the track superintendent. If you are now backtracking and saying that how the track superintendent prepares the track is the most important determining factor of how fast the track will be at Belmont, then you are agreeing with me.

It was not an accident that the track was really fast. They obviously wanted the track to be that way. If they didn't, they would have slowed it down. Glen is obviously capable of doing that. He's supposed to be one of the top, if not the top, track supers in the country. Even a bad track superintendent can speed up or slow down a track. So obviously the best one in the country can do it easily.

Maybe it's a good idea to have a really fast track on big days. I personally don't like it but that is just my opinion. Maybe having a fast track and really fast time creates a buzz among the fans that I'm not aware of. But either way, the condition of the track is not a coincidence. That is their biggest day of the year. As the article says, they are constantly checking the pulse of that track using all kinds of measurement with sophisticated equipment. If they see something they don't like, they are experts at adjusting it.

If you think they're going to leave the speed and condition of the track to chance on the biggest day of the year, I have some swamp land I'd like to sell you.

I watched practically every race. I may have missed a few races Thursday. I don't think I missed more than a couple on Friday and Saturday combined. I think the only race I missed Saturday was the first race.

Can you explain with all of their sophisticated equipment and constant testing, how they failed to detect the supposed rail bias? You and Andy better contact Glen and inform him about the rail bias so he can fix it.

By the way, the good news is that you will make a fortune next time when these horses come back, who were negatively affected by the supposed inside bias. I hope you took good notes. Who are some of the horses that you will be betting back next time because they were compromised by the inside bias? We will see if you are right. If they all come back and run lousy, it may be time for you to reevaluate.

Wow are you a bad guy. Not only did you lie about what I said once, you did it again, and then made moronic inferences about what you decided I implied to fit your perverse agenda.

Your inferences were clear. But feel free to clarify them, if you claim I misinterpreted them. The reason you didn't clarify them is because you are trapped. You know how moronic your original inference was. But you can't come come out now and admit that you were wrong and admit that the track superintendent is the main force who determines the speed and condition of the track. If you admit that, you will be admitting that I was right, that they wanted the track to be really fast.

So instead of clarifying your statement, you say I misinterpreted what you said, yet you refuse to clarify what you said. If I misinterpreted what you said, then feel free to clarify it.

This is internet for “I’m wrong but can’t admit it.”

I know talking in circles like this worked once in your attempt to troll for dates on this site. Are you trying to do it again?

Why would I possibly admit or think I am wrong when you have presented zero evidence to substantiate you rail bias claim?

Look at Strike Silver. He's not even a speed horse these days and he goes out there in :44 2/5 and only gets beat by 2 lengths. If there was no speed bias he would have lost by at least triple that margin, setting those suicide fractions. In that same race, Nitrous was very wide, out in the middle of the track and only got beat by a neck. So I guess if it wasn't for the supposed rail bias, Nitrous would have won. I actually bet on both those horses and lost both bets because I bet Strike Silver to win and place (he ran 4th), but only bet Nitrous to win.

As I said before, if you think there are inside/outside biases and you think you are good at spotting them, then by all means include it in your handicapping. I personally don't think they happen often (and probably never at Belmont with their sophisticated testing equipment). But even if they do happen, I think they are very difficult to spot (unlike speed biases), at least for me. So I'm not going to look for them and I'm not going to include them in my handicapping. If it works for you, then by all means use it.

Anyway, this debate is getting old. I'll give you the last word.

I wasn't the one talking in circles. He was. He's the one who won't come out and clarify his position. My position is clear. My position is that the track super is the most important force when it comes to the speed and condition of the track (assuming it's not pouring rain). By all accounts, Glen is a great track superintendent. So I obviously believe that he had the track in the condition (including the speed of the track) that he wanted on Saturday.

That's not talking in circles. That's a clear position. Can you tell me Andy's position? I don't think you can because he has been talking in circles. If not, then tell me what his position is.

You must have been psyched when Silver Strike went out there to the lead quickly at 30-1 and the other Ortiz grabbed a hold of Complexity instead of continuing up the gold rail to the lead.


Derby day = gold rail
Preakness = gold rail
Belmont = gold rail

They all soup up the rail on the big days looking for headlines. Someday Belmont will get that 2:24 they’re looking to get.

I never really thought he had a chance when I saw the fractions. But when he was still in front at the 1/8th pole, I had a glimmer of hope for a second. Then I had some minor hope again that they would put up Nitrous when they had the stewards' inquiry against the winner.

I agree with you that many tracks soup up the track on the big days, thinking that that it will be good publicity if they get a track record. But I don't think it's just the rail. I think it's the whole track.

Doesn’t a juiced track put the safety of the horses at risk? Given the press the industry has faced this year and even in the last week wouldn’t it be the absolutely dumbest move imaginable to INTENTIONALLY create the conditions that put horses on a national stage at peril? Maybe it’s just that in New York the unimaginable happened. It didn't rain for nearly a week.

You admitted you haven’t watched every race over the three days...so why would I waste my time giving you examples of something you don’t believe in because as you admit, spotting a rail bias is too difficult for you to see?

Nitrous was on the inside for much of the first 4 furlongs. I gave you an example of a race that perfectly shows the rail bias, you ignored it. H Man on Friday. He spent the whole race on the rail and runner up (dead closer) was glued to the rail until very late when he was going by the chasers. How many more should I give you? Will you at least watch all the races first? Seems only fair to actually watch the races before declaring something, no?

A closer won the Belmont. He was glued to rail. The pacesetter who spent the entire race on the rail was 3rd.

As for suicide fractions, they went 43 and change in the longer Acorn. The Woody Stephens fractions weren’t that fast.

You think Jose sending would’ve made a difference in where Complexity finished? He was eased and finished last. Sending would’ve changed that somehow?

Internet for “I’m out of bullshit, so I’m taking my ball and going home.”

I just watched the H Man race. I actually bet that race. My horse ran up the track. I bet $100 to win on Empire Line and $50 to place on him. I was looking for a price and I thought he was an overlay. I thought that H Man was probably the horse to beat. So I saved with a little $10 exacta with him on top and Empire Line on the bottom. I lost $160 on the race. But I still ended up having a good day.

With regards to the horse (Sicilia Mike) who finished 2nd to H Man, how could you point to him as proof or a rail bias? Watch the head on. Sicilia Mike was about 4 wide practically the whole race. He got down to the 2 path for a little over a quarter of a mile. The jockey actually did do a good job with him. That horse could have easily been much wider. The jock saved as much ground as he could (considering the post) and it made the difference of him getting second place. The good ride definitely was what got him 2nd place, but not because of a rail bias, but because he would have lost a lot of ground had he gone any wider.

And like I said before, Sicilia Mike was only on the inside of the track for maybe a quarter of a mile in a 6 1/2 furlong race. He was in about the 4 path for at least 65-70% of the race. A horse who was 4 wide for over 2/3rds of the race, does not make a good argument for a rail bias. If you don't believe me, watch the head-on and you will see that he was in the 4 path or even further out for most of the race. It was from just past the 3/8th pole to just past the 1/8th pole that he was inside.

You’re literally the only person I’ve seen who denies the inside was golden for 3 days. You also admit you’re not a good enough handicapper to detect an inside bias. Meanwhile I paid my bills for two years in 2007 and 2008 betting horses back on the Aqueduct Inner who were against the track in their prior race.

I can appreciate a good troll as much as the next person, but this isn’t amusing.

For shits and giggles...you posted an article from Watchmaker as evidence there was a speed bias. In his article he also said there was an inside bias. Do you now disagree with him....or are you just picking and choosing as it suits you?

Internet for "I was wrong about Sicilia Mike being on the rail for most of the race. But I still think I'm right."

You missed my point about Watchmaker. I'm not claiming the guy is some type of genius. You were acting like it was totally outlandish for me to claim there was a speed bias. I was simply saying that I'm not the only one. Watchmaker thought there was a speed bias. I was in no way saying that this proves that I'm right or that Watchmaker has a great opinion. I was simply saying it isn't outlandish for me to say that I think there was a speed bias.

You are absolutely right. Good call. The debate is over. You won. Congrats!

I was acting like it was outlandish? I disagreed.

Look at where Sicilia Mike was when he started moving really well.

In my opinion there was a strong rail bias Thursday-Sunday. I based it on watching all of the races (unlike you) and seeing what horses did as they were on the rail and how they performed when they were not on the rail. The results seem to back up my opinion.

You disagree, yet admit you don’t think rail biases exist because you’re not a strong enough handicapper to detect one.

Is there anything else to say at this point? You’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.