Of course the "rail bias" has been debated and debated over and over again. Personally, my question is -- what's the difference? Rail bias, he wins like whoever you want to call it, by 10. So, especially now, since the horse came back and did what he did -- what difference does it make?

If he came up the rail and then moved outside coming around/out of the turn -- does anyone think he still doesn't win that race? So, he doesn't win by 10. He still wins.

As far as Yankee Bravo -- I think he needs to move forward much more in order to get into the league of what we've seen so far between Pyro and War Pass (concerns about distance limitations of course must be part of the equation. Right now, he's not anywhere near those colts. That's not to say he might not turn the corner and and be ready to take some massive step forward and progress. It's possible, but most would say not probable.

What Solis says about the horse must be taken into consideration, but also must be taken with a grain of salt. Solis is a sharp jock. He's been around a very long time and sat on enough good horses to know what he's sitting on, when a colt has ability, is immature, could be turning the corner, getting better, etc. At the same time, he of course wants to keep the mount, especially if it's his best/only shot to be in the game.

Eric

The difference is that the live rail makes horses look (both on paper and on film) better than they actually run.

Curlin was hung up 3-to-4 wide on both turns in the Derby - while winner Street Sense rode it every step, 2nd place Hard Spund rode it every step, 4th place Imawildandcrazyguy rode it for the first 6.5 furlongs of the race, and 5th place finisher Sedgefield rode it every step.

I'm not saying that being denied a live rail was the only reason that Curlin was drowned by Street Sense and Hard Spun - but still had enough to narrowly hold off Imawildandcrazyguy and Sedgefield ...

However, I believe it was a factor in the result.

And I know you're going to say "well that total bum Circular Quay was 6th with a wide trip!" ... BUT, keep in mind Circular Quay raced 18th early on and had a great fast pace to setup his close. Much like Street Sense and Imawildandcrazyguy did from the 19th and 20th spots.

Any Given Saturday was denied the rail and finished 7th or 8th after a wide far turn move - however, unlike Circular Quay, he didn't get a pace setup making his race better. I would argue he clearly ran the better race of the two.

Even if you want to hammer away about how much of a bum Circular Quay is - he still is probably a better deep closer than Imawildandcrazyguy is.

Yes. And only because he ran well in his first dirt race. So his good dirt race validates, at least to some extent, his synth and turf form. Absolutely.

It's a fallacy that all synth horses are junk on dirt. Most are and will be but there are going to be some that run well on the junk in spite of it not being the horse's best surface. Is he one of these? Who knows but at this point he is one to watch in his next race.

Which is really all I've said. Again, to each his own on how to bet but I will never make a win bet on any of the top 5 or 6 "hyped" horses in the Derby. Sometimes the best or one of the best horses wins, but not often enough for my tastes.

I prefer to find a playably longshot and splash the horse around in the Tri and Super.

I'm not overly intelligent but I'm smart enough to understand the way I play the Derby is, in the end, no less of a gamble than playing a short-priced horse to win.

There's merit in betting what you think the best horse is to win. Most people do. But I'd never play the race that way.

So Yankee Bravo is on my list of possible horses to use.

I was talking about the rail bias in the BC, which I think was overblown to an extent, vis a vis the results. Regardless, I think everyone agrees that visually, and on paper, the rail bias distorts the situation. I also -- without question -- agree on Curlin, who I was high on from before day one.

I hear you, and to a degree, I agree. Different story between the BC and Derby, and different ends of the extreme.

Eric

I would never have brought up the rail bias on BC DAY '06 if I thought it was still controversial.Had no idea there were people that still thought there wasn't a huge inside bias that day.What a stubborn bunch of unteachables.

Oh, It was a bit coincidental that everything breaking from post #1 was running out of their skin...but a horse like Thro's Echo left the rail and made a decisive wide move.

I still labeled that track as "inside path seemed preferred" ... which is my way of saying that maybe the rail was better, but let subsuquent results be your guide and make a final judgement after enough horses have run back.

I had no problem with anyone thinking that was a fair track - and no problem with anyone thinking it was a live rail - I took a middling position on that one at the time.... but obviously it was made to be such a big thing because of how every horse breaking from post 1 seemed to signficantly outrun their odds ... 4 of the 5 in winning races.

I laughed.

Only the rookies and learning disabled think that 1. Steve Garvey belongs in the baseball Hall of Fame and 2. the 06 BC rail bias was a real factor in the final results..

CANNON(plays Mr. Clean on T.V.)=a particularly stubborn unteachable.

Who has run like they did when they won that day? Don't say Street Sense,because he never even thought of stopping that day,and he was chugging late in the derby.

Street Sense

LOL..You spend the Bubble Berry money all on one meal?

Well considering that Dreaming of Anna went back to the turf where she had a relatively successful year, the entire sprint field either retired or went back to claimers, Round Pond broke down, Invasor won a another race before calling it quits and Street Sense won the Derby there is not much to go by. Of course you could name all the horses that were hampered by the supposed bias that recovered and became champions. Like CQ and Great Hunter.

Dreaming of What? YOU HEAR AN Echo ?

LOL-Well maybe you should stop bullshitting about the chances you think horses have at winning.You told me a horse stinks.You told this guy that a horse has no shot, or is impossible .That's a pretty strong statement,and it's also a macho lie of some sort,because you aren't ready to back the statement up by taking a bet unless it's at some fair market price. You wouldn't be that concerned about price if you really believed these lies you're telling.Why are you blaming others when you are the one understating the chances you think a horse actually has to win?If you think a horse stinks,has no shot,or is impossible ,then people are naturally going to want to bet you.The problem is you lie about the chances you think horses have.That's on you.Don't say it if you don't really believe it.

I think there's a 50% chance that DrugS ignores that post, a 40% chance he makes mincemeat of you and a 10% chance he admits he was wrong and apologizes.

I think the chances he will ignore it are over-estimated.I give it 1% that he admits he shouldn't lie about a horse's chances of winning.

damn Scuds I thought you had some
guts and then you go low blow
personal again. Easy to make fun
of someone who has the record out
for all to see. Too easy.

You do like those late runners. I hope
we get a chance to see this horse where
you want him. Yes I do.

Were you saving this one all night?

So, you are saying that I think Yankee Bravo has a big shot in the Derby, but I am lying to you and saying he doesn't?

Brilliant stuff.