Lawyer Ron's Time

[Merlinsky]

*shrugs* The time seems legit to me, every time I look at it and the race. Here's two of the comments from DRF.com's article that, to me, confirm it. (I think there's some sputtering about it being Lawyer Ron who did this performance and it's not really fair. If you go by what you might've thought him capable before his Derby flop, I could see him getting to this point one day. 128 might be crazy but no way is this a 107-110 performance either. His reputation was very what has he done for me lately and he's working his way back. He got a track record and it sure looked like he was turning in one with the way he ran. Sometimes your eyes aren't deceiving you when you look at the final time. Kinda refreshing and the horse should be recognized for that.)

Silver Charm says:

TVG ran a bit of a side-by-side comparison between this Whitney and the one by Left Bank seeming to reasonably confirm the time.

Actually a half in 47.37 for a race that appeared to be speed laden seems more out of whack than three-quarters in 1:10.28.

Once the investigation is completed there will be two groups of people with some explaining to do.

If the time is wrong then NYRA chairman Steve Duncker will need to explain to fans and a National Television audience why the Track Record they were told they had witnessed was bogus.

If the time is correct then the Track Superintendant needs to explain why he and his crew felt compelled to "goose the track" before the Big Race.

Posted by: Silver Charm | Jul 29, 2007 2:14:14 PM

Sal says:

I hand timed the Whitney twice and got the correct final time on each occasion.

I did the same thing in the Go For Wand and also got the correct final time.

In multiple clockings of each race, I came within 0.27 seconds of having every split correct. That tells me the fractional times are accurate as well.

To come away with 1:48 and change clockings, as Mr. Davidowitz did, I believe you have to start timing just after the gates open and before horses reach the finish line.

Basically, getting the final time plus run-up.

Posted by: Sal | Jul 29, 2007 2:25:09 PM

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

*shrugs* The time seems legit to me, every time I look at it and the race. Here's two of the comments from DRF.com's article that, to me, confirm it. (I think there's some sputtering about it being Lawyer Ron who did this performance and it's not really fair. If you go by what you might've thought him capable before his Derby flop, I could see him getting to this point one day. 128 might be crazy but no way is this a 107-110 performance either. His reputation was very what has he done for me lately and he's working his way back. He got a track record and it sure looked like he was turning in one with the way he ran. Sometimes your eyes aren't deceiving you when you look at the final time. Kinda refreshing and the horse should be recognized for that.)

i know the person who posted that on drf, and trust me, he's completely incompetent. i'm surprised he even knows how to turn a computer on, let alone use a stop watch.

[packerbacker7964]

Yeah but the timer doesn't start as soon as the gate opens either. It depends on where they have the starting gate at compared to the first timer on the tracks rail. Great run by The Lawyer but to many other horses would've had to run their personal best on the same day also. Hard yes, impossiable no.

[Left Bank]

Why can't you all just enjoy it and be happy for the horse and his connections?

[2Hot4TV]

Time is only important where you are in jail. Lawyer Ron's win was by daylite over a very good field, now if he can just stay a mile and 1/4.

[Left Bank]

Originally Posted by 2Hot4TV

Time is only important where you are in jail. Lawyer Ron's win was by daylite over a very good field, now if he can just stay a mile and 1/4.

Amen!!

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by 2Hot4TV

Time is only important where you are in jail. Lawyer Ron's win was by daylite over a very good field, now if he can just stay a mile and 1/4.

I disagree with this post completely. Time IS important for all of the reasons that King Glorious pointed out. His race was pretty nice, and as a fan of the sport....I enjoyed watching a strong performance by a good horse.
BUT, as somebody who may be betting the next race he is in, I would sort of like to know what his speed figures really were for that race. And speed figures depend on time.
I agree 100% with King Glorious........on this one.

P.S. I don't think he will ever be effective beyond 9f.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I disagree with this post completely. Time IS important for all of the reasons that King Glorious pointed out. His race was pretty nice, and as a fan of the sport....I enjoyed watching a strong performance by a good horse.
BUT, as somebody who may be betting the next race he is in, I would sort of like to know what his speed figures really were for that race. And speed figures depend on time.
I agree 100% with King Glorious........on this one.

P.S. I don't think he will ever be effective beyond 9f.

Do you think he won't be effective beyond 9fs because that's just the way you've always felt? I'm figuring that is the case because I can't imagine how someone could have watched the Whitney and afterwards said, "No way Lawyer Ron gets 10fs."

By the way, I still don't know if I'm certain 10fs is what Lawyer Ron wants.

NT

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I disagree with this post completely. Time IS important for all of the reasons that King Glorious pointed out. His race was pretty nice, and as a fan of the sport....I enjoyed watching a strong performance by a good horse.
BUT, as somebody who may be betting the next race he is in, I would sort of like to know what his speed figures really were for that race. And speed figures depend on time.
I agree 100% with King Glorious........on this one.

P.S. I don't think he will ever be effective beyond 9f.

lawyer ron has run once ever past 9f, in the ky derby. hard to say based on one effort whether he can handle the distance or not. he might be better at 9 than 10, but again, one loss (and of course only one winner per race!) isn't enough to say if he can handle it.

based on his new and improved running style, and judging by his whitney effort, i wouldn't say 10f is out of his realm.

[2Hot4TV]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I disagree with this post completely. Time IS important for all of the reasons that King Glorious pointed out. His race was pretty nice, and as a fan of the sport....I enjoyed watching a strong performance by a good horse.
BUT, as somebody who may be betting the next race he is in, I would sort of like to know what his speed figures really were for that race. And speed figures depend on time.
I agree 100% with King Glorious........on this one.

P.S. I don't think he will ever be effective beyond 9f.

I will be more intrested in the track condition, the weight he carries and new faces in the race.

Lawyer Ron came into this race a better race horse than we saw last year and freaked on the track conditions. I think it is that simple. I like the horse and hope he backs it up in his next race.

I didn't bet him because of the post position he had to over come.

P.S. he would of won at 10f Saturday on that track against the same field.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Kimmeastar

Why can't you all just enjoy it and be happy for the horse and his connections?

This is something I've tried to explain to people on the other forum. For some of u, that's how u see it. And that's fine. But for a lot of us that are more analytical, is't not that simple. Not knocking the other forum because it has it's place but on here, there are more serious horse players. And serious horse players want to know more about what really happened and not just the end result. If u don't analyze and try to figure out what really happened, u miss way too much when it comes time to wager on the next race. Nobody here is doubting that Lawyer Ron ran a very good race and it's obvious that whether he actually ran 1:50 or 1:46, he was dominant over the rest of the field. That much is not in question. But as a gambler, if u don't look deeper than the surface, u are cheating yourself.

[classhandicapper]

I think it more than likely that the track changed speeds between the Ginger Punch race and the Whitney. If someone was actually at the track, they might know if the maintenace crew added water or worked on the track prior to the Whitney like they often do before feature races.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I think it more than likely that the track changed speeds between the Ginger Punch race and the Whitney. If someone was actually at the track, they might know if the maintenace crew added water or worked on the track prior to the Whitney like they often do before feature races.

I did not make any particular observations about what the track crew did prior to the Whitney. The track had been harrowed most of the day, but was sealed prior to the Diana, and subsequently "re-opened." Whether that may have had an impact on the glibness of the track, I can't say.

The only comment that I have on the figures is that the problem seems to stem from the comparison of the Whitney to the Go For Wand. To my eye, the Go For Wand was a pretty ugly race, and the winner still got the 9F in 1:49, the second fastest running of the race since the Maskette was transferred to Saratoga in 1994 and renamed after Go For Wand. As so often happens, horses don't set track records, but the glibness of the racing surface results in track records. The final times for the Vanderbilt (only Speightstown, Prospect Bay and Five Star Day had run faster times than Diabolical) and the modest group of NY-bred maidens in the last race suggest that the track was playing faster than par at the end of Saturday's card. Perhaps that explains why a track record was set by a very talented horse that ran a very big race.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Kimmeastar

Why can't you all just enjoy it and be happy for the horse and his connections?

Ditto that! The rest is blood clot, mon.

[philcski]

I made my figs for the day and reviewed them with a fine tooth comb. The number Beyer gave him (and the rest of the field) was an adjustment (a 116.) Here's what I got (my fig then the Beyer equivalent in parentheses) and a justification:

R1 101 (73): No recent fig on the winner, 2nd place (beaten 1l) Wood Winner had a 98 last out.
R2 105 (80): [2yo's, although this is par for 2YO MSW at SAR]
R3 Turf
R4 100 (72): Winner had a 97 last out, 2nd (beaten 1l) 98, and 3rd (1l) 96. Probably a point or two high, but longshot winning races are often bizarre.
R5 106 (82): Another longshot winner, moved up 10 lengths (I don't have much confidence in this figure but there were a lot of firsters in there so not much to work off of)
R6 107 (83): Winner had a 104 last out, 2nd 100 (off long layoff), 3rd 103.
R7 Turf
R8 The AGVandy: 116 (104): Winner had a 116 in the Carter (last fig I have). Very evenly matched group on my figs and they ran like it. All were in the 113-117 range
R9 The Go For Wand: 113 (93): Winner had a 108 and 109 last two, steadily improving
R10 The Whitney 132 (123): Winner 125 @ Mth, 2nd (5l) 122 @ CD, 6th (10l)122 @ Aqu, 7th (11l) 120 @ Aqu, 9th 122 (12l) @ Bel, 10th 119 (14l) @ Bel
R11 99 (70) Winner a 99 last out, 3rd (3l) 96

Basically the top 3 ran their eyeballs out. It happens. They probably won't run that fast again, ever. The Beyer just CANNOT only be 17 points higher than the Go For Wand- the time is 18 lengths faster, which at a mile and an eighth translates to 30 Beyer points (precisely what my figures state, even using a different method and scale.)

Take it for what it's worth but if the Whitney Beyer is "officially" a 116, the Go For Wand should "officially" be an 86. Neither are right as they stand.

[sumitas]

If the NYRA cannot verify the clocking then they should throw the time out and leave the track record as it was. In other words Lawyer Ron should be awarded the unofficial track record. The official track record stands.

[31lengths]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Ditto that! The rest is blood clot, mon.

So what was the final BSF?

....that's bumba claat, mon.

[robfla]

Originally Posted by 31lengths

So what was the final BSF?

....that's bumba claat, mon.

Whitney (Sar): Lawyer Ron (T. Pletcher/J. Velazquez) - 116
Bing Crosby (Dmr): In Summation (C. Clement/C. Nakatani) - 111
Alfred G. Vanderbilt (Sar): Diabolical (S. Klesaris/M. Pino) - 106
Diana (Sar): My Typhoon (Ire) (W. Mott/E. Castro) - 106
Washington Park (AP): Lewis Michael (W. Catalano/E. Baird) - 105
Sanford (Sar): Ready's Image (T. Pletcher/J. Velazquez) - 104
Jim Dandy (Sar): Street Sense (C. Nafzger/C. Borel) - 104