Butch Lehr on bias controversy -- Horseplayer Daily

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Especially since it was the second race off a layoff which often leads to a big race. It is called bounce THEORY for a reason. In reality what is perceived as a bounce is really just regression to the mean after a big race.

I took a look last night and Thor's Echo was coming off of a 6 point top, his mean is about a 2 and he ran a negative 4 in his last race, it's not like he's a developing 2yo or 3yo, it was a 6 point top coming 3/4 of the way through his 4yo year. Not every horse bounces, but that had some sort of regression written all over it or even back to his mean which would have made him a non factor in the Sprint. He ran a negative 5 in the Sprint and from the comments looks like he rode the rail and then swung out 3 wide and won, so I believe his number was aided by an golden rail. For those that believe there was no rail bias, I don't know what to say to you and I am not going to argues with you, because it looks like a hopeless cause. I guess we'll see what happens in the next couple of races....

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

I took a look last night and Thor's Echo was coming off of a 6 point top, his mean is about a 2 and he ran a negative 4 in his last race, it's not like he's a developing 2yo or 3yo, it was a 6 point top coming 3/4 of the way through his 4yo year. Not every horse bounces, but that had some sort of regression written all over it or even back to his mean which would have made him a non factor in the Sprint. He ran a negative 5 in the Sprint and from the comments looks like he rode the rail and then swung out 3 wide and won, so I believe his number was aided by an golden rail. For those that believe there was no rail bias, I don't know what to say to you and I am not going to argues with you, because it looks like a hopeless cause. I guess we'll see what happens in the next couple of races....

As I said before he was running those figures early in the year in what was essentially the end of a long 3yo campaign. He obviously needed the time to rest and develop and has apparently done just that. Why did other horses that rode the rail run poorly but he was aided by it? Is Brother Derek that atrociously bad that he couldn't crack the top four with the magical rail trip? What about the horse that was in front of Thor's Echo that they had to swing wide to pass because Nakatani had so much horse under him? Why wasn't that horse benefiting from the same golden rail? Just doesn't make much sense to me. When Thor's Echo wins the De Francis on Saturday will that quiet people?

[Pointg5]

That's a ton of development and with no signs of doing that before, it sets up for a bounce. I believe he bounced and still won, so he has every right to win the Defrancis, wouldn't surprise me, he's obviously a talented animal. I think it might prove my point even more.

One thing I read on here multiple times and whoever writes this nonsense is a complete moron in my opinion. There seems to be a group on here that says if you are questioning the track, you are just making excuses for being wrong. That's the stupidest line of bullcrap I have ever read anywhere. If you are interested in this sport and like to predict winners, you have to be able to look at things and question them and make your own assertions. I didn't think Thor's Echo would win on a fair track, because of his bounce, but he was definetely talented enough on a gold rail to win, that was my mistake for not recognizing that fact. If you are not learning from your mistakes you are going backwards and if you chalk it up to the fact that people are looking for something to blame their losses on, you have a losers mentality...

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

That's a ton of development and with no signs of doing that before, it sets up for a bounce. I believe he bounced and still won, so he has every right to win the Defrancis, wouldn't surprise me, he's obviously a talented animal. I think it might prove my point even more.

One thing I read on here multiple times and whoever writes this nonsense is a complete moron in my opinion. There seems to be a group on here that says if you are questioning the track, you are just making excuses for being wrong. That's the stupidest line of bullcrap I have ever read anywhere. If you are interested in this sport and like to predict winners, you have to be able to look at things and question them and make your own assertions. I didn't think Thor's Echo would win on a fair track, because of his bounce, but he was definetely talented enough on a gold rail to win, that was my mistake for not recognizing that fact. If you are not learning from your mistakes you are going backwards and if you chalk it up to the fact that people are looking for something to blame their losses on, you have a losers mentality...

Questioning a track is one thing. Saying there was without a doubt a track bias when there are plenty of people that disagree is just sour grapes. It is one thing if all the races were wire jobs but that wasn't the case at all, every race was won differently. The post position coincidence was just that, none of the winners were really that unusual.

Originally Posted by Pointg5

That's a ton of development and with no signs of doing that before, it sets up for a bounce. I believe he bounced and still won, so he has every right to win the Defrancis, wouldn't surprise me, he's obviously a talented animal. I think it might prove my point even more.

One thing I read on here multiple times and whoever writes this nonsense is a complete moron in my opinion. There seems to be a group on here that says if you are questioning the track, you are just making excuses for being wrong. That's the stupidest line of bullcrap I have ever read anywhere. If you are interested in this sport and like to predict winners, you have to be able to look at things and question them and make your own assertions. I didn't think Thor's Echo would win on a fair track, because of his bounce, but he was definetely talented enough on a gold rail to win, that was my mistake for not recognizing that fact. If you are not learning from your mistakes you are going backwards and if you chalk it up to the fact that people are looking for something to blame their losses on, you have a losers mentality...

Seriously, do you not understand the fact that Thor's Echo DID NOT WIN ON THE RAIL. The horse was anywhere from 3-5 wide almost the entire trip. I dont understand how you say he got a "golden rail" when he wasnt on the rail.

[blackthroatedwind]

It seems to me it is the usual misunderstanding/overreaction when it comes to track biases. I think we can all agree the rail was a very good place to be, probably the best part of the track, but enough horses that got decent trips were able to run at least OK, and not significantly worse than prior efforts, while not being on the best part of the track, that the track wasn't one of those super inside tracks.

Take a look at Aqueduct last weekend over the inner, or the main track at Aqueduct on November 11th, and I think one will get a much clearer picture of a super inside track where wide moves were virtually impossible. I just don't think we had one of those on BC Day and perhaps it would be wise to just downgrade some of the performances of horses who spent at least some of their race on the inside. Let's not pretend it was impossible to close outside, as that is simply not true, but certainly some were aided by inside trips.

I also think the Thor's Echo race is not a great example, as no matter what the track, Thor's Echo got a perfect trip. He tucked inside behind a speed duel and angled on the turn to cruise by. He was best but his trip made it easier. It's hard to imagine a bias that would have stopped him. Also, remember it was the only one turn BC race of the day. While inside speed was good in the first sprint, with the best horse probably winning, good trip horses did well in the second race ( a one turn mile ) with only the second finisher spending part of the race on the rail.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

Seriously, do you not understand the fact that Thor's Echo DID NOT WIN ON THE RAIL. The horse was anywhere from 3-5 wide almost the entire trip. I dont understand how you say he got a "golden rail" when he wasnt on the rail.

He wasn't 3-5 wide almost the entire trip.For the slow ones,I give you the man's words once again(damn shame it is necessary.)


Nakatani said he wanted to stay on the rail as long as he could but once leaving the backstretch had no choice but to angle out and go after the leaders."On the turn I had so much horse that if I had stayed on the rail much longer................"


I have written this so much,but you are simply not able to comprehend that he rode the rail until he got to the turn.It is a given.O.K.? He was not 3-5 wide almost the entire trip.I have put stuff on here that is obviously not being read.So,f it.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Easily one of the most amusing threads in awhile. Of course the inside was the place to be BC day, as it was for a week before, and a week after. Could you win from outside, yes, as many did. Honestly, Scuds, you seem like a good guy, but you have a knack for making a lot of excuses for things. Bad rides, track biases, etc. Quiet Little Miss is a neat little horse, but she IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH to make a splash at all in the 3 year old filly division. Was the track a little quirky BC day, sure. but your examples are bad. The sprint is always a crapshoot. Was Henny a bad favorite. yes. And if you took him, or the other grade 1 winners, which are pretty laughable, then it is your fault. I know that is hard to take, but it's the truth. Thors Echo was the best horse that day, no doubt. As was Street Sense, see Breeders Futurity, watch the race. And if you believe the problems Round Pond had before the Beladme, she was very playable. At a certain point, you have to look in the mirror, and say, if you say there is a bias, then you're bad for not picking up on it. The whole, "the track was garbage" thing is a giant excuse for not winning BC day. I cannot think of a race BC day where I cannot say the best horse that day, won that day. For those who are determined to deflect handicapping, for reality, what horse that won BC day, wasn't best that day?

Handicapping is done after the race,and before it.I realize many people don't care why horses don't run .Often you will read a professional handicapper's comments about a race,and they will include an idea about a horse's last race.Like it,or not,there are sometimes reasons why a horse's last race can be forgiven.Not always,because many times horses have health problems etc. There are no excuses for anybody gambling on horses(nobody gets a dime back if a horse has an excuse.)There are (sometimes) excuses for horses that perform poorly in a particular race.You act as though it is an act of pedophilia to examine what happened to a horse during a race,and see if the race can be forgiven.I don't feel that way.You feel as though it is whining to look at what happened to horses during their race.I don't.Mel Stute did it:


"Mel Stute thought his filly Quick Little Miss was compromised by a wide post in the Breeders' Cup Juvenile Fillies at Churchill Downs, and believed she would not mind being brought back just 15 days after that race. He was right. Quick Little Miss, last of seven at the top of the stretch, closed furiously to nail odds-on favorite Jump On In and capture the $100,000 Moccasin Stakes for 2-year-old fillies on Sunday at Hollywood Park.....
"I wasted a little money going back East," said Stute, who trains Quick Little Miss for his wife, Annabelle, and the Schiffer family's The Hat Ranch. "I thought she was good enough for that race. I'm hoping the post position and the track beat her."

So,myself and Mel are evidently the antichrist's little helpers,because we think the track hurt the chances of some horses that day.Fine.I love my company in crime.One more for ya:

“She had no shot after breaking out there, the way that track played on Breeders’ Cup Day,” Chapman said. “It’s one of those things where you wish you hadn’t even run. She came out of it fine. There wasn’t much effort to it.”-James Chapman(trainer of Malibu Mint.)

See,be careful because you aren't just making fun of me,you are making fun of the opinions of grade 1 winning trainers in this sport.I know what I am talking about.I know a totally unfair track when I see it,and these trainers are so sure it was messed up that they wish they didn't even run their horses on that track that day.He didn't say maybe it was the track.He said she had "no shot" from where she was on that track.