Anyone ever hear of a Trainer not running cuz of post #9?
 

Maybe at a half mile oval but I can't think of anyone on a major circuit stating that they're scratching because of post position 9

No, but didnt he say that running in larger fields hurts the development of younger horses some years back?

Maybe "clean and sober" the horse is not that good.:rolleyes:

Well, if Frankel had a horse and didn't like the weights...

But I digress

Not liking the weights is one of the oldest stories in horse racing. Travis Kerr stopped running Round Table at Hollywood Park, and Rex Ellsworth stopped running Swaps at Santa Anita, both because they were upset at weight assignments.

Not like post 9, on the other hand....

While this wasn't at a major circuit, many years ago at PENN, post #9 was the kiss of death for over a year. I tracked it and if the horse I liked drew post #9 it was an automatic throw out. But trainers didn't scratch due to #9. And posts 10, 11, and 12 ran in a normal range. Of course, this was back when you often had 10-12 runners in a lot of races.

Sure, I've heard of it. It's excuse #364 on the list of 1871 BS excuses trainers give to owners when they don't want them to know the truth.

It's right below "the track is cuppy" and just above "the horse needs one more workout before he'll be tight".

Although I have done my due diligence, I have not found post bias, gate placement vs distance, track configuration to be significant and valuable enough for me to spend extra time to scan upcoming races at Parx.

Every track in the known universe produces races (after the fact), where a horse may have been disadvantaged from an inability to save ground after the break. Often presenting most significantly while against-the-grain as well. I certainly don't disregard this or any other part of a bad trip if it happens to have occurred at Parx. It simply isn't a huge trap inherent to the Parx course, that causes me to do extra work to scan for possibility of occurrence to then potentially build a wager from that basis. That isn't to say the model is ignored or discredited separate from the projected pace and gate placement in a Parx race, -it's still part of the process. It's just not a fruitful standalone playmaker/driver.

Parx is a track that could be more interesting to those who find an edge in 'path bias' and speed bias. The 'track bias' notes at NYRA come to mind, as there is some good info and the concepts of a "gold rail", or wide bias, or highly speed favoring track etc... have merit. Those are the kind of track interests/concerns that Parx stimulates with me as opposed to gate-placement/configuration bias.

EXACTLY

The only remotely similar instance I've encountered first-hand was the scratching of a 12-horse in our wv derby a few years back. The horse would have stood quite a shot , and we hated to lose him.

Just a weird random thought.....I wonder if Baffert for some reason objects to how the race was drawn? I HAVE experienced and dealt with that lots of times. And could detail some possible reasons for complaint.

I appreciate honesty.

"Maybe he can win at Finger Lakes". :lol:

When there's a legit speed drawn inside and you would have to outrun him by a length to clear into the first turn that can put you into a not so good situation. Especially if you think you need to control the front to beat the horses that you're up against. I just never thought this horse was all that good, I've never had him pegged better than a grade three horse in my mind really, he controlled the Derby because he was allowed to and that's all it was IMO.

I also don't think anyone will be saying after you sir anymore on the front end of these graded races, that was part of what I suspect we've seen for a very long time now. It was too uncanny. They only need your horses in 2022 if you're going to be allowed to run. The scam is over, there isn't any leverage to use with that anymore.