Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stillriledup
Good points.
To add to Vic's point about the no fave/LS bias in judging I think it's a factor in this way. it's similar to star players in the NBA getting a call that a low rung player may not get. Great players make more baskets than bad players so if a great players arm is grazed and the shot misses by a millimeter, aren't you as the ref thinking 'that shot goes in if there's no graze on the arm because this is a great player who makes a lot of shots'?
It's a factor.
Now, the judges arent going to place up a shorter price specifically because it has more money on it, but isn't it responsible to at least consider that in the long run, the very shortest priced horses almost always hit the board and if an interference takes place preventing that 2-5 from finishing 3rd, isn't this a factor in a situation that is a 'fifty fifty call'?
A great example of what I'm trying to say was at Belmont the other day, the heavy fave got placed from 3rd to 2nd, and if you handicapped that race or knew the horse was a standout according to the odds, would you be neglect in your duties if you didnt factor in the standout nature of the horse and that the bump might have been severe because how else would a horse bet that heavily be out if the money?
|
50/50 doesn't exist. Stewards are paid to make a decision. The public is wrong about heavily bet horses most of the time. It has ZERO to do with film analysis.
